[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't feel anything.

Why should I? People die every day.

Do you feel nothing in regards to the rape of three years olds as well?

After all, it happens all the time as well.....

I am curious how consistent you are regarding your amoral marxian depravity.

[ingliz]

Do you feel nothing

I feel very little.

The wife has remarked, on more than one occasion, how very cold-blooded (demmhom kiesaħ) I am.

Most of the time I display an emotion for affect. It's acting, a performance.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I feel very little.

The wife has remarked, on more than one occasion, how very cold-blooded (demmhom kiesaħ) I am.

Most of the time I display an emotion for affect. It's acting, a performance.

That didn't answer my question.

answer my question.

[One Degree]

Do you feel nothing in regards to the rape of three years olds as well?

After all, it happens all the time as well.....

I am curious how consistent you are regarding your amoral marxian depravity.

Very unfair question. You are asking him to confess to something society has determined is morally reprehensible to force him to disavow his honesty. How much of your emotions are real
and how much is due to what is expected? Can we feel real emotion for people we don’t know?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Very unfair question. You are asking him to confess to something society has determined is morally reprehensible to force him to disavow his honesty. How much of your emotions are real
and how much is due to what is expected? Can we feel real emotion for people we don’t know?

Its a perfectly fair question, I want to see how consistent he is regarding his a-moral opposition to sentiment.

If he has no feelings about ethical matters on the basis that they "happen all the time," then it would be consistent for him to say this about other acts that likewise "happen all the time."

If you think morality is relative and that ethical judgments are pure opinion, then you must say this about ALL issues, including the tough ones. I am not going to give people a pass on saying stupid things because other people are willing to give such persons a "a pass" when applying this crazy view to the "low hanging fruit" only.

If you believe all morals are but opinions, its easy to say such things on those issues as are currently in "vogue."

I want to see their consistency on issues that are not.

You can't get more fair that that actually.

[Libertarian353]

It applies equally. Blacks benefit from it too; however, white people use the law more than blacks do.

Actually no it does not. There was Black person who shot a white trespasser in his yard, he was charged. Meanwhile a white punk wasn't charged running over a Black man.

Do you think in the instant case it was unjust? Clearly, both of the people involved in this shooting are assholes. I don't think anybody has said otherwise.

Yes, cause whites have know to do worse things to cops and non-whites alike and still somehow live. Meanwhile Blacks using justified force get "charged" homicide.

Also the Black guy was clearly backing off.

So Zimmerman is an asshole. Do you think he was within his rights to shoot Trayvon Martin?

No, cause he clearly disobey instructions and started a fight.

Yet, we had a POTUS weigh in on it.

As we also have now with the bundy terrorist event, the criminal sheriff who put illegals into actual concentration camps, and the Indian who commit tax evasion.

But apparently Obama was in the wrong cause, he had an opinion?

For whatever reason, it seems in the black community to be understood, if not encouraged to meet white people with violence, and then omit the violent act by the black person against the white person when the tables turn and the black person gets killed.

For whatever reason, it seems what whites like you in our community do not understand is when you sabotage neighborhoods or nations out of sheer hate and greed expect the consequences. For whatever reason, it seems what in the white community to be understood, if not encourage to call police whenever they see a Black person in their line of sight and then omit the criminal act by the white person when they're expose and get rightfully beaten or arrested.

I can't blame Blacks for being violent towards whites if this was always our culture of being hostile to people for having less than lily white skin. You see? This where your attempt of hiding your racism fails. You call Blacks violent and that only creates more violence. Like how calling people nazis creates nazis or calling people commies creates commies, you're not helping.

So what is your point here?

The point being clearly the system is defending this person who happens to be non-white due to his white supremacist view point. They're so deep in with him, they're willing to put a white man in jail for it.

Anyone who really knows me knows I don't like left wing politics.

A code word, I bet. You forget without "left wing politics" america wouldn't survive today. I'm an ancap and even I know republican policies throughout 120 years have been bullshit.

I was probably the only one here who defended Ray Rice when he was charged with assaulting his fiance.

You complain about the culture of violence in Black communities and yet defend spouse abuse?

I was probably the only one who defended Adrian Peterson when they charged him with a felony for spanking his child with a willow switch.

You obviously have a tendency to defend dysfunctional Black families. Not surprising considering the conservatives 50 year relationship with the Black family unit.

I was also skeptical of the charges against Bill Cosby. That seems to have completely escaped your notice.

Actually let me see your post on it.

I know when the establishment is trying to get me to join their lynch mob.

I'm a establishment cause I call out racism when conservatives don't?

[Suntzu]

[blackjack21]

Actually no it does not. There was Black person who shot a white trespasser in his yard, he was charged. Meanwhile a white punk wasn't charged running over a Black man.

It would be nice if you would substantiate your claims to some degree.

Yes, cause whites have know to do worse things to cops and non-whites alike and still somehow live.

That is somewhat strange, and almost suggests white people have some evolutionary advantage or super-natural ability. Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical.

Meanwhile Blacks using justified force get "charged" homicide.

Again, your comments would be more meaningful if you would provide background for the instant case you are writing about. As I noted to SpecialOlympian, it seems that blacks seem to have problems interacting with police officers regardless of the police officer's race, as if there were some innate oppositional defiance disorder more prevalent among black populations.

Also the Black guy was clearly backing off.

It didn't seem that way.

No, cause he clearly disobey instructions and started a fight.

Instructions aren't law. The evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started a fight, but rather that he asked Martin what he was doing in that neighborhood, whereupon Martin decided to assault Zimmerman. Zimmerman was already on the phone with the police.

I think it is interesting, because the law initially cleared Zimmmerman. Then, local black groups and the media concocted a story that Zimmerman was a racist. NBC was involved in selective editing to mislead the public on the facts of the story. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder got involved as well. A jury ended up finding Zimmerman not guilty. The stand-your-ground law is pretty clear.

As we also have now with the bundy terrorist event, the criminal sheriff who put illegals into actual concentration camps, and the Indian who commit tax evasion.

But apparently Obama was in the wrong cause, he had an opinion?

Again, it would be interesting if you would subtantiate your arguments and expand on them a little bit.

For whatever reason, it seems what whites like you in our community do not understand is when you sabotage neighborhoods or nations out of sheer hate and greed expect the consequences. For whatever reason, it seems what in the white community to be understood, if not encourage to call police whenever they see a Black person in their line of sight and then omit the criminal act by the white person when they're expose and get rightfully beaten or arrested.

I can't blame Blacks for being violent towards whites if this was always our culture of being hostile to people for having less than lily white skin. You see? This where your attempt of hiding your racism fails. You call Blacks violent and that only creates more violence. Like how calling people nazis creates nazis or calling people commies creates commies, you're not helping.

In these sort of persistent disagreements, I begin to dissociate from the political aspects and from the human race as a whole and look more at evolutionary matters as if I were looking at an interaction between different species within a genus, as though it were an interaction between a poodle and a pit bull. From this abstract perspective, I see a recurring pattern.

As I've said before, I don't think white people are super peaceful and loving people. On the contrary, they are among the most violent people on Earth. However, they do violence as a group. To restate that, violence among white people is only socially acceptable as a group-sanctioned activity. By contrast, violence among black people is accepted among black people even if it is not accepted by the larger group including non-black people.

One reason I generally do not like the establishment is because someone like Zimmerman is "Hispanic" when the establishment wants to stir up shit between people of Northern European ancestry and people of Southern European ancestry. Whereas, Zimmerman is "white" when they want to stir up shit between blacks and whites. Somewhat off topic: this is why white people love Trump when he trashes the media, and people working for the media do not seem to understand the pathos for Trump. The political shit disturbers will be with us for some time, although we're not supposed to know who they are. However, these political shit disturbers are able to operate, because these persistently recurring themes prevail even in a climate where children are taught from a very young age that racism is morally opprobrious.

In the instant case of this thread, the public at large does not seem to care. This could be due to the fact that Obama is no longer president and there is no political profit to be made in exploiting this story on racial grounds. It could also be due to the fact that the black man in this case did in fact violate the handicap parking space laws, whereas Trayvon Martin hadn't violated any laws until he assaulted Zimmerman.

However, we have the same sort of situation of the "white busy body" person trying to privately enforce public law (enforce social norms) toward black people and then being met with violence by black people leading to a hyperviolent interaction where the black person is killed and nothing happens to the white person after legal review.

You have said, "expect the consequences." I have detailed in somewhat disinterested anthropological terms significant and persistent differences in the behavior of white people and black people. I think these problems will continue to persist in multicultural societies and even get worse as the "shit disturbers" whose identity is not to be revealed continue to push and attempt to enforce multi-culturalism. Even when you look at something like the European Union, it is breaking down along the same fault lines that have been there for thousands of years, with a rough demarcation of those North of the Rhine and those South of the Rhine. Even in the United Kingdom, you see the same difference between people with the Germanic behavioral traits and those with the Celtic behavioral traits.

The point being clearly the system is defending this person who happens to be non-white due to his white supremacist view point. They're so deep in with him, they're willing to put a white man in jail for it.

That's a pretty elaborate mental feat on your part. I'd prefer Occam's Razor, which is to say more simply: you're wrong. They put the white man in jail, because he used violent force in a manner that was not sanctioned by the group. I don't expect you to accept my theory for some time, but I will keep saying it: it's okay for white people to be violent PROVIDED they do it according to rules established by the group.

You complain about the culture of violence in Black communities and yet defend spouse abuse?

I oppose the establishment and their double standards. Ray Rice's fiancée initiated violence, so she was the instigator and should have been punished according to the leftist idea that women and men are equal and should be treated equally according to the law. However, the establishment had intended to install Hillary Clinton as president which would have ushered in 8-years of programmed anti-male rubbish, some of which we are seeing nevertheless--e.g., #MeToo. Between the feminists and chivalrous conservatives who think men using any sort of violence against women is always wrong, they decided to drop charges against Ray Rice's fiancée and charge him exclusively for marginally excessive self-defense, because he met her violence with violence--knocking her out and dragging her unconscious body back to their hotel room like something out of a King Kong epic.

You obviously have a tendency to defend dysfunctional Black families.

I think Petersen's behavior should be modified, as I think it wasn't constructive. It was traditional, and I think he meant well by it. However, if Peterson's son has a 2-repeat allele of monoamine oxidase, studies suggest that spanking the child harshly in his youth may lead to violent, anti-social tendencies later in life. So I think it is worthwhile to try to blunt that type of behavior. However, I think it is absolutely insane to charge Petersen with a felony--it is dramatically excessive. This is where I note that white people do violence as a group, and sometimes to unjustifiable excess on philosophical grounds. You'll never get them on legal grounds until they are a racial minority (hence the push for multiculturalism by the shit disturbers whose background is unmentionable), because they are the dominant group.

Actually let me see your post on it.

If you want to read some of my "racist" writings, I quoted Cosby. I'm now thinking that's why they decided to ice him.
My first Cosby quote

So I brought it up off-topic in 2014 here:

CBS HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT PROPAGANDA

Why you should set aside your prejudice about me is that you can learn about what is going to happen and why certain things are happening. Some of this stuff is not random.

The latter part of your point is interesting. The US media is for sale. That's why David Brooks is a self-styled conservative who ended up voting for Obama. These people clearly take money for their positions, which isn't illegal. The point is to shape public opinion.

Since you aren't living in the United States, you aren't constantly bombarded with the "war on women" theme, that has basically failed to deliver any results to the Democratic party electorally this last election cycle. It has continued with more attacks on the sexuality of black men with the latest attack on Bill Cosby, who allegedly raped a white woman 30 years ago. If you haven't noticed the attacks on successful black men recently, you're definitely not living in the United States.

Bill Cosby raped me. Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?
Why? It had no political utility until Hillary Clinton was chosen for the Democratic Party nomination. (((note: two years before it was "official". You'll have to give Trump credit for the term "rigged."))) Like 24 trying to soften the beaches for Barack Obama, the War on Women and these TV shows are intended to soften the blows for Hillary Clinton. There is probably zero legal basis for a charge against Cosby, be{sic} casting couches are well known in Hollywood and without an immediate charge with physical evidence, there's no reason to believe the story. It's only being given credence now because Bill Cosby is black, the victim is a woman, and Obama is black. So for some reason, the psychology is that we are supposed to defend the honor of the white woman, who will be embodied by Hillary Clinton in the next election cycle.

Is that enough for you? That doesn't make me "pro-black" or anything. I'm just tired of an ineffectual establishment with whackadoo theories about how we should run things. You can, however, learn from me while disagreeing with what I say.

As far as credibility, honestly I don't think it matters one bit since you obviously don't seem to know very much about Republicans. One of the reasons I don't like their leadership is that they don't address the public's apparent lack of knowledge of their credentials. Newt Gingrich had a PhD as did Dick Armey. George W. Bush was is the only president to have had an MBA, a Harvard MBA at that. Phil Gingrey, Phil Roe, John Fleming, Diane Black, Charles Boustany, Bill Cassidy, Paul Broun, Tom Price, Michael Burgess, Mike Simpson, Renee Ellmers, Paul Gosar, Andy Harris, Dan Benishek, Joe Heck, Ben Wenstrup, Scott DesJarlais, Larry Buchson, and Tim Murphy are House Republicans with MDs. By contrast, the Democrats have Donna Christensen and Jim McDermmott. Ron Paul was an MD (retired). Tom Barrasso and Tom Coburn are doctors too. Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist. I'm not a Republican, but if you were trying to call them stupid relative to the Democrats, the Republicans have the Democrats schooled as far as MDs are concerned. In the upcoming Congress, 18 of the 19 medical doctors in Congress are Republican. Vernon Ehlers, who retired a few years back, had a PhD in physics. Where the Republicans truly suck is in propaganda.

This is why Trump is a godsend to the otherwise braindead Republican establishment, not that many of those knuckleheads will learn anything from him...

DID THE RIGHT WING BETRAY EUROPE: ISIS CRISIS
Here's another wonderful racial blast while I slam the trashing of Cosby immediately after.

Again, this sort of thing makes me cackle maniacally. You cannot promote secular hedonism, blow loads of spunk on your girlfriend, and then have an abortion if she gets pregnant and have a leading edge society. You can rail against conservative morality all you want as if it were all based on some Freudian sexual repression. It's not. If you strip out the decorum of old time religion and frame it in the context of Richard Dawkins "meme" notion, it becomes very obvious that pater familias was all about increasing the birth rate and maintaining social cohesion and property rights. You simply cannot rail against the political right and achieve your social objectives with a collapsing population while the mud people overrun the territory your ancestors conquered and maintained for you. If you want to see your worst enemy, just look in the mirror.

And then...

That cracks me up to no end. Not that I really endorse that sort of thing, but at least the Saudis don't have to deal with all those women drivers. Smile Maybe Hillary Clinton can run on with her "War on Women" crap in Saudi Arabia after she's finished destroying what's left of Bill Cosby's reputation.

me

The only so-called conservative I can tolerate is Rush Limbaugh, and that is only because he is a humorist. I don't enjoy Bill O'Reilly, as he's about the biggest momma's boy on television. Hannity always has something jammed up his ass. Megyn Kelly is always playing, "Isn't it awful?" You do get some more detailed reason from Greta Van Susteren, but she's not a conservative. FoxNews has been part and parcel of the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, including attacks on black men from Ray Rice to Bill Cosby. I don't buy any of it.

They had to take a couple of bites at the apple too, using mistrial to try Bill Cosby twice.

me

Franklin held slaves for 40 years; then, he became an abolitionist. For all the trouble with Bill Cosby, Jefferson did something similar, but he owned the people he did it with. Adams was quite hostile to slavery, and from a slave-owning family. Payne would certainly qualify as a liberal.

I honestly don't care if you think I'm a white supremacist, but you should try to understand the difference between an aristocrat and a racist. Both may seem to have a supremacist point of view, but they are quite different from each other.

I'm a establishment cause I call out racism when conservatives don't?

Why? You're not really ancap, are you? The term "racism" comes straight out of Marxism. I'm more of a libertarian than you are, but for some reason you seem to lump egalitarianism in with libertarianism. They are not the same. Also, apathy towards the plight of the oppressed isn't the same as being an active perpetrator of "oppression." We don't all have to care about everybody everywhere.

[Libertarian353]

It would be nice if you would substantiate your claims to some degree.

https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/l ... 1218176739 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 666667002/

That is somewhat strange, and almost suggests white people have some evolutionary advantage or super-natural ability. Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical.

If our ability is not lasting 5 minutes in the sun, than I agree.

Again, your comments would be more meaningful if you would provide background for the instant case you are writing about. As I noted to SpecialOlympian, it seems that blacks seem to have problems interacting with police officers regardless of the police officer's race, as if there were some innate oppositional defiance disorder more prevalent among black populations.

It seems whites especially law and order folk have tendency to project their unlawful actions and insecurity upon Blacks when interacting them, as if there were some correlation between right wing people and their ability to scapegoat minorities for whites lack of responsibility.

It didn't seem that way.

He move back with his hands in the air.

Instructions aren't law.

Irrelevant considering people get arrested for not following police instructions if their lucky.

The evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started a fight, but rather that he asked Martin what he was doing in that neighborhood, whereupon Martin decided to assault Zimmerman. Zimmerman was already on the phone with the police.

He harass and goated the boy, where upon Martin defended himself.

I think it is interesting, because the law initially cleared Zimmmerman.

As the law clearly cleared the so called murderer of Katie Satie.

Then, local black groups and the media concocted a story that Zimmerman was a racist.

Like how the media concocted the stories of how Dylan Rood wasn't a terrorist and he had "mental issue". They also did the same Nia Long killer, a white supremacist with a criminal record. Worse they try to paint the victim as thug cause she had a legal weapon. Remember this is fox news an "apparent" supporter of the second amendment. Apparently Blacks that own guns are thugs.

NBC was involved in selective editing to mislead the public on the facts of the story

.

Again same with the Seth Rich and Fox News

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder got involved as well.

So did White House and not in the way Obama or Eric Holder did either.

A jury ended up finding Zimmerman not guilty. The stand-your-ground law is pretty clear.

The juries are known to have racist biases. The stand-your-ground law is clear indeed, only to harm minorities.

Again, it would be interesting if you would subtantiate your arguments and expand on them a little bit.

Trump pardoning of the Bundy militia, Dinesh D'souza and Joe Arpario

In these sort of persistent disagreements, I begin to dissociate from the political aspects and from the human
race as a whole and look more at evolutionary matters as if I were looking at an interaction between different species within a genus, as though it were an interaction between a poodle and a pit bull. From this abstract perspective, I see a recurring pattern

So you had an racist opinion without any form of evidence.

As I've said before, I don't think white people are super peaceful and loving people. On the contrary, they are among the most violent people on Earth. However, they do violence as a group. To restate that, violence among white people is only socially acceptable as a group-sanctioned activity. By contrast, violence among black people is accepted among black people even if it is not accepted by the larger group including non-black people.

Violence isn't accepted by any group receiving it, Black or white. Your remark makes no sense. If anything for whites our violence is not acceptable among any race including ourselves regardless of being larger or smaller within our proximity.

One reason I generally do not like the establishment is because someone like Zimmerman is "Hispanic" when the establishment wants to stir up shit between people of Northern European ancestry and people of Southern European ancestry.

Funny enough it was the white supremacists who made the claim, in order to downplay the fact Zimmerman and majority of Hispanics consider themselves white. I don't know where you get the idea of that the "establishment" wanted to divide people European dissent, conservatives do a good job themselves. They don't consider Spanish European.


[/quote]Whereas, Zimmerman is "white" when they want to stir up shit between blacks and whites.[/quote]

He consider himself white.

Somewhat off topic: this is why white people love Trump when he trashes the media, and people working for the media do not seem to understand the pathos for Trump.

Cause they're idiots who voted for him in a last ditch effort to retain racial supremacy in america, not knowing like clockwork it will kill more of them than it will for Blacks. That's it, you're a racist, they're racist, you want race war.

The political shit disturbers will be with us for some time, although we're not supposed to know who they are. However, these political shit disturbers are able to operate, because these persistently recurring themes prevail even in a climate where children are taught from a very young age that racism is morally opprobrious.

Cause the lesson has not stuck in, til people like you stop disturbering shit like "it seems that blacks seem to have problems interacting with police officers regardless of the police officer's race, as if there were some innate oppositional defiance disorder more prevalent among black populations."


It could also be due to the fact that the black man in this case did in fact violate the handicap parking space laws, whereas Trayvon Martin hadn't violated any laws until he assaulted Zimmerman.


Not a justification for their deaths.

However, we have the same sort of situation of the "white busy body" person trying to privately enforce public law (enforce social norms) toward black people and then being met with violence by black people leading to a hyperviolent interaction where the black person is killed and nothing happens to the white person after legal review.

You're defending a criminal who at a history of violent confrontation and wanted to kill.

You have said, "expect the consequences." I have detailed in somewhat disinterested anthropological terms significant and persistent differences in the behavior of white people and black people. I think these problems will continue to persist in multicultural societies and even get worse as the "shit disturbers" whose identity is not to be revealed continue to push and attempt to enforce multi-culturalism. Even when you look at something like the European Union, it is breaking down along the same fault lines that have been there for thousands of years, with a rough demarcation of those North of the Rhine and those South of the Rhine. Even in the United Kingdom, you see the same difference between people with the Germanic behavioral traits and those with the Celtic behavioral traits.

Ah I see, now I know your game. Ok, we're done here. I'm only wasting my time, you're trying to gaslight me again. I keep falling for your tricks, knowing full well you don't care about the truth, only a race war.

[blackjack21]

https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/l ... 1218176739 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 666667002/

You interpret this sort of thing through some sort of racial justice filter. I think Boyd is probably justified in shooting the suspected burglar (who was probably also a minority, but that isn't mentioned). It doesn't appear Boyd is going to be charged with murder, but rather that the police found evidence of drug dealing during the shooting investigation. Michael Drejka in the instant case didn't drop a pound of marijuana on the ground while shooting Markeis McGlockton who illegally parked in a handicapped parking spot.

Normally, I would say something like, "you do understand the difference here, don't you?" However, I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't understand the difference. I don't think SpecialOlympian gets it either, and I think that persistent misunderstanding falls along racial lines (that is, I don't think you are white) and is not some sort of rhetorical contrivance you have concocted for trolling purposes.

As for Sherell "Rell" Lewis getting run over, there is no evidence presented that Matthew Martin intended to run over Lewis, which would make it a homicide rather than an accident. It does show, however, that the Matthew Martin is exceptionally cavalier about the accident. If you can demonstrate that Matthew Martin intended to kill, then you most certainly have a case. You can't prosecute someone just because they are heartless assholes after an accident. If we could, I'd buy stock in prison construction companies, because we currently don't have enough places to put all the assholes.

If our ability is not lasting 5 minutes in the sun, than I agree.

You come across as more sincere when you aren't purporting to be white. White people do last more than 5 minutes in the sun.

It seems whites especially law and order folk have tendency to project their unlawful actions and insecurity upon Blacks when interacting them, as if there were some correlation between right wing people and their ability to scapegoat minorities for whites lack of responsibility.

This thread isn't about law enforcement taking unlawful actions against blacks, and nothing has been presented to that effect. Are you suggesting that the police are acting in an unlawful manner in the Boyd case? I think a good attorney would work to suppress any evidence the police found following the shooting on 4th Amendment grounds. I think pot laws are pretty stupid. Police should focus on drugs that lead to anti-social behavior, like methamphetamine, PCP, ketamine, etc. Your trailing comment isn't clear to me. What do you mean about right wing people scapegoating minorities (as though there are no right wing minorities) for white people's lack of responsibility?

He move back with his hands in the air.

I just watched the video again. This is a figment of your imagination.

Irrelevant considering people get arrested for not following police instructions if their lucky.

If the police are giving you a lawful order, you have to comply. A dispatcher making a suggestion isn't giving a lawful order.

He harass and goated the boy, where upon Martin defended himself.

This is why I say that there is a clear delineation between people who think confronting unpleasant behavior with violence is okay, and those who think it is understandable, but unlawful. Markeis McGlockton's behavior is understandable, but it was clearly unlawful. Michael Drejka's behavior was lawful, but not at all agreeable. You can't prosecute someone simply because the outcome is disagreeable. It has to be unlawful. That is a difference I don't think you understand, and I think that is true of a great many people.

As the law clearly cleared the so called murderer of Katie Satie.

Again, can you provide a substantive link. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Like how the media concocted the stories of how Dylan Rood wasn't a terrorist and he had "mental issue".

Generally, the point of characterising someone as a terrorist is so that the law can take action against cohorts/co-conspirators/accessories. In the Roof case, he clearly acted alone. If it makes you feel better to call him a terrorist, that's fine with me. As a matter of law, it's just not a substantive argument.

They also did the same Nia Long killer, a white supremacist with a criminal record.

Again, if you would substantiate the name dropping, I could at least comment. The only Nia Long I came up with is still alive. Are you saying Nia Long was killed or that Nia Long is a killer?

Again same with the Seth Rich and Fox News

Seth Rich's murder isn't a racial storyline, a stand your ground line, etc. The reason people question his murder is that it looks to many people like it was a deep state hit.

The juries are known to have racist biases. The stand-your-ground law is clear indeed, only to harm minorities.

Hardly. In your first case, Boyd isn't being charged with murder, which would happen under Texas law. The article noted that he might face federal charges, because of the marijuana.

Trump pardoning of the Bundy militia, Dinesh D'souza and Joe Arpario

Arpaio was pardoned, because he was held in contempt more or less for upholding the law. Dinesh D'Souza was pardoned, because he was singled out for being anti-Obama. The Hammonds were pardoned because they were also harshly treated for a controlled burn that got out of control. I think all of them were political as well, which would inure to Trump's political benefit.

So you had an racist opinion without any form of evidence.

I am a libertarian, not an egalitarian. So I don't have a problem with racial attitudes or outlooks. I only have a problem crimes against the person and crimes against the property of a person. I don't even delve much into the notion of "rights" anymore, since the Supreme Court is making a mockery out of the notion.

Violence isn't accepted by any group receiving it, Black or white.

That's an odd point to make when you are expressing dismay that a black man was shot after initiating violence.

If anything for whites our violence is not acceptable among any race including ourselves regardless of being larger or smaller within our proximity.

This is why I think multiculturalism is not a workable idea. Multicultural societies usually are plagued with chronic internecine violence.

Funny enough it was the white supremacists who made the claim, in order to downplay the fact Zimmerman and majority of Hispanics consider themselves white.

It was the media that ran that narrative, because they were trying to create black vs. white conflict and plug "teachable moments." The problem is that the intent of the propaganda program utterly missed the mark. The media realized it could get ratings by fanning disagreement.

I don't know where you get the idea of that the "establishment" wanted to divide people European dissent, conservatives do a good job themselves. They don't consider Spanish European.

This is why it's silly for you to proffer yourself as white. Perhaps you have some European ancestry, but I'm guessing you are black. Europe is not a united people and never has been. European Americans aren't either, although civic nationalism blunted that fact until the establishment embraced multiculturalism. Here in America, I'm white. In the UK, my first name makes me a Catholic. In Ireland, my last name makes me English. There are no white people in Europe. It's an American abstraction. Perhaps Europeans will start seeing it that way as they start creating the same sorts of ghettos the US has. At least now they can't be as smug as they used to be.

Cause they're idiots who voted for him in a last ditch effort to retain racial supremacy in america, not knowing like clockwork it will kill more of them than it will for Blacks.

There are lots of idiots in the United States, and they didn't all vote for Trump.

That's it, you're a racist, they're racist, you want race war.

I've never called for a race war. I do think by the time I'm Drlee or jimjam's age, I'll have seen some things that make Hitler look like a piker though.

Cause the lesson has not stuck in, til people like you stop disturbering shit like "it seems that blacks seem to have problems interacting with police officers regardless of the police officer's race, as if there were some innate oppositional defiance disorder more prevalent among black populations."

That suggests that your political theory is too frail to stand up to anything failing absolute adherence. That is why I see it as pointless.

It could also be due to the fact that the black man in this case did in fact violate the handicap parking space laws, whereas Trayvon Martin hadn't violated any laws until he assaulted Zimmerman.


Not a justification for their deaths.

I'm sure you feel that way as a moral matter. As a legal matter, it is justified. It's a bitter pill. Neither Martin nor McGlockton would be dead today had they not initiated violence the force of which knocked people to the ground. The law of the jungle doesn't prevail in modern society.

You're defending a criminal who at a history of violent confrontation and wanted to kill.

I've said numerous times that I think he's an asshole, like I think most SJWs are assholes. He's just not guilty of murder.

I'm only wasting my time, you're trying to gaslight me again.

I'm not trying to gaslight you. I'm trying to get you to see that white people educated in civics and law will see these events in a fundamentally different way than black people do. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, good or bad as a general remark. I would just follow on that this is why I think multiculturalism will not work. This "race war" stuff is a product of your imagination, not mine.

[SpecialOlympian]

Hell yeah. However, I will genuinely be surprised if a Florida jury shatters precedent by finding a white gun carrying dangerous lunatic Well Regulated Militia member guilty of murdering a black person.