@shang

What a load of shit. There are ZERO verifiable witness reports that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is anecdotal bullshit allegedly said by a person named "John". No last name. No written statement. Not that it even matters. What human being would not defend himself (after trying to run away) against a stranger chasing them with a gun?

And I would love to see these official documents that show that Martin was a convicted rapist. Please link them. They don't exist. You are a liar spreading lies about a dead kid and you should be ashamed of yourself. Even if they did exist, it still doesn't matter because that has nothing to do with what happened.

Again, to make it clear, even if Martin was a drug addicted rapist on the loose, Zimmerman was STILL in the wrong. He clearly had no idea of those alleged facts, and that is obvious from the 911 tape. He didn't say "there is a known rapist in my neighborhood", in what was his 46th call to the police over "suspicious" people.

I don't know what castle doctrine has to do with any of this either. Does castle doctrine give you the right to chase after a fleeing person and shoot them off of your property? At no time was Martin on Zimmerman's property and at no time was Zimmerman in danger when he initiated pursuit. Which he was advised to not do by the police. The 'Stand Your Ground' law does not give you the right to pursue either. Pretty self evident from the god damn name of the law. STAND YOUR GROUND. Not, chase after unarmed kid who poses no physical threat to you.

Quoting JEB BUSH now regarding this:
"stand your ground" doesn't apply to this case."Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back"

Zimmerman created the entire incident on his own.


edit ... Oh, I forgot there was a sift here. Yeah, this black panther bullshit doesn't help anything. They are fucking racists too.

The rule of law has always been applied unevenly to people like Martin. It's just that expectations may he higher than they were before. >> ^BoneyD:

This is where it starts. Where the rule of law is applied unevenly and the delivery of justice not done, vigilantism will arise.
Zimmerman best be arrested quick smart.

In reply to this comment by longde:
*dead (made private)


I fix!

>> ^Kreegath:

I'm curious, how many other candidates have received campaign contributions from white supremacists? Are they the only group of supremacists that has any impact with their contribution? Does their contribution even mean anything, other than that they're now poorer? Because if most or even all the candidates have, at some point, gotten money from one or more supremacists, wouldn't it be a moot point to specifically attack Paul on that issue?
I'm not trying to be clever or passively aggressively making jabs at you, I'm not from the US so I don't really know how the politics of election work there, hence the many questions.
It does seem strange, however, that simply receiving money from someone would somehow implicate you in any way as siding with their views. It kind of feels more like conjecture and gossip instead of politics, and what I would focus on to discredit him instead, if it'd been an election in my country, would be on what Paul actually says about his views. For instance that clip of him saying he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, which is a statement he would certainly have to expand on before becoming viable for an electoral position of any capacity.


inclined to agree.
I get the feeling it would be fairly easy to link Obama with the Black Panthers or some other less mainstream group rather easily.

and it would seem that Libertarianism vs. any other "ism" going right now is the most favorable to white supremacists. ... So, just because the white supremacists likes ron paul doesn't necessarily mean ron paul likes them.

plus he "should" be smarter than political suicide.

still, all things considered, i wouldn't vote for him because he's a bible-thumping idiot.
but i would vote for him just to see what happens. lol!

@gwiz665
That was me that wrote this Sift Talk post.

I managed to track down the source of the 95% quote.

make up your own mind if it's as racist as David Duke or not.

***edit
the think is, it really is pretty hateful against blacks. pretty much, it's a rant against the blacks who were rioting in L.A. at the time, written for an audience that was used to hearing that blacks are indulging in some kind of Black Panther type struggle against ordinary white people.

Obama might not have been the greatest president (I didn't vote for him) but it's simply hilarious, depressing, and downright disturbing the lengths our politicians (and other would be truth seekers) will go to spread LIES to get someone they dislike out of office. The ends DO NOT, absolutely DO NOT justify the means. I don't give a shit if Obama was a member of Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the Neo Nazis, the Nation of Islam, or, god forbid, an actual socialist -- scare tactics, lies, half-truths, and rumors are a slap in the face of the people you're attempting to convince. It only hurts your cause and furthers the causes you oppose.

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? California... Homosexuals... Prayer... Insurance...

Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations. The Black Panther case was a blatant violation of civil rights - but his administration dismissed it because in thier OPINION black people can't violate the civil rights of others.

The mosque is simply one note in the sad litany of his hypocrisy. He approves the mosque on the basis of limited involvement in city/state government as well as the bill of rights? This comes off as hypocritical to anyone who hears it given his extensive record of ignoring the rights in order to force feed his agenda at national, state, local, and individual levels.

Arizona wants to enforce legitimate laws & protect citizens? Louisiana wants to build sand berms? BP wants to bring in non-union oil skimmers? Texas want to lift my oil drilling ban? It's against the constitution to force people to buy my Obama brand insurance? Banks are refusing to take my TARP money? The people don't want my financial reform bill? The people don't want my Health Care reform bill? The people don't want my Cap & Tax schemes? The people don't want my plan for illegal amnesty? Bah! I'm Barak Hussain Obama and I disallow such freedoms in MY America!

Oh - but you radial Cordoba freaks can build your mosque at Ground Zero. No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from. No, I don't care this is a documented terrorist tactic. No I don't care Germany just shut down Cordobas because they were terror cells. No, I don't care that by definition a mosque can't possibly be a "community outreach center".

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain knows clearly that Obama LOVES to violate the constitution and interfere with state/local policy. But now all of a sudden he changes his mind and state's rights and religious freedom matter? Anyone living through this nightmare dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball on the issue and that his motivation is his personal bias. That's why he's getting shellaqued in the ratings, the polls, and even (albiet reluctantly) in the press.

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

You won't. This was a biased decision to favor an opinion/ideology that he sympathizes with. As evidenced by just about EVERY other thing he's ever done, Obama will do the exact opposite on any issue he finds politically convenient.

The NAACP did not call the entire tea party racist.

This is the same kind of thing where Obama says his health care plan will not have "death panels" and yet at then in a few weeks he recess appoints a guy to be in charge of rationing health care. I will dissassemble the weasel-speak of the NAACP, if I may...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/16/tea.party.resolution/

Instead of joining us to repudiate racism, Tea Party leaders have attempted a tit for tat and demanded that we condemn the New Black Panther Party for reported hate speech.

This statement implies that the Tea Party has not repudiated racism. This is a blatant falsehood. When racism shows up, the national movement has condemned it. They do so repeatedly.

http://thenationalteapartyfederation.com/press_room.html

"The Federation does not and will not tolerate any form of racism, violence or hate speech... We believe to our core that racism and hate speech have no place in civil political discourse and debate..."

So Jealous & the NAACP are full of crap. The Tea Party does condemn racism. That doesn't stop left wing astroturf from showing up to promulgate it, nor does it stop racist hanger-ons who just show up. But the accusation that the Tea Party does not reject racism is patently false.

"And the New Black Panther Party is not a member of the NAACP. What we are asking the Tea Party to eschew is not the racism of some outside organization, but the bigotry within."

So - because the NBP aren't members of the NAACP means that their racism is OK and not worth condeming? A lot of the people who are accused of being racists aren't members of the Tea party officially (show me the proof) - so by his logic that makes them OK, right? This is a hypocritical double-standard of the worst kind and for the NAACP to make this argument makes them the lowest form of race hucksters.

With increased influence comes increased responsibility

Physician - heal thyself.

In fact her response has been to claim there are no racist elements in the tea party.

in the first place, Palin isn't a representative of the Tea Party as far as I am aware. She agrees with their positions, but is not a spokesperson. Second, she's right. The OFFICIAL position of the Tea Party - their mission statements and their objectives - have absolutely no racist element to them whatsoever. Period. End of story. As shown above - their official position is to condemn racism and racists.

What is happening here is the NAACP & left wing kooks are using the actions of a small fraction of extremist hanger-ons to try and condemn a larger movement. It is disingenous, false, and slimy. To use such tactics makes THEM the racists - not the tea party - because they are deliberately (and falsely) using race to advance their cause. The tea party does not do this, which is why they make the charges of reverse racism at the NAACP. And the charge has merit because the NAACP is the one running around looking at the world through race colored lenses.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Generalize the New Black Panthers? Have you seen these guys?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817
Unlike the nameless kooks[opinion] (some of which are liberal plants[opinion]) in the Tea Party vid above, this guy is the President of the Philadelphia chapter of the NBP[citation needed]. You can bet your bippy if the leaders of some Tea Party group had gone of like this guy then it would be national news[opinion]. You're trying to draw lines of moral equivalency where none exist. The NBP is dominated as a movement by racist positions[citation needed], and a large percentage of them are hate mongers[citation needed]. The Tea Party is not.[opinion][citation needed]


Haha did you just link me to a "news" site that has "Obama's Kenyan activities
called 'borderline criminal'" on the front page?

By the way I fixed what you said in your quote if you don't mind Since you've already provided me with one link, I bet you won't mind finding the citations I requested in your quote, thanks.

Generalize the New Black Panthers? Have you seen these guys?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817

Unlike the nameless kooks (some of which are liberal plants) in the Tea Party vid above, this guy is the President of the Philadelphia chapter of the NBP. You can bet your bippy if the leaders of some Tea Party group had gone of like this guy then it would be national news. You're trying to draw lines of moral equivalency where none exist. The NBP is dominated as a movement by racist positions, and a large percentage of them are hate mongers. The Tea Party is not.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Moderately well performed & sung song with a message that is beyond idiotic. The NAACP and others are full tilt trying to say the TP is 'racist' - but they have no evidence except very rare, isolated kooks that they cherry pick out of millions (that's when they aren't just liberal plants).
The tea party isn't racist. The only real racists I've seen lately are the douchebags in the Black Panthers. Everything else is a bunch of liberal jerkwads trying to gin charges of racism where no racism exists with the objective of trying to get all the blacks who are disillusioned with the Man-Child's incompetence to turn his plummeting polls around.


Calling a video that generalizes a group idiotic while generalizing another group. Classic

Moderately well performed & sung song with a message that is beyond idiotic. The NAACP and others are full tilt trying to say the TP is 'racist' - but they have no evidence except very rare, isolated kooks that they cherry pick out of millions (that's when they aren't just liberal plants).

The tea party isn't racist. The only real racists I've seen lately are the douchebags in the Black Panthers. Everything else is a bunch of liberal jerkwads trying to gin charges of racism where no racism exists with the objective of trying to get all the blacks who are disillusioned with the Man-Child's incompetence to turn his plummeting polls around.

Lyrics:

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

What if Michael Baisden was on ya FM dial
For 3 hours every day calling the president foul
Would they say free speech or find evidence how
To charge him with treason like see he’s unamerican now
What if Minister Farrakhan prayed for the death
Of the commander in chief that he be laid to rest
Would they treat it as the gravest threat or never make an arrest
Even today he’s still hated for less
What if President Obama would have lost the election
Quit his job so he could go talk to the left and
Bash the government for being off of direction
Fraught with deception
And told black people they want all of our weapons
And we want our own country and called for secession
Would he be arrested and tossed in corrections
For trying to foster aggression
Against the people’s lawful selection
Our questions

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

What If black people went on Facebook and made a page
That for the death if the president elect we prayed
Would the creators be tazed and thrown in a cage
We know the page wouldn’t have been displayed all these days
What if Jeremiah Wright said that everybody white
Wasn’t a real America would you feel scared of him
If he had a militia with pictures that depict the president as Hitler
They would kill and bury that
Wait
What if Cynthia McKinney lamented the winning of the new president
And hinted he wasn’t really a true resident
With no proof or evidence
Would the media treat it like a huge press event
They would have attacked whatever group she represents
They would have called her a kook on precedent
And any network that gave her due preference
Would be the laughing stock of the news so our question is

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

You know, I can respect this reply very much. The analogy is just that, similiar but different. It is hyperbole, but along with the flag burning, as we both agree, it puts things in perpective.

The tree is a slippery slope. I find permits completely appropriate because of certain situations that may arise. Say, for example, two groups book one event. One is the skin heads, and they booked their protest to meet with the black panthers... Chances are, there will be blood...

Next is an anti-gay protest/march, right into a gay activist parade (Coupled with floats and driving drag queens in little punch buggies.) This protest by the anti-gays would be completely lawful if there were no permits yet would be disasterous.

Besides, these three proved you can hold a "protest" without a permit. Just deny it is a protest.

I respect your opinion and wish we had valid freedoms in all walks of life just like you do. However, freedom is sometimes our worst enemy. People will always f-things up to where laws have to be made...

See, freedom allows you to walk past a 15 year old girl being raped and do nothing about it (Has happened in America.) It allows you to take a picture with your cell phone of a man who has been shot while trying to protect his family (Has happened.) It allows motorists to yell at someone just run over and dying to, "Get this fucking trash off the god damn road!" Freedom is the antithesis to community, sadly... But would I live anywhere else but a "free" nation? No... I just wish we had more responsibilty towards one another.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).
"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."
This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.
You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.
I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)
The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

To me, this immediately strikes me as being mange (which is a skin mite infestation). The symptoms of it sound just like this, and I also know of it because just over a year ago our own young little Frankie (DFT's avatar) was stricken with it as just a wee kitten, since he was born feral. He had to have shots every two weeks over the course of a month to be rid of it, poor baby. Fur was gone in patches, including his face, and the exposed skin was very flaky and itchy. You wouldn't ever know that he had it now. He looks like a handsome black panther now, with a stubby little tail.