reply to post by schuyler
My post was removed because it "was so far off topic we had no choice but to remove it." Quite frankly, I am completely amazed. OK. Let's try this
again. Subtlty is often lost in an online environemnt, so let me walk you though this step by step. Apologies to those intelligent enough to get it in
the first place without the need for this explanation.
1. This thread is titled, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." etc. All the pictures of Trayvon that the MSM is showing depict a good looking
youngster, very handsome, not at all threatening, a terribly innocent young man who, the MSM would like us to believe, was guilty of nothing but
Walking While Black. Is that a fair summary so far? News stories across the nation are taking this approach.
2. In fact, a more recent picture of Trayvon is like this one. (Now don't go away. There's more below the fold.)
Big tough guy, right? Not quite so innocent as the MSM portrayed. To show the irony here I posted the following picture (which was removed) as a way
of highlighting the problem.
Now, you can't possibly tell me this is not on topic. It is EXACTLY on topic. The MSM is trying to portray this young man in all his sweet innocence,
and as we are coming to find out, not only does he have a track record of crime, witnesses are portraying an entirely different encounter. The picture
posted immediately above shows the irony of it. Once again, the MSM is pushing our emotional buttons by portraying this black man how he looked years
ago, not how he looked a few days ago.
And here's Obama inserting his naive opinion into the mix when he has no idea what happened. This has incited rioting, Black "outrage" and the ususal
nonsensical leftist rhetoric.
Rather than white on Black crime, a white man wantonly killing an innocent Black man, it turns out this is a Hispanic man defending himself. I say
that's a topic worth discussing and not a visible part of the MSM narrative.
I do hope you get it now, Mods and whomever flagged the pic originally.
edit on 3/27/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)