(Advertisement)

Zimmerman acquitted in teenager’s killing

Posted: July 14, 2013 at 5:27 a.m.

George Zimmerman (right) is congratulated by two members of his defense team, Don West and Lorna Truett, after hearing the verdict Saturday night in Sanford, Fla.

Neighborhood-watch captain George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges Saturday in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager whose killing unleashed furious debate across the U.S. over racial profiling, self-defense and equal justice.

This story is only available from our archives.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 07/14/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

$63-per-person private insurance fee to begin...

To help pay for the overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system, a $63-per-person fee will be imposed next year on employers’ group insurance plans, as well as individual pl... Read »

Next Story »

Papers battle for New Orleans

Special to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette - 06/25/2013 - Street musician T.S. Lark reads a copy of the new Times-Picayune Street edition Tuesday morning, June 25, 2013, on the Mississippi River park near the New Orleans French Quarter.  A year ago, The Times-Picayune laid off a large part of its staff and began to publish a newspaper just three days a week. Since that time, the Baton Rouge Advocate has ramped up its operation in New Orleans in order to compete with The Times-Picayune, including home delivery seven days a week. A newspaper war has broken out with The Times-Picayune now publishing six days a week to compete with the Advocate. (Photo by Chuck Cook)

NEW ORLEANS — On this muggy summer morning, a group of longtime friends gathers at the Fair Grinds coffeehouse... Read »

There is no justice, these women on the jury should be ashamed of themselves, that have perpetrated a miscarriage of justice. Zimmerman is a predator and we will hear from him again. Their decision sickens me. The facts were there and the lies told proves what happened, Zimmerman is a little man and come hell or high water he was going the effect a citizens arrest that night no matter what so he could prove his manliness. Well he proved the opposite. There is something called Karma and she will catch up with Zimmerman and exact more punishment than these stupid women of the jury ever could.

These women will now write a book, sell their story, get lots of money, so will the lawyers, the Judge, Zimmerman, and many others will cash in. These people will pop up from time to time on television, brag about how smart and correct they are while the Martin family places flowers on their 17 year old boys grave. Zimmerman should enjoy his freedom, I feel his life will not be as rosy as he would like.

Zimmerman is not out of the woods yet, my thinking is that a Constitutional Rights suit will be brought against him and he will go down. It is for sure he violated the childs rights and anyone can see it except maybe this jury of fools. I fell so bad for the Martin family, all I can say to them is hang in there things have a way of balancing. I for one will give to any fund to bring justice to this scumbag Zimmerman.

GO
KARMA

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 14, 2013 at 6:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You're an idiot

Posted by: Hananova

July 14, 2013 at 7:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As usual, I see comments posted so ignorant that I’m not sure whether to respond or remain apathetic. These word s come to mind. “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin.”

This case should have NEVER been brought forward as there was no evidence. The true crime was the political motivation that brought it about. Regardless of the verdict, Zimmerman’s life will never be the same. I would agree that a young man losing his life is a tragedy, however that doesn’t mean a crime occurred.

Let’s see. Martin was trespassing in a gated community while darting between buildings and yards at night in the rain. Oh, and come to find out, he was high (as proven by toxicology reports) and prone to fight (as proven by social media).

Zimmerman, as a neighborhood watch member in a crime ridden neighborhood, sees this very suspicious person and follows him while calling 911.Don’t spew any nonsense about how he was told not to follow the suspect at this point. Two reasons: 1) It’s not illegal for him to follow anyone 2) evidence suggests Martin had doubled back to confront Zimmerman

As Martin confronts Zimmerman for “following” him, Martin yells racial slurs (Martin was the only one who used racial slurs) and proceeds to beat the crud out of Zimmerman in a ground and pound attack. This act of thuggery got him killed.

A new s organization then alters 911 calls to make Zimmerman appear racist. The political witch hunt that ensues is unprecedented and includes the President making a complete idiot of himself. If that wasn’t bad enough, it is now coming out that the prosecution withheld evidence. A staff IT person had to turn whistleblower and give it to the defense after which he was promptly fired. The whole prosecution reeks of political corruption.

There are no winners. A teen lost his life. Without question it was tragic and unnecessary. The problem is that his own actions brought it about. Zimmerman was railroaded and his life is basically over too. I hope he sues NBC and the state of Florida for big bucks.

To suggest the feds bring charges is laughable. Constitutional rights suit? What the heck are you even talking about? It would have to be done under hate crime laws, and there is no evidence for it. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have a great day.

Posted by: TheMadPotato

July 14, 2013 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why was MM's comment deleted. It was not inappropriate? It seems people don't want justice, just conviction, in certain cases. Just like the OJ case. Trauvon's death was sad, but Zimmerman was just doing his job.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 14, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

To the three,

Just in case the news removes my post for pointing out the obvious truth about you three uneducated rednecks, I have just one more thing to say,

Big Talk from little men like you three is exactly that just big talk from little men with severe ego and self asteam problems.

GO
COME SEE ME, YEA HEAR

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 14, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

hano,

I see this is your first post, I take great pride in pulling the rednecks out of their holes like you. Welcome to the Potato Zone.

GO HOGS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 14, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

.

"Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
-Syreeta McFadden

.

Posted by: cdawg

July 14, 2013 at 12:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For anyone interested in a European perspective on the case, (clearly not our intellectually challenged local trolls)) this is excerpted from The Guardian:

Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.

The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.

But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.

Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.

Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?

Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgment on Trayvon that night summarily.

"_ucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These _ssholes. They always get away."

So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

July 14, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So glad you posted that Frank. I find racism, tribalism, so boring. Almost as boring as trolls.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.ne...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 14, 2013 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Franklloydleftist, piano tuner, and all the other liberal wonks always think they have all the answers. They must have missed every civics class they were enrolled in.

Six (6) women jurors selected by both prosecution and defense heard all the evidence the woman judge would allow and could not convict Zimmerman even of manslaughter, even though they asked the judge a question regarding manslaughter. Plus they knew the ramifications of a not guilty verdict and were obviously trying to find a verdict to placate the liberals.

However, you armchair liberals have determined that somehow these six (6) women somehow got it wrong. These same jurors who knew what the nation faced from the race baiters if they couldn't somehow justify a conviction, somehow couldn't make it work.

What are the odds?

Posted by: patrioteer

July 14, 2013 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin." —President Obama: http://wh.gov/laNQE

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 14, 2013 at 10:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer, you make no sense. First, we liberals don't think we have all the answers, but we're pretty good with multiple choice. For example, if someone carries a gun in the aggressive pursuit of someone and kills that person, is the aggressor entitled to a self defense plea? Even if the pursued murder victim attempts to defend himself?

A. yes B. no

(The correct answer is B)

The prosecution performed poorly in this trial, but this all white (no African Americans) jury most assuredly could have found Zimmerman guilty, and would have been more likely to have done so with even one black jurist. It's known. It's a fact. Implicit racial bias is mitigated by diversity in jury selection. Yes, the jury got it wrong.

http://mashable.com/2009/10/29/projec...

You think the jury was trying to assuage the sensitivities of we liberals by this miscarriage of justice? Sorry for seeming to be obtuse, but that idea will require more explanation.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

July 14, 2013 at 10:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good to hear from you thinker.

The trolls do seem to have achieved an ascendency here lately, but they are so boring and it's hardly worth the effort to scan the content.

Trollism and tribalism seem closely related. They display a primitive response to ideas or behaviors from those outside their insular group, be it a religious understanding or political affiliation. With tribalism, an authoritarian structure prescribes the accepted range of conduct, but trollism is an even more immature response, seeming to arise from a self-centered, anti-intellectual, pseudo-cortical effort to create chaos.

It is increasingly rare to read a well reasoned conservative opinion here, but that just may be the nature of the beast.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

July 14, 2013 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It never ceases to amaze the general public how bent out of shape the bed-wetters can get when an obvious attempt to intimidate jurors doesn't succeed.

The facts are that the state of Florida could not prove that George Zimmerman acted with anything but concern for his life, despite the deck being stacked against him by the judge's refusal to allow Trayvon Martin's criminal record to be entered into evidence. One has to agree with patrioteer that the six jurors considered the evidence, as well as the fact that the Al Sharpton brigade was ready to set fire to the town unless Mr. Zimmerman had been convicted.

Fortunately for the moment, it seems that the mob has avoided the urge to riot...possibly because they might be in a neighborhood that won't put up with it. We shall see what happens over the next few days.

As for FLL and his buddies, the world is still waiting for the first well-reasoned left-wing opinion. Guess, we'll have to grab a Snickers bar, because we'll have to wait for a long time considering the roster.

Posted by: IrishMensa

July 14, 2013 at 11:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Any suggestion that the jurors acquitted to avoid riots is the product of racist speculation, made worse by characterizing protesters for justice as a mob. "We shall see" is a weasel phrase. There will be no riots. There will be greater resolve to educate the public with regard to the insidious nature of the implicit racism so well demonstrated by IrishM and his ilk.

Using the term "ilk" is appropriate and satisfies for the purpose. Some might have substituted a term like "fellow bed-wetters," but that would be gratuitously immature.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

July 15, 2013 at 1:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Irish and Patrioteer - Yes, yes, yes. The libs on this site are hateful human beings that can only insult and demonize instead of honest debate. God bless those jurors. It took courage to stand up against the intimidation of the left and do what is right. Maybe the tide is turning. I pray so.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 15, 2013 at 8:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

Wow! Have we forgotten, he was not chased and have we forgotten Martin had four minuets to run home? Instead he wanted to beat on his chest and confront the man who was keeping an eye on his neighborhood. If Martin had been a good little boy and gone home, straight home that night, his heart would still be beating.

We need more George's not Martins in this country!

Posted by: DNC

July 15, 2013 at 8:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Omegakatt, I don't normally post here, but I had to respond to this statement in your first post:

"There is no justice, these women on the jury should be ashamed of themselves, that have perpetrated a miscarriage of justice. Zimmerman is a predator and we will hear from him again. Their decision sickens me. The facts were there and the lies told proves what happened".

Your statement that the jury should be ashamed of themselves sickens me!

Most people on jury duty quickly find the responsibility of sitting in judgement of a fellow human being quite heavy. All of the observers have stated the jury was engaged and attentive. That tells me they took their job quite seriously.

The jury was in that court room for 6-8 hours/day for over 3 weeks, they saw all the evidence presented, they saw all the witnesses, they were told about the Florida laws that applied, and then they were asked to make a judgement based on all of that. The jury rendered what they thought was the correct decision based on how they saw the evidence.

You have every right to criticize their decision, but for you to say they should be ashamed is well outside the bounds of reason. They did their civic duty and they did it to the best of their abilities. Until YOU sit in judgement on that specific case, you have no right to say they should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: HAWGFAN1969

July 15, 2013 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The facts are that the state of Florida could not prove that George Zimmerman acted with anything but concern for his life, despite the deck being stacked against him by the judge's refusal to allow Trayvon Martin's criminal record to be entered into evidence." - Irishmensa

Yes, the state did not prove that Zimmerman acted with anything but his claim of self defense. That they couldn't prove it is more of a testimony to the lack of evidence than anything. Zimmerman's attorneys were correct in that they had no need to prove Zimmerman acted in self defense, and they did not do that also.

You make the false conclusion that not proving it was not self defense means that it was self defense. It just means it wasn't proven.

That is a problem with our self defense laws, they allow killing in the name of self defense by the word of the only person left alive, if there is no evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 15, 2013 at 10:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hawfan1969, you are correct. Jury decisions are subjective. I could clearly see how you could come to the conclusion that Zimmerman was defending himself, and there is clear doubt that he was acting without trying to defend himself. They have gotten rid of the requirement in most self defense laws that require the person claiming self defense to show that they were, in fact doing self defense. opens up the controversial side of what has happened in Florida now for abuse by people that are adamant about being armed and having a desire to actually use their weapon. It is likely a small percentage of gun owners, but I believe they do exist.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 15, 2013 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Irish and Patrioteer - Yes, yes, yes. The libs on this site are hateful human beings that can only insult and demonize instead of honest debate." - mycentworth

You are absolutely correct, mycntworth. IrishMensa would never insult other people, that don't agree with him, by calling them something like "bedwetters" instead of providing honest debate.

Do you actually read all the words that are posted?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 15, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith - You reap what you sow.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 15, 2013 at 11:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith2, I'm still boiling over the fact that someone would say the jury should be ashamed about their decision.

There is no shame for any jury if they considered the evidence, followed the laws and instructions they were given, and then properly reached a verdict.

We may or may not agree with how they interpreted the evidence and instructions but we should never criticize them personally for making the decision they did.

Posted by: HAWGFAN1969

July 15, 2013 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

hawg,

SHAME ON YOU !!!

GO
TROGLODYTE

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 15, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

hawg,
BOIL BOIL TOIL AND TROUBLE

That jury should be ashamed of themselves and they should should be ashamed of the verdict they rendered. These women on that jury are a disgrace and a insult to all decent people, excluding you hawg of couse. If you want to kill someone and get away with it move to Florida.

GO
KARMA

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 15, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

@franklloydleftist

So you think the jury who had access to all the evidence the judge would allow, but not all the evidence that could help the defense, got it wrong because they were all white.
Every jury I have seen selected were screened and selected by the defense AND the prosecution. Was the prosecution so inept that the dozens of potential jurors screened were of no consequence to them. How many black potential jurors were screened and rejected?

You want everyone else to explain why Zimmerman was guilty but you only speak in generalities, most of them discredited, when speaking to his guilt.

But then, I wouldn't expect someone who has worked for the government their whole career to understand normal humans.

Posted by: patrioteer

July 15, 2013 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

CORRECTION:

Posted: You want everyone else to explain why Zimmerman was guilty but you only speak in generalities, most of them discredited, when speaking to his guilt.

Should have been: You want everyone else to explain why Zimmerman was INNOCENT but you only speak in generalities, most of them discredited, when speaking to his guilt.

Posted by: patrioteer

July 15, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think all juries should number 12 persons.

Posted by: Coralie

July 15, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trikal held, jury decided, justice done. Because they don't like the way it came out Holder and Obama come out with a bunch of crap.

Where is the federal government going when it is a fact that and the the shameful truth is that 93% of African-American murders are committed by other African-Americans.

That is terrible when you see how incensed the African-American community is about the Trayvon tragedy, no matter what you believe about Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.

Let’s do the gruesome math, not out of morbidity, but because it manifests the incredible self-centered insanity of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

8,000-9,000 African-Americans are murdered each year. 93% of them by other African-Americans. That's 21.65 murdered each day by other African-Americans.

Where are Holder and Obama on this issue? It seems a bit more compelling than one half Hispanic getting involved in a personal and violent altercation with a black youth when blacks can shoot blacks all day long in Washington DC, Chicago, New York, and LA every day and there is no outcry from the black community.

Seems it is OK that blacks mess each other up and such behavior someehow expected and OK, but let any other race get involved and the whole shooting match explodes. That is discrimination and it is not against blacks, it is perpetrated by blacks.

Enough. It's time to just say no to stupidity.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 15, 2013 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The USA is the "#3 Murder Capitol of the World" but if you take Washington DC, Chicago, LA, and New York numbers out of the equation we don't even make the top 100. Interestingly enough those cities have the most draconian gun laws of anyplace anywhere in the country. Go figure. It ain't hard to understand.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 15, 2013 at 7:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wow... Zimmerman dated a black girl, went into business with a black guy, defended a homeless black man beaten up by a white kid, etc, etc? IMPOSSIBLE!! HE'S A RACIST!!
http://www.examiner.com/article/ignor...
(1) Following someone for 30 seconds is not a crime.
(2) Following someone for jumping over the fence of a gated community is not a crime.
(3) Asking someone a question is not a crime.
(4) Assault is not the proper response if you are a victim of following or question-asking.
(5) Preemptive attacks are not perfectly fine as long as a black person does it.
(6) Defending one’s self from assault is not a crime.
(7) An asthma sufferer does not have a clear advantage in a fight over a tall athlete.
(8) 911 telephone operators do not have the authority to issue legally binding orders to the general public.
(9) Being a drug dealer is a negative character element.
(10) Calling a drug dealer a drug dealer is not character assassination.
(11) The validity of facts is not dependent on whether or not they fit your personal narrative.
(12) Disagreeing with your narrative does not make someone a “racist" and automatically invalidate their opinion.
(13) It’s far less likely for a group of cops and paramedics to lie on reports than it is for a drug dealer with a history of illegal acts to be aggressive.
(14) Stealing property and selling drugs is not perfectly normal teenage behavior.
(15) “It’s not mine, a friend gave it to me" is not a reasonable explanation for why a male has 12 pieces of stolen female jewelry in his backpack.
(16) Hearing Trayvon screaming was so horrible, until you realized it was Zimmerman screaming.
(17) Trayvon Martin had a Twitter account named @NO_LIMIT_NIGGA.
(18) Young pictures of Trayvon and an old mugshot of Zimmerman are not unbiased pictures.
(19) Trayvon was not a good kid whose only crime was wearing a hoodie and carrying a bag of Skittles.
(20) Trayvon likely had something to do with the burglaries reported earlier in that neighborhood.
(21) Zimmerman is not a “white man" nor has he ever identified as one.
(22) Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman for snitching on him.
(23) Defending your life isn’t standing your ground, it’s self defense.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/rapper-...

pictures of trayvon holding a glock found in his phone never came out in court. twitter record of him and a friend bragging about a "gangbang" "jumping" the twisted syrup he had logs of trading the ingredients, skittle and high sugar "lean" this neighborhood had multiple breaking.. it wasnt trayvons niegborhood.

George zimmerman didnt pull the gun out of the holster. Trayvon did. Our justice system OF SIX WOMEN CONVICTED HIM OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. JENA 6 JENA 6 JENA 6 JENA 6 JENA 6 JENA 6

Posted by: Barefoot

July 15, 2013 at 8:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

African American Shelby Steele " Hows blacks and whites together destroyed the promise of the civil rights era" A READING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_ESa...
The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual
By Shelby Steele
Harper's Magazine, November 30, 1999
One day back in the late fifties, when I was ten or eleven years old, there was a moment when I experienced myself as an individual--as a separate consciousness--for the first time. I was walking home from the YMCA, which meant that I was passing out of the white Chicago suburb where the Y was located and crossing Halsted Street back into Phoenix, the tiny black suburb where I grew up. It was a languid summer afternoon, thick with the industrial-scented humidity of south Chicago that I can still smell and feel on my skin, though I sit today only blocks from the cool Pacific and more than forty years removed.
Into Phoenix no more than a block and I was struck by a thought that seemed beyond me. I have tried for years to remember it, but all my effort only pushes it further away. I do remember that it came to me with the completeness of an aphorism, as if the subconscious had already done the labor of crafting it into a fine phrase. What scared me a little at the time was its implication of a separate self with independent thoughts--a distinct self that might distill experience into all sorts of ideas for which I would then be responsible. That feeling of responsibility was my first real experience of myself as an individual--as someone who would have to navigate a separate and unpredictable consciousness through a world I already knew to be often unfair and always tense.
Of course I already knew that I was black, or "Negro," as we said back then. No secret there. The world had made this fact quite clear by imposing on my life all the elaborate circumscriptions of Chicago-style segregation. Although my mother was white, the logic of segregation meant that I was born in the hospital's black maternity ward. I grew up in a black neighborhood and walked to a segregated black school as white children in the same district walked to a white school. Kindness in whites always came as a mild surprise and was accepted with a gratitude that I later understood to be a bit humiliating. And there were many racist rejections for which I was only partly consoled by the knowledge that racism is impersonal.
Back then I thought of being black as a fate, as a condition I shared with people as various as Duke Ellington and the odd-job man who plowed the neighborhood gardens with a mule and signed his name with an X. And it is worth noting here that never in my life have I met a true Uncle Tom, a black who identifies with white racism as a truth.
READ THE WHOLE ESSAY BE INTELLIGENT BE INFORMED! http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/156.html

Posted by: Barefoot

July 15, 2013 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gawd, it's like watching a bunch of white racists cheering at a lynching. Just despicable.

Oh well. Racists are boring. I don't understand them.

Jeffie: "The USA is the "#3 Murder Capitol of the World" but if you take Washington DC, Chicago, LA, and New York numbers out of the equation we don't even make the top 100.">>

If Jeffieboy can back that up that claim with reputable verifiable reference, I'll give him a free goat.

I make this offer:

a) without bothering to check

and

b) knowing very well he will not be getting a goat.

Do conservatives ever tire of making up and spreading ludicrous false information?

D.
------------
"The Trayvon Martin Killing and the Myth of Black-on-Black Crime

Excerpt:
"The idea that “black-on-black” crime is the real story in Martin’s killing isn’t a novel one.
...there’s a huge problem with [this] attempt to shift the conversation: There’s no such thing as “black-on-black” crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...

ps. The NWA article at the top claims: "the jury..., reached a verdict of innocent..."

Not true. They reached a verdict of "not guilty." The two are note the same. There is a difference.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 15, 2013 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fail. your "boy"
the night of.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/65465...

everything you say is racial rhetoric. that lynching comment? its been tossed around all day. jena 6 was a real lynching.

fail you didnt watch the trial. you dont watch real news. everything you say is fluff copypasta.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 15, 2013 at 11:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

if racists are so boring why do you spend so much time talking about it? if religion is so fail why spend so much time bashing practitioners? if being gay is so acceptable why you not shut the hell up? why? why? liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 15, 2013 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BARF,

GO LIBERAL
GO GAY
GO OBAMA
GO HOLDER
GO ATHEIST
GO AL SHARPTON
GO GUN CONTROL
GO OBAMACARE
GO HARRY REED
GO FREE SPEECH
GO HILLARY
GO JESSIE JACKSON
GO JOE BIDEN
GO CADILLAC
GO LED ZEPPELIN
GO JACK AND COKE
GO GREEN
GO DAHH

AND YOU GO SHUT UP !!!!

GO HOGS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 16, 2013 at 6:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"he who shouts loudest" may still be a idiot katt.
never let a crisis go to waste.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 16, 2013 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I believe some blacks and white sympathizers, are afraid to give up that crutch of "racism". If they did, they would have to stand on their own like everyone else. There have been injustices because of it, such as OJ and the Cross Duke students.
Yes, they had it hard, but so did many others. I've heard and read stories about the settling of this country. People selling/giving the children away so they wouldn't starve, some going to very bad conditions. etc. We need to get over our biases and learn from each other and treat all the same. That is the ideal, but we will always have those that want to cling onto hate - on both sides. But we cannot let it disrupt our justice system. It works, and will never be perfect, but it is all we have for now.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 16, 2013 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Todd Starnes

"Chaos tonight in Los Angeles and Oakland where Trayvon Martin rioters are on the rampage causing massive damage and injuries. There are reports a television news crew was attacked in LA, photographers were pummeled in Oakland and a waiter was attacked with a hammer.

Businesses are being ransacked and traffic is snarled as protesters block streets and highways.

Make no mistake, friends. This is the work of the Mainstream Media and their race-baiting minions."

Posted by: mycentworth

July 16, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Chaos tonight in Los Angeles and Oakland"
Sounds like Todd Starnes was gilding the lily again. Here's are some local news reports:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la...
Wow-- "at least 13 protestors". Chaos!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/us/...
Oh-- it was fourteen LA protestors arrested. Chaos!

RE "'Make no mistake, friends. This is the work of the Mainstream Media and their race-baiting minions.'"
If the Mainstream Media (Ooooh!) are so influential, aren't they also responsible for all of the peaceful protests? There were peaceful protests all over the country-- including Chicago, your favorite violent city. Further, the violent protests you cite were offshoots of much larger peaceful protests. The incidence of violence and disorder is small in the context of the overall reaction, so the Mainstream Meadia's (Ooooh!) minions aren't very effective at race-baiting after all. But of course Todd Starnes isn't going to tell you that because he wants to help you wad up your panties. Or did you think he was just giving you a friendly glute rub?

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 16, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sarcasm does not sharpen a point. ****** apologists....

Posted by: Barefoot

July 16, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

None of us were there; the jury did not take this lightly as they deliberated for 16 hours; the Media and DOJ has 'souped this up" there are murders/crimes every day; this had "no teeth". They thought it was a black/white issue -- it's Not! Why does the media continue to show a sweet 12 yr. old picture and not the more recent 17 yr. old "ganger"? What's the DOJ got to do with this? Don't they have enough going on trying to defend themselves with FAst/Furious? What about the death of the Arizona rancher from an illegal alien? What about the death of a border patrol agent with a gun sold by DOJ Fast/Furious? How about the Media "soup this up"?? nada - won't happen --- this is all a diversion to incite race riots and it's working

Posted by: Commentor

July 17, 2013 at 7:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

With the DOJ getting involved, shows this current administration has an agenda and it is racial.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 17, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Comme, Comme, Comme,

Relax !

GO PIGS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

July 17, 2013 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"We need to get over our biases and learn from each other and treat all the same." - mycentworth

When you want everyone to treat all the same, do you mean that other should treat you the same as in letting your beliefs be legal and you allowing others to have their beliefs be legal, so long as the actions of everyone on their beliefs do no harm to others?

Or do you mean that we all have to treat each other as you have determined you want everyone to be treated?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 17, 2013 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It seems an American Latino killed an American Black. And its Racial? Is it any wonder that Dumb and Democrat start with the same letter?

Posted by: JailBird

July 17, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The basic crime here was not just this incident but the local "justice" system which is stacked against black people.
Also the "stand your ground" laws.

Posted by: Coralie

July 17, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"In early July, Joshua Chellew was beaten to death by four young black gang members. Yet, chances are that you have not heard about this story before today. A few national sources have reported it but not that many. Why? Well it is because we have to understand that our national media has an agenda." The Marietta Daily Journal reported:

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/whi...

This is not the first article I have read about gangs of blacks beating whites.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 17, 2013 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Zimmerman is the new American Hero. I'm sure he has a ghostwriter by now and a speaking tour is probable. And I believe he was given a fair trial and justice was meted, don't you? (I threw my hoodie away.)

Posted by: Oldearkie

July 17, 2013 at 7:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

He is not an American Hero, just was doing his job.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 17, 2013 at 9:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

also "something" and "something" oh ya theres "this" and "that!" lol hacks homies. hacks in slacks/

Posted by: Barefoot

July 17, 2013 at 11:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And that job would be?

Deciding on his own who is suspicious and who isn't?

Reporting something to the police to investigate and then not waiting for the police to investigate?

Just what job was George Zimmerman doing?

Is it your job to make sure the rest of us don't have to exercise our own freewill with God by making sure your religious beliefs get put into our laws?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 18, 2013 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM: "He... just was doing his job.">>

No he wasn't:

***
National Sheriff’s Association Releases Statement on Florida Neighborhood Watch Tragedy

NSA has no information indicating the community has ever even registered with the program.

Excerpt:

"The purpose of the Neighborhood Watch Program is to enable citizens to act as the “eyes and ears” within their community and alert law enforcement immediately when they notice suspicious activity. However, the Neighborhood Watch Program does not in any way, shape, or form advocate citizens to take the law in their own hands. The success of the program has established Neighborhood Watch as the nation’s premier crime prevention and community mobilization program. Visible signs of the program are seen throughout America on street signs, window decals, community block parties and service projects.

"The alleged action of a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” stated NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.). “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”

“The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”

National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) is one of the largest associations of law enforcement professionals in the United States, representing more than 3,000 elected sheriffs across the nation, and a total membership of more than 20,000. NSA is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising the level of professionalism among sheriffs, their deputies, and others in the field of criminal justice and public safety."
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/new...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 18, 2013 at 7:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

legislators

Posted by: Barefoot

July 18, 2013 at 8:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you can't say something meaningful, don't say anything.

Posted by: Coralie

July 20, 2013 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here is something meaningful, Coralie. How can anyone support a president that supports the muslim brotherhood?? Have you seen the pictures of the deformed women because they were women?!

Why doesn't he back those women, who definitely were innocent, as much as he does Trayvon?

Posted by: mycentworth

July 20, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1--Pres. Obama "supports the Muslim Brotherhood."
What is your evidence for such an allegation?
2. I don't know what you're talking about "deformed women," but are you expecting him to tell people in other countries to change their customs? Or to repair their injustices?
If he did, would they listen?
And wouldn't he be busy all day long with foreign business instead of American business--because there are a lot of bad customs and injustices throughout the world, and some in the U.S. too.
3. The U.S. President is not supposed to interfere with the justice system in this country.
He waited to speak until after the case was over.
4. How can he back Trayvon Martin--the man is dead. Obama said only that he identified with him because he, like most other black males in this country, had been racially profiled. And I'm sure it's true.
5. So if he's not supposed to interfere in our justice system, should he interfere in other countries' justice systems?

Posted by: Coralie

July 20, 2013 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama's Billion Dollar Giveaway to the Muslim Brotherhood:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-a...

Posted by: mycentworth

July 20, 2013 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Egypt : The Muslim Brotherhood slaughtering and decapitating civilians over Morsi (Jul 16, 2013)

This is on youtube. Just google the above.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 20, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM your address is not .gov or .edu. its obviously internetz lie

unlike mine.
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/fr...

Posted by: Barefoot

July 20, 2013 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Obama's Billion Dollar Giveaway to the Muslim Brotherhood"
There you go again: bearing false witness. Apparently you didn't read the source for the misstated information in that article:
"The President announced last year the U.S. would provide $1 billion in economic relief for Egypt. This $250 million is the first payment from that plan. It's already been approved by Congress, so it's not like it was a surprise handshake deal Kerry made on Sunday."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global...
Congress approved the funding. That means the Teabagger House must have thought it was okay to give the money to Egypt. Of course our government didn't give this money to a specific group or party; it was given to Egypt. In the hopes that it might influence people whom you clearly don't like to do things you might actually approve of.

You make Baby Jesus cry salty tears and wish that He could exorcise the demon of ignorance from you.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 20, 2013 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The U.S. government has been giving military aid to Egypt since forever, under administrations both Republican and Democratic.
The reason was that Egypt was the local power and Egypt was getting along OK with Israel.
Israel got the most foreign aid, then Egypt was next.
Aid to Egyopt under Reagan:
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/01/wor...
Remember President Gerald Ford, who became Pres. when Nixon resigned?
"By providing aid to both Egypt and Israel, the Ford Administration helped persuade the two countries to accept an interim truce agreement. "
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies...

Posted by: Coralie

July 21, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Sarah, the great Fayettenam cat round-up, Catch me if can!

Posted by: JailBird

July 21, 2013 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Barefoot, That UN thing never worked out, unfortunately. Man just isn't a peaceful being in themselves. Sounded good, though.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 22, 2013 at 8:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

There were 18 black on black homicides in Indianapolis since the first of the year. In LA there were serveral as well as several Hispanic on black murders and black on Hispanic murders. Chicago is still counting teen black on teen black murders and will go well into the hundreds again before the year is over. It seems that it's OK to kill blacks any time for any reason as long as you are not white.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 22, 2013 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent says "That UN thing never worked out, unfortunately."
There have been some failures, but the UN has conducted successful peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries, including Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique, Namibia, Tajikistan, and Timor-Leste.
It has made a difference in places such as
Sierra Leone, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Timor-Leste, Liberia, Haiti and Kosovo. "By providing basic security guarantees and responding to crises, these UN operations have supported political transitions and helped buttress fragile new state institutions."
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/ope...
This has been accomplilshed with a peacekeeping budget that is miniscule compared with world military spending, and with no peacekeeping army of its own-- peacekeepers are sent from member countries and some are not as well-trained. as others.
The U.S. sends hardly any.

Posted by: Coralie

July 22, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well i saw it on the news. the hero.. George Zimmerman really did help save someone in a car wreck. Still in Sanford. God Bless Him.
All you race baiters, sensationalists, etc. Shame on you.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 23, 2013 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimme...

Posted by: Barefoot

July 23, 2013 at 7:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It appears that the powers that be are just waiting for everyone to run out of steam and forget the whole thing. We can hope meanwhile that another vigilante does not step up and take out vigilante Zimmerman.

Posted by: Oldearkie

July 23, 2013 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poor Trayvon is dead
Poor Trayvon Martin is dead
All gather round his coffin now and cry
His hoodie will be gold
And he wasn't very old
Why did such innocence have to die

The folks that really knowed him
Knowed that beneath that dirty hoodie
There beat beat a heart as big as a toke
And that's no joke

Poor Trayvon is dead
Poor Trayvon Martin is dead
His friends are a rioting for miles around
The daisies in the dell
Will give out a different smell

Apologies to Rogers & Hammerstein and OKLAHOMA

Posted by: JailBird

July 23, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How about apologies all around.

Posted by: Coralie

July 23, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Apologies for what?

Posted by: JailBird

July 23, 2013 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your intrusion into reality?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 24, 2013 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bad taste and bad poetics.

Posted by: Coralie

July 24, 2013 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

a democrat may suggest an apology but will never offer truly.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 24, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our system of justice says, by a jury, that GZ is not guilty....end of discussion...NOPE. Let's change the system that freed OJ, sans riots, by angry whites. Did OJ's defense team use the system to their advantage? If the glove don't fit...you must acquit! You better believe it. Did GZ's? I certainly hope so. With the rules of evidence being what they are....with the cards stacked in favor of any offender, of any color and the hell with the victim, again, regardless of color...our criminal justice system is just that...a crime against justice. The battle cry of every single defense attorney...it's not his fault...rough childhood, too fat, esteem issues. The victim...they are all perfect angels, arrest records be damned.
Wake up people...as long as the media, pawns of the government, can keep the blacks and white against each other...we will never work together to eliminate the real problem in OUR country...a corrupt government, out to destroy it's people for all the money they can steal.

Posted by: Arkiegirl72611

July 24, 2013 at 10:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "a corrupt government, out to destroy it's people"
Interesting. You just cited two murder cases in which it is evident that the citizenry is out to destroy the people.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 24, 2013 at 11:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Arkiegirl72611, I might correct you. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system.

Lawyers are mostly responsible for what goes on in it, and in our government. And they have been able to use it to coerce the rest of us to believe we have to accept their judgement on all sorts of things. You only have to look at the Supreme Court to see that lawyers have no lock on what is right.

Many people say we need more common sense in government and our society. To get that, we need to stop doing what lawyers say and simply discuss what the common sense actions need to be.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 25, 2013 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Wake up people...as long as the media, pawns of the government, can keep the blacks and white against each other...we will never work together to eliminate the real problem in OUR country...a corrupt government, out to destroy it's people for all the money they can steal."

I agree, Arkiegirl! Our country is morally bankrupt.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 25, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"a corrupt government, out to destroy its people for all the money they can steal..."
"Our country is morally bankrupt."
etc. etc.
I wonder if anyone else who comments here is as old as I am, 83?
Having some years--and having been awake during those years--gives one a bit more perspective than all these Chicken Littles.

Posted by: Coralie

July 25, 2013 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

a sky is falling progressive liberal want s to call others chicken little.. how quaint.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 25, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Corlie - I know foolish, old people, and very bright old people. Same with young people. Age has nothing to do with one's perspective. Wisdom is for all.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 26, 2013 at 7:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Keep it going, mycent, you're getting to her, but whither or not you will wake her up, only God knows. 83 and still a liberal. How long does it take?

Posted by: JailBird

July 26, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There is no double standard now is there? Come on white folk....let's have a protest:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/200...

Why do you have to be black or Hispanic to have a protest anyway? It is necessary to have some "special" qualification like "being of color"?

Some black folks do get it though, even some black kids:

http://sfbayview.com/2013/10-black-ch...

Some old balck guys get it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vETPO9...

Some no matter what color they are never will.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 26, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've lived through the Great Depression, World War II, the McCarthy Era, Vietnam, the '60s, Iran-Contra, the S&L scandal, the Gulf War, etc.
The sky has been falling for a long time.

Posted by: Coralie

July 26, 2013 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, so it must be getting closer to collapse.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 26, 2013 at 4:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Vietnam and Desert Strom the sky didn't fall but ordinance did fall out of it. We called it "incoming". We used to say, "If you think sex is exciting try incoming!".

The sky isn't gonna be a problem anyway. When leadership in this country blatantly continues to violate the constitution for political and social reasons we are lost anyway. Under those condtions everyone's right to freedom to self determination will be lost. At that point it doesn't matter what the sky does.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 26, 2013 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The great depression isn't a puff of flatulence in the wind compared to what a similar depression will do today. Back then 60% of people made a lot of their own food and most of what they bought was made within 100 miles of where they lived.

Today 90% live in cities and have no idea how to feed themselves without a grocery store. Food comes from thousands of miles away and the production and distribution systems are complex and extremely vulnerable to any disruption.

Under conditions of a stock market crash like in 1929 or the depression that followed people today, especially those in large metropolitan areas, would be out of food and begin actually starving within a week. Total chaos would follow and this "Trevon" silliness would pale miserably in comparison. There will be too many bodies for emergency services to clean up.

That is where current economic policy will take us eventually. You cannot have a huge gap between income, interest rates, income levels, government debt, and money supply like we have now. without creating a huge bubble that when it pops it will make 2008 and the housing crisis look like a picnic.

This is what progressive liberal dreaming turned in to social political reality through looting the treasury for the good of the masses of unwashed and lazy people addicted to "entitlements" has wrought. Aren't you progressive liberals proud? No more greenhouse gases and the critters will take over the world. There won't be enough humans left to make a dent in anything. You city folk are going to be the first to go.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 26, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vETPO9...

Yep, I like that David Manning. A man that speaks truth and right. The white man has not had a 'level playing field in quite awhile'.

Slavery was wrong, but that is just the way it was in those times. America is not the only country that had slavery.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 27, 2013 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TRANSLATION:

RE "A man that speaks truth and right."
"A man who feeds my ignorance by saying what I want to hear."

RE "The white man has not had a 'level playing field in quite awhile'."
"We can no longer keep those uppity dusky people down."

RE "Slavery was wrong, but that is just the way it was in those times."
"Slavery was fine, because that is just the way it was in those times."
(This one is probably too subtle for you: "Our ridiculously high rate of firearm-related deaths is wrong, but that is just the way it is in these times.")

RE "America is not the only country that had slavery."
"Stalin was just fine, because other countries had murdering despots, too."

By the way: your link doesn't work because it is too long for the forum software. If you had used a tinyurl, it would have worked.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 27, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I just copied the link above that Jeffieb posted. It worked then.

There is quite a bit of difference in punishing those that did not do anything wrong and murdering people.

We lived in the same economic area as others that received benefits because of their race that we could not. Jobs & promotions lost because of affirmative action. That is wrong. I know you can see it, but just want to keep the anger going.

It is time to call it even and treat everyone the same.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 27, 2013 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"It is time to call it even and treat everyone the same. "
If that would only happen in ALL areas, including the criminal justice system.
The Department of Agriculture for many years discriminated against small black farmers, to the point that now there are hardly any small black farmers.
Yes, let's just call it even.
Even if it isn't.
When the slaves were freed, they should have been given 40 acres and a mule like so many others got. Then they might not have started out behind the eight ball.

Posted by: Coralie

July 27, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I notice that the bigots are coming out of the closet (woodwork?) these days.
I believe they feel empowered by the electoral success of their Tea Party candidates.
But of course this is all about fiscal responsibility!
No racists here!

Posted by: Coralie

July 27, 2013 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Black farmers who had an active discrimination case or who filed an affidavit of discrimination that named specific individuals in the department who denied them loans were be eligible for $50,000 tax-free. Sound like a good thing? Like justice served? Here is the reality of it.

The reality is that the program as evidenced by "Pigford" became a magnet for fraud across the South. In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million. Many people that never had a farm or any connection to one collected that tax free money. Whole families, including young children, filed claims for past discrimination to reap $50,000 each in cash payouts. Oh, the insanity of it!

Much of the fraud was enabled by the Clinton and Obama administrations, and by members of Congress seeking to reward special interests. Then-Senator Barack Obama sponsored new Pigford legislation in 2007, while Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threatened in 2009 to lead protests against the administration if it did not bend to the wishes of Hispanic claimants. Then-Senator Barack Obama made Pigford payouts a priority in exchange for political support for his 2008 presidential campaign to capture a coveted group of black voters in the rural South.

This buying the support of minority blacks spawned a cadre of middlemen that created a "cottage industry" that gained $130 million in fees. In this case racial politics by the institutional left actually hurt the very people they claimed to be helping.

This well intended program did what most government programs do. It traded good intentions in addressing a noble cause for politics, fraud, waste, abuse, and greed. Like I keep saying, the government hardly ever gets anything right and most of what they do opens the door to someone somewhere to blatantly rob and plunder the US Treasury.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 27, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You may be right on this one, Jeffie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/...
In trying to to repair many years of discrimination, govt. mismanagement created a bonanza for lawyers and the undeserving along with the deserving.
'
I don't buy your generalization that this program is representative of most government programs.

Posted by: Coralie

July 27, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I just copied the link above that Jeffieb posted. It worked then."
It worked then because the forum software truncated it but hid the full link. (This much of it is hidden: "237B0&feature=player_embedded#t=392s") Note the ellipsis at the end of his link, which is underlined. When you copied and pasted the link, you copied the text of the link as it is shown, including the ellipsis-- not the actual link. See how the ellipsis is not underlined in your copy of the link?

If you must spend so much time bearing false witness on the Internet, at least have the decency to learn how to use the thing properly.

For those of you who refuse to use tinyurls because they "hide the real source", note that the youtube domain name doesn't reveal anything about the source, either.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 27, 2013 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I don't buy your generalization that this program is representative of most government programs."
We also shouldn't buy his underlying argument that government programs are inherently bad because people take advantage of them. That's a problem with people, not with programs.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 27, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Someone indicate a government program that has yielded any profit or gererated any tangible wealth. Find any government program anywhere, ever. Please show me one that isn't an simply an expense regardless of it's noble intentions.

If any significant number of them were we would not be looking at nearly a 17 trillion dollar deficit nor would we be spending more than 100% of GDP to fund them. I worked in the public sector for 20 years and nearly 20 in the private sector. No government program I ever saw generated more or even equal value to it's cost. Not even close. No private business that couldn't balance it's books lasted very long.

Whoever does the finance part of Wal Mart, or GE, or any large corporation should run the government for a while. I bet they could fix the money part of it. They know about spending, investing and prfitable returns....something government has never done and probably never will.

Did you know that according to some employees at the IRS office in Fayettenam SSI is the new welfare? What a relvelation! That is just one of many programs.

Here is aone of your famous links to government benefits for the needy. The breadth of it is nearly unimaginable. After briefly reviewing the number and scope of these things no wonder so many don't have to work. The treasury, mints and federal printing offices are running at full speed in overdrive to keep up with demand. No wonder we are broke!

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Ben...

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 27, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey cat, the problem with programs IS people. The notion that the problem is people not the program is completely silly. I thought you had more sense than that.

Any program that involves people must take the behavior of people into account of it will absolutely fail every single time. That is a simple fact.

Human behavior is predictable to some degree, however government programs themselves can easily modify their behavior so programs must be adjusted to accomodate that fact.

When any program of process including government programs don't take human behavior into account it will fail. When government programs fail in this way the treasury becomes completely open to exploitation.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 27, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Got it, Alpha. Thanks for the lesson. I will watch it.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 27, 2013 at 5:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Someone indicate a government program that has yielded any profit or gererated any tangible wealth."
Since when is a government program supposed to directly yield a profit or tangible wealth? At least in terms of money, anyway. Some would say that the willingness to keep people from starving in the streets confers bragging rights (American Exceptionalism and all that) which appear to have value to a lot of people.

However, it is arguable that the interstate highway system has yielded profit and tangible wealth-- though not to the government.

RE "Hey cat, the problem with programs IS people."
Only if you choose to ignore all the people who follow laws, rules and guidelines. Which of course you do, silly psycho man.

RE "Any program that involves people must take the behavior of people into account of it will absolutely fail every single time. That is a simple fact."
Now you're arguing for more specific laws-- that is, more laws. The government itself is a program that involves people. Are you saying that we should have no government at all? Or could it be that your statement is neither a fact nor simple?

And here you were bragging about the Constitution.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 27, 2013 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"This well intended program did what most government programs do. It traded good intentions in addressing a noble cause for politics, fraud, waste, abuse, and greed. Like I keep saying, the government hardly ever gets anything right and most of what they do opens the door to someone somewhere to blatantly rob and plunder the US Treasury."
Amen to that, JB!

The taxpayers (our govt) are not responsible to make everything equal. We each have the responsibility to work to our full potential. It also leads to self-worth and fulfillment.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 27, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

To lighten this up one should make sure they have enough backup before playing the "Knocout Game".

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/knockout-g...

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 28, 2013 at 6:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Luv ya cat, you say, "However, it is arguable that the interstate highway system has yielded profit and tangible wealth-- though not to the government.".

The interstate highway system is a perfect example of a government project gone awry and doing something by accident for which it was not originally intended.

Eisenhower was behind it because he was so impressed with the efficiency of the Autobahns in Germany that allowed military assets to deploy quickly around the country.

Recognizing that the USA was vast the original purpose of the interstate highway system was to allow us to move our military assets quickly from coast to coast around the USA.

Initially the interstate highway system was not built with commerce in mind, it was a military project. To this day military vehicles have the right of way on our interstate system above all other traffic and are totally immune to State and local law enforcement.

Oh yes, the interstates are a perfect example of the government accomplishing something; but only by accident!

Hehehehe, silly poorly informed cat!!!! I love it when you validate my positions.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 28, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The interstate highway system is a perfect example of a government project gone awry and doing something by accident for which it was not originally intended."
I am well aware of the military motivations for the interstate system. However, both military and civilian needs were considered in envisioning the interstate highway system. Indeed, it got underway as a jobs program.

1939: President Roosevelt recommended that Congress consider action on:"a special system of direct interregional highways, with all necessary connections through and around cities, designed to meet the requirements of the national defense and the needs of a growing peacetime traffic of longer range."

Eisenhower:
"Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy
transportation of people and goods. The ceaseless flow of information throughout the
republic is matched by individual and commercial movement over a vast system of
interconnected highways crisscrossing the country and joining at our national borders
with friendly neighbors to the north and south.

"Together, the united forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic
elements in the very name we bear - United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of
many separate parts." --President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Feb. 22, 1955

"Although the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 added the words 'and defense' to the name of the Interstate System (now the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways), the primary justification for the network was its civilian benefits, such as economic opportunity, safety, relief of congestion, and evacuation of cities. At the height of the Cold War and with an atomic or hydrogen bomb attack a conceivable possibility, Congress added “and Defense” to the name in recognition of the fact that the Interstate System would benefit the military, too. However, the emphasis on civilian needs was consistent with the position of the Department of War (now Defense, of course) dating to the early 1920s—if we build a road network adequate for civilian needs, it will serve defense needs as well, with some additions to connect with bases or military plants. It would not be possible to justify such an expenditure solely on the basis of military needs."
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/fa...

RE "Eisenhower was behind it because he was so impressed with the efficiency of the Autobahns in Germany that allowed military assets to deploy quickly around the country."
He also admired its civilian application.

RE " I love it when you validate my positions."
Your position was that no government program "has yielded any profit or gererated any tangible wealth." I showed that your position is not valid. Now you've shown that you don't even know what your position is.

It's always a treat, silly psycho man. Hehehehe.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....FMSCA changes the history of things every time an administration changes. You won't get the truth there. They write history from a perspective the way they want it to be seen and in a way that benefits and supports their objectives. The extinction of the American bison comes to mind.

If you want the truth it is much safer to ask people that lived through it than to read a history concocted since the current adminsistration took over. Agin, I say you can find anything you want on the internet. It is much better to get out and see for yourself sometimes.

FMSCA forgot to rewrite military history when they decided to write an interpretation of the creation of interstate highway system. The FMCSA is run by political appointees. Military history is much more difficult to change to suit one's needs.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 28, 2013 at 8:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What I love about progressive liberals is that they will re-write history and cheer that it finally happened like it should have in spite of the fact that all they did was edit the text. Point is that doesn't change reality...just the perception of it for those willing to drink the Koolaide.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 29, 2013 at 12:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I agree, Arkiegirl! Our country is morally bankrupt." - mycentworth

Why don't you act more morally then, mycentworth?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 29, 2013 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy, the FMSCA actually changes all the Eisenhower quotations every time the administration changes?

And no one but you has noticed that?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 29, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

They paraphrase anything to get the meanings that suit their agenda. People like Obama and the Clintons do it even more regularly. They change definitions weekly if it suits them. That behavior is not unique to the white house.

The other "Departments of" do it regularly as well but you only notice if you keep up with them and remember the various versions over time, "A new broom sweeps clean" so as soon as a new batch shows up and takes charge things can change significantly and leave no trace of the old. That is one reason farming government internet sites is not productive in many respects. They change with the political climate.

The Department of Education and various state departments of the same create historical myths all the time. When liberals targeted gun control and hunting grammar and high school texts taught that demise and near extinction of the American bison was a result of unsportsmanlike wanton hunting and killing by vicious, immoral nasty hunters only interested in the sport of killing. It is partially true but the real reasons were left out.

The reality of the near extinction is that the US government put a bounty on buffalo in a calculated effort to eradicate the food supply and resources of the native American plains indians. As long as the Indians had the buffalo herds they could not be controlled by the US Government nor did they respect the ownership of land rights of white settlers. When the herds were decimated the indians had no recourse but to move onto reservations or starve and they eventually did and fell under almost complete government control. They were effectively forcefully subjugated.

Proof of the historical manipulation on that story can be found at the Cavalry Museum at Ft. Riley, Kansas. The original order to George Armstrong Custer from Washington D.C. was framed and hanging on the wall for many years.

I read it personally. It outlined exactly how much anyone killing buffalo would be paid for each animal. For proof they had to bring in the tongue. It was lucrative business and easy money for professional hunters in the day and led to the development of long range rifles built specifically for the purpose.

The bottom line is you can't always believe the government. It is made up of politicians and union members with empires and agendas to protect and promote. They will embelish and freely edit and paraphrase anything necessary for political and ideological reasons. It's been going on for many years, longer than even Coralie has been around to see it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 29, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffie says "The bottom line is you can't always believe the government."
Well, of course I agree with you.
And appreciate your first-hand knowledge.
But I knew about the buffalo extinction from reading history, because I don't go to the government for all my information.
It's not an all or nothing, you know.
Government isn't all bad or all good.
People have to be eternally vigilant.

Posted by: Coralie

July 29, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Every society needs laws to govern itself and a government, court system, and police to enforce them. It also needs a military to defend the nation. Those things can easily be accomplished without a massive and intrusive central government.

Our federal government has become the largest employer in the country with the best salaries and benefits in the world. that on average exceed the most optimistic expectations of their private sector counterparts by more than 30%. Federal government employees have guaranteed retirement benefits that no one in the private sector can reasonably expect under any circumstances.

These employees meddle in every aspect of the lives of each citizen. Their propensity to protect us violates our privacy and most fundamental and basic freedoms. Citzens are taxed, groped in airports, their private communications are monitored, whole secotrs of society have been made pawns to government benevolence, and their protections now extend to health care, the privacy privilege you share with your doctor, and soon your wellness and well being.

When a government gets as large, intrusive, expensive, invasive, and pervasive as our has it is no longer a government of the people. It becomes a ruling power over the people that robs them of the most fundamental and basic human freedoms. Such a government has no right to exist and must go. It is the duty of patriots to see that it does.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 29, 2013 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Meaning what?
Who are the patriots?
How are they going to make the government disappear?
Wotinell are you talking about?

Posted by: Coralie

July 29, 2013 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffie: "Our federal government has become the largest employer in the country...">>

Let's look:

"The size of the US government in total number of federal employees, by president"

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Notice that Obama's number of federal government employees is 20% smaller than St. Reagan's. This even though the country has 35% more population since then. And yet, Jeffie tries to pretend his anti-government allergy has gotten worse. Maybe he only approves of a large government when it involves the particular teat he is used to.

J: "Citzens are taxed,">>

That's been going on a while. And taxes have been at 50 year lows under Obama. Stop whining.

J: "groped in airports,">>

What does republican Senator Larry Craig have to do with this?

J: "their private communications are monitored,">>

Has that presented a problem for you? It hasn't for me. And I have some pretty racy private communications.

J: "protections now extend to health care,">>

Yes, this is the notion that everyone should be in the system, not mooch but rather, take responsibility for their health care risk that we had in the past been cost shifting on to everyone else. It's called taking "personal responsibility."

J: "and soon your wellness and well being.">>

Yes. It's almost like the government has an interest in participating in the "general welfare" of the populace. Where did that idea come from?

D.
---------
"Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush." --Michael Kinsley, Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 30, 2013 at 12:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Scraps of details do not change fundamentals. The Federal Government has grown to a point where it is in charge, rather than the People. Big government loyalists can spin it all they will but can't change the facts. Our Federal Government is much too large, intrusive, meddling, expensive, inefficient, and rife with fraud, and abuses of power it wields over the People. Such fundamental truths can't be offset by any amount of propoganda. See you on overpasses on August the 8th.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 30, 2013 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: "Scraps of details do not change fundamentals.">>

Jeffie doesn't like details because he can't get his facts straight and the details work against his fundamentals. If you want people to have confidence in your conclusions it doesn't help when we can clearly see that your premises are false.

J: "The Federal Government has grown to a point where it is in charge,">>

Jeff didn't get this confused and uninformed by accident. It took years and a lot of work. Notice I've just shown that the size of the Federal government as measured by employees shrank 20% in 30 years while the population has grown 35% in those 30 years. That's actually quite incredible. To even have stayed the same would still given us a shrinking government in relation to population. Even if it had grown by 20% instead of shrinking by 20%, that wouldn't even give us break even. But such a realities are just "scrapes of details" that aren't convenient to Jeffie's hysterical anti-government mythology.

Let's look at net change in government spending under Obama and Reagan: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/g...

Let's see him fit that scrap of detail in his puzzle.

D.
--------------
"[B]ig-government conservatism." The lines on every graph show the same pattern: Government -- whether measured by spending, the deficit, the number of employees, or earmarked appropriations -- expanded through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Senior administrations; declined steadily under Clinton; then shot rapidly northward after Republicans took control of the White House in 2001." http://www.newamerica.net/publication...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 30, 2013 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Changes in public employment since inauguration, Obama v. Bush:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2...

Change in private employment: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 30, 2013 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Being caught up in the details of propoganda is exactly how you become blinded to reality. Dubious details and chasing ghostly excuses are very effective in distracting some people from reality and the big picture. It is obvious with many posters here. Especially the progressive liberal ones that don't have the common sense to see beyond the mythology of the damaging and unrealistic ideas and objectives of a silly and encouragible progressive liberal movement.

Posted by: jeffieboy

July 30, 2013 at 11:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In this thread:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/ju...

Jeffie tells us that EPA regs are so onerous that the US hasn't built a refinery in 50 years. Except we've built 16 of them in 46 years and doubled the capacity of others. Oh, excuse me, I got caught up in "the details of propoganda(sic)." Lol.

D.
--------------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 30, 2013 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Colin Woodard's book AMERICAN NATIONS gives insight into the anti-government attitudes we hear around us:
"Greater Appalachia was founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of rough, bellicose settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands....these clannish Scots-Irish, Scots, and north English frontiersmen spread across the highland South and on into the southern tiers of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; the Arkansas and Missouri Ozarks; the eastern two-thirds of Oklahoma; and the hill country of Texas, clashing with Indians, Mexicans and Yankees as they migrated....
Suspicious of outside authority of any kind, the Borderlanders valued individual liberty and personal honor above all else, and were happy to take up arms to defend either."
These anti-government attitudes have persisted to this day.

Posted by: Coralie

July 30, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy is so pleased and proud that his sui generis ignorance is coupled with discernment so exquisite that only he knows what is happening.

RE "Yeah, yeah, yeah.....FMSCA changes the history of things every time an administration changes. You won't get the truth there."
So you won't have any problem finding older versions of these histories to show that your assertion is correct. What does that have to do with the Roosevelt and Eisenhower quotes?

RE "If you want the truth it is much safer to ask people that lived through it than to read a history concocted since the current adminsistration took over."
Very well. Coralie, You lived through all of this. Did Roosevelt and Eisenhower say the things I quoted them as saying?

I thought so.

The Roosevelt quote, which acknowledges the civilian and military applications of an interregional system of roads, is from the Letter of Transmittal for the government study archived here:
http://transportationfortomorrow.com/...

The Eisenhower quote, which emphasizes the civilian importance of an interstate highway system, is the opening of this address to Congress, which enumerates the reasons for such a system--:safety, condition of existing infrastructure, defense (civilian evacuation and military access in case of atomic attack), and projected growth of population and GNP:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pi...

RE "They paraphrase anything to get the meanings that suit their agenda."
Refute away, silly psycho man. What did they actually say?

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 30, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

They really said, "Would you get housekeeping to look at that restroom, I had a little problem in there. Keep the door shut!"

You wanted to know Kitty.

Posted by: JailBird

July 31, 2013 at 4:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Before the Internet, there were books and documents and libraries. They still exist too.
I doubt anybody is going around to all the nation's libraries and cutting out things that were said before the year 2000.
.
Actually I'm glad that there are still paper texts too, because I don't 100% trust the Internet to endure through various assaults and catastrophes.
I've also read an article that says Edward Snowden's revelations mean that cloud data are not safe from surveillance and revisions..

Posted by: Coralie

July 31, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ah yes, Coralie....but before the internet one could write a book and make their own facts just as easily as today. As Freebie and others so admirably demonstrate all the internet does is increase the amount of misinformation available.

Posted by: jeffieboy

August 3, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "all the internet does is increase the amount of misinformation available."
And we all thank you for your generous and incessant contribution to the misinformation.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 3, 2013 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is my pleasure replace progressive liberal propoganda with facts and a dose of reality.

Posted by: jeffieboy

August 3, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "It is my pleasure replace progressive liberal propoganda with facts and a dose of reality."
I'm very impressed by the way you deny yourself pleasure-- on these threads, anyway. Unless, of course, you type with one hand.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 3, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My point about the books in libraries was that it would be hard to keep CHANGING the facts contained in print the way jeffieboy alleges is happening with government websites.
If I read a book with copyright 1947 it certainly presents the facts as they were known in 1947.

Posted by: Coralie

August 3, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: "my pleasure replace progressive liberal propoganda with facts">>

When have you done that? Your errors have been repeatedly exposed and rather than acknowledge correction like an adult, you just keep running and making stuff up. Assertion stacking.

You said the US hasn't built a refinery in 50 years. That's not a fact. The US has built 16 in that time.
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/ju...

You said; "GM has sold less than 10,000 volts." That's not a fact, that's false. GM sold 23,461 Volts in 2012 and is ahead of those numbers this year.
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/07/02/...

You said "Obamas approval ratings by liberal media outlets are not relevant to anything."

So I cited FOX News which had the same result. --Crickets.--

You said: "ACORN hired people that registered tens of thousands of voters fruadulently(sic)..."

Except that having some nut put a phony name on a registration form doesn't mean they are "registered." ACORN revealed the phony names as they are required to do. Can you really be this dense?

You said: "Renewable energy... hasn't returned a single dime in profit, savings, or economy."

Can you possibly grasp how uninformed and idiotic such a statement reveals you to be to people who actually know things about the world? Hydro-electric generation alone provides 16% of global electricity generation. That's 3,427 trillion watt-hours. US hydro alone has the capacity to provide power to about 90 million homes. That's not a "single dime in profit, savings or economy?"

Your arrogant stupidity is embarrassing. You rarely make actual factual assertions and mostly give unhinged opinion and wild conclusions based upon your false beliefs. When you do accidentally stray into revealing something you think is factual, you only reveal you can't get your facts straight and worse, you don't care enough about true and accuracy to even care.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 3, 2013 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie writes, "My point about the books in libraries was that it would be hard to keep CHANGING the facts contained in print the way jeffieboy alleges is happening with government websites. If I read a book with copyright 1947 it certainly presents the facts as they were known in 1947."

You are right, it would sure be hard to go round them all up and cut and paste to alter them as
Jefferson did his bible. On the other hand they don't necessarily present facts as known at the time. What they do present is the writer's interpretation of them. While they may be, simply because they were written doesn't mean they are correct, true, or accurate.

Don't forget that public libraries are not sacred halls of free and open information or freedom of speech. They are complicent in censorship and that effects what you can find there. Just to cite one example, have you seen any "Little Black Sambo" story books there lately?

Posted by: jeffieboy

August 3, 2013 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "While they may be, simply because they were written doesn't mean they are correct, true, or accurate."
They're bound to be more correct, true and accurate than the stuff you invent, but this is one reason I look for the latest information on most subjects, from direct sources.

RE "Don't forget that public libraries are not sacred halls of free and open information or freedom of speech."
As if one should expect freedom of speech in a place where people keep telling you to "Shhhhh!" But, seriously-- did you notice that when Laurie Lee Taylor (now Masterson) tried to get a bunch of books removed from the libraries at Fayetteville schools, exactly no books were removed?

Using the socialist, government-developed Internet, I just checked on eBay and there are 81 "Little Black Sambo"-related items for sale, plus several Sambo's restaurant items, plus several other items that trade on the "Sambo" name. And as far as I can tell, none of the copies of the storybook have been altered as to content. No restrictions on sales. Not at Abe's Books, either.

I haven't tried, and maybe Coralie can verify this, but I'll bet I could go to the Fayetteville Public Library, get online and read "Little Black Sambo" at this link:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17824/...
like I just did from home. Pictures and everything. The unavailability of a book is not automatically an indication that freedom of speech is involved, and the fact that a library does not have a physical copy of a book does not mean that it isn't available to readers.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 3, 2013 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yep, I just saw it. Last read it 75+ years ago.
I don't know if the library here has the Dr. Doolittle books, but there's some racist language in there too.
I wonder if instead of banning children's books the librarians could put a little disclaimer on them that says "This book was written a long time ago when people had different ideas" or words to that effect..
'
One of my favorite books in childhood was The Water Babies, written in the 19th century.. It had some philosophicalpolitical stuff in there--not racist, but I don't know what it was--so I just skipped over those pages.

Posted by: Coralie

August 5, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )