It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by timidobserver
reply to post by ButterCookie
Honestly, your reason for supporting Zimmerman determines whether you deserve said ostracism. If you believe that he was in the right, based purely on the facts of what we know about what occurred, the ostracism isn't deserved.
On the other hand, if your difficulties being in accepted in the black community played any role in your stance on the case, the ostracism is deserved. If any part of you was against Martin purely because being against him allowed you to be against the Black community, that has treated you so unfairly, the ostracism is deserved.
I think that is reasonable. My question is WHY are you questioning her motives? Why would you even suspect other motives then that she believes Zimmerman was innocent?
Your people were stolen
Your women raped
Your houses burned
Your income lessened
Your men demonized
Your history erased and re-written
Your children murdered
FOR HUNDREDS of YEARS
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by LizardSlicks
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by CSpitta
reply to post by thesaneone
So, that's the ONLY way to attain a better life? Belittle the community from which you came, while BENEFITTING from the freedoms, they DIED FOR?
Seems to me you're scared of reality. How can something be past-tense, when the ramifications are in future-present.
You never existed, POOF!
Sorry to inform you. Probably before your time. I am not sure of the amounts who died from both races but it was not until whites who stood up for the blacks started dieing that civil rights for all were taken seriously. At that time blacks dieing did not count. Whites dieing did. That is something not really taught in Black History month. The idea was equal rights for all. Not for any special group. Something to think about.
Do you see what you just did! RIGHTS for blacks DIDN'T MATTER when JUST blacks were dying for it, no, it only BECAME IMPORTANT WHEN WHITES STARTED DYING too. Is there not a problem with that? So a handful of white people recognized the injustice and put themselves on the line for it, they were moral, strong people. Nobody cared when it was just a bunch of blacks dying. A few white people died for it and suddenly the whole thing changes, becomes relevant...I'm not sure what you meant with your post at all. You're either saying that black lives are not as valuable as white lives or that society at large doesn't care about what is happening to black people. Inequality or indifference is what I'm getting.edit on 15-7-2013 by LizardSlicks because: clarify
A reasonable question based on a unreasonable lack of knowledge. To answer you. Yes, black lives did not matter. That is the essence of racism against blacks. White lives did matter then. I did not say that black lives DO NOT MATTER now but that did not back then. Why do you think there was a civil rights movement?It was not about different drinking fountains or bathrooms or sitting at the back of the bus. Black lives were not as valuable and society did not give a damm about them. Few people remember what real racism was about. Because not only blacks whose lives at that time no one cared about but whites whose lives WERE cared about were willing to die for those black lives power was shifted. I do find it funny that your post seems to imply I am saying it is that way today. It was the way it WAS not IS! People forget history.
Originally posted by Hendrick99
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by Kashai
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by ButterCookie
Its out of being a rational thinking person.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because it makes no sense to consider that Zimmerman should have gotten out of his car.
He was running a neighborhood watch all he needed to do was call 911 and stay out of any effort to address
Travon Martin. Had he done what he was supposed to as a member of a neighborhood watch, this child would not be dead.
I WILL leave my car whenever I feel. It is NOT against the law. Zimmerman was found not guilty of breaking any law. ANYONE regardless of their beliefs who attemps to kill me or otherwise obstruct me when I am not breaking the law does so at their own peril. You WILL NOT take away my rights merely to satisfy your personal beliefs that a black man has the right to walk down a street but a Hispanic or white man does not. Are you trying to bring us back to the 50's with the roles reversed?
This makes this act at the very least manslaughter.
That is obvious
How is it manslaughter? Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman. Evidence and facts presented in court (by the prosecution mind you) proved that Trayvon was the aggressor and attacked GZ. Are you saying GZ "should have stayed in his truck" because Trayvon and others "like him" should be expected to behave like savages and attack you if you are near them or ask them what they are doing? This is the amazing part about your faction's argument- the fact that the problem somehow lies in GZ getting out of his truck. As if he should have known he was going to be attacked and should have accepted that fact. Your argument and stance makes me sick.
Originally posted by Hendrick99
. Are you saying GZ "should have stayed in his truck" because Trayvon and others "like him" should be expected to behave like savages and attack you if you are near them or ask them what they are doing? This is the amazing part about your faction's argument- the fact that the problem somehow lies in GZ getting out of his truck. As if he should have known he was going to be attacked and should have accepted that fact. Your argument and stance makes me sick.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Xtrozero
I love that guy!! I have already subscribed to him on Youtube and he brings up the very points that I mentioned in the OP.
He talks about the blind obedience that blacks have to the Democratic Party, especially to President Obama.
He talks about how educated blacks are accused of 'acting white'.
He talks about the silliness of the Trayvon riots...etc
You mean besides you are delusional? Martin who was a MAN died because he was killing someone else. He was not a child no matter how much people want to label him such for political reasons. Like Obama calling Snowden a child. We really need to address what age people are responsible for their actions. There are 10 yr olds killing people in Africa as we speak. Until you get over this "child" bs I can not answer your questions.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by poet1b
Well said, and yes. That is exactly my point!!
Negative, violent behavior should never be excused, no matter what color; in the Zimmerman case, blacks felt the need to excuse the assault by Trayvon, and this is a huge problem that is rarely addressed.
I cringed every time I heard, "He should have stayed in his car"...as if the young black male is an animal.
Sadly, lots of young black males have began to believe and behave like animals, and then are offended if this is said to them.
I shook my head tonight at the absurdity happening in various cities around the country in the name of 'Trayvon'..
Literally behaving like animals..The only difference is that the lions and such have enough common sense not to tear up the jungle.
Originally posted by Hendrick99
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by Kashai
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by ButterCookie
Its out of being a rational thinking person.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because it makes no sense to consider that Zimmerman should have gotten out of his car.
He was running a neighborhood watch all he needed to do was call 911 and stay out of any effort to address
Travon Martin. Had he done what he was supposed to as a member of a neighborhood watch, this child would not be dead.
I WILL leave my car whenever I feel. It is NOT against the law. Zimmerman was found not guilty of breaking any law. ANYONE regardless of their beliefs who attemps to kill me or otherwise obstruct me when I am not breaking the law does so at their own peril. You WILL NOT take away my rights merely to satisfy your personal beliefs that a black man has the right to walk down a street but a Hispanic or white man does not. Are you trying to bring us back to the 50's with the roles reversed?
This makes this act at the very least manslaughter.
That is obvious
How is it manslaughter? Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman. Evidence and facts presented in court (by the prosecution mind you) proved that Trayvon was the aggressor and attacked GZ. Are you saying GZ "should have stayed in his truck" because Trayvon and others "like him" should be expected to behave like savages and attack you if you are near them or ask them what they are doing? This is the amazing part about your faction's argument- the fact that the problem somehow lies in GZ getting out of his truck. As if he should have known he was going to be attacked and should have accepted that fact. Your argument and stance makes me sick.
Originally posted by LizardSlicks
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by LizardSlicks
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by CSpitta
reply to post by thesaneone
So, that's the ONLY way to attain a better life? Belittle the community from which you came, while BENEFITTING from the freedoms, they DIED FOR?
Seems to me you're scared of reality. How can something be past-tense, when the ramifications are in future-present.
You never existed, POOF!
Sorry to inform you. Probably before your time. I am not sure of the amounts who died from both races but it was not until whites who stood up for the blacks started dieing that civil rights for all were taken seriously. At that time blacks dieing did not count. Whites dieing did. That is something not really taught in Black History month. The idea was equal rights for all. Not for any special group. Something to think about.
Do you see what you just did! RIGHTS for blacks DIDN'T MATTER when JUST blacks were dying for it, no, it only BECAME IMPORTANT WHEN WHITES STARTED DYING too. Is there not a problem with that? So a handful of white people recognized the injustice and put themselves on the line for it, they were moral, strong people. Nobody cared when it was just a bunch of blacks dying. A few white people died for it and suddenly the whole thing changes, becomes relevant...I'm not sure what you meant with your post at all. You're either saying that black lives are not as valuable as white lives or that society at large doesn't care about what is happening to black people. Inequality or indifference is what I'm getting.edit on 15-7-2013 by LizardSlicks because: clarify
A reasonable question based on a unreasonable lack of knowledge. To answer you. Yes, black lives did not matter. That is the essence of racism against blacks. White lives did matter then. I did not say that black lives DO NOT MATTER now but that did not back then. Why do you think there was a civil rights movement?It was not about different drinking fountains or bathrooms or sitting at the back of the bus. Black lives were not as valuable and society did not give a damm about them. Few people remember what real racism was about. Because not only blacks whose lives at that time no one cared about but whites whose lives WERE cared about were willing to die for those black lives power was shifted. I do find it funny that your post seems to imply I am saying it is that way today. It was the way it WAS not IS! People forget history.
What makes you so sure that these perceptions have really changed?
Originally posted by Kashai
You mean besides you are delusional? Martin who was a MAN died because he was killing someone else. He was not a child no matter how much people want to label him such for political reasons. Like Obama calling Snowden a child. We really need to address what age people are responsible for their actions. There are 10 yr olds killing people in Africa as we speak. Until you get over this "child" bs I can not answer your questions.
So basically you are saying that a person instructed to not chase a person is not guilty. Because he decided to chase a person who was not engaged in any crime. Further, its ok to kill them without identifying yourself as a person concerned about there actions because they are concerned about what you are doing.
You are the one who is delusional and that is obvious.
First Zimmerman was not instructed to not get out of his car. Second that person had as much authority as you to tell me not to get out of my car and you would not like my response to that. Third no one was chased. Fourth I have no problem with killing anyone who attacks me. Next question?
Any thoughts?