One of the 3 Oklahoma thrill killers hates white people. How is this not a hate crime?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

See, this is why liberals are asshats. They would rather take the word of one single man -- W.E.B. Dubois (isn't that French?) -- rather than a noted icon of American history such as Glenn Beck or his Peabody Award winning website, theblaze.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

See, this is why liberals are asshats. They would rather take the word of one single man -- W.E.B. Dubois (isn't that French?) -- rather than a noted icon of American history such as Glenn Beck or his Peabody Award winning website, theblaze.

He's one man with one opinion, not a deity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wilson is typical of lots of liberals--talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

Oh and conservatives never do that! Ahem...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

Ha ha! Different poster here. You slay me, pp! The other pp provided an argument based on using WEB DuBois as one indicator of progressive Black support/opposition to Wilson and then provides historical documents from DuBois supporting his/her case. And you just reject it because it's one man's opinion! Hilarious! I guess we shouldn't pay attention to anything any historian or public figure says because it's just one man's opinion. Oh! But then we could reject what you say because it's just one man's/woman's opinion!

Truly lame rejoinder, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

See, this is why liberals are asshats. They would rather take the word of one single man -- W.E.B. Dubois (isn't that French?) -- rather than a noted icon of American history such as Glenn Beck or his Peabody Award winning website, theblaze.

He's one man with one opinion, not a deity

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!! That's like saying Martin Luther King was just a Negro in the 50's and 60's. No, it's better than that. It's like the actual recorded words of the people there at the time of a historical event are not more or less valid as the musings of some random conservative poster 100 years later.

Please, keep it coming! This is too good to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

Do you even know who W.E.B. DuBois is or his role in American history?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

See, this is why liberals are asshats. They would rather take the word of one single man -- W.E.B. Dubois (isn't that French?) -- rather than a noted icon of American history such as Glenn Beck or his Peabody Award winning website, theblaze.

He's one man with one opinion, not a deity

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!! That's like saying Martin Luther King was just a Negro in the 50's and 60's. No, it's better than that. It's like the actual recorded words of the people there at the time of a historical event are not more or less valid as the musings of some random conservative poster 100 years later.

Please, keep it coming! This is too good to be true.

I know. I could not have made this up had I tried. LOL!!

[Anonymous]

This is even better when Sarah Palin was asked about what newspapers and magazines she reads, and she couldn't name any.

[Anonymous]

Funny how right-wing pinheads can't understand the difference between a) someone who stalks and kills a child and isn't even arrested (the Martin case); versus b) some kids who kill another kid and are immediately arrested and charged with capital murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how right-wing pinheads can't understand the difference between a) someone who stalks and kills a child and isn't even arrested (the Martin case); versus b) some kids who kill another kid and are immediately arrested and charged with capital murder.

I'm sorry, what happened, the Aussie wouldn't verbally answer questions and bashed their heads into the concrete first?
We've all seen the perps violent online photos and playing with guns mentality.

[Anonymous]

so what exactly is the problem here?

are conservatives upset that this murder isnt getting justice cause the three guys were arrested? are we mad that there is a line of people supporting the killers (outside their family) and think the killing was justified? name them please because they are jackasses. are we mad that we think the three teenagers wont get a fair trial and will be set free, leaving millions of black men with the idea that they can kill a white person and get a pass?

let me know. all this entertaining your nonsense on a non story about who isnt saying what is absurd. there is no outrage here because the people who did the crime are caught, in jail, and hopefully rot in hell. what more do you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so what exactly is the problem here?

are conservatives upset that this murder isnt getting justice cause the three guys were arrested? are we mad that there is a line of people supporting the killers (outside their family) and think the killing was justified? name them please because they are jackasses. are we mad that we think the three teenagers wont get a fair trial and will be set free, leaving millions of black men with the idea that they can kill a white person and get a pass?

let me know. all this entertaining your nonsense on a non story about who isnt saying what is absurd. there is no outrage here because the people who did the crime are caught, in jail, and hopefully rot in hell. what more do you want?

+1. I do not get the complaint either. I am AA. This murder was heinous and these three killers deserve whatever the justice system has in store for them. Far as I know, they were rounded up and arrested almost immediately and there has been substantial media coverage about them - and that coverage does NOT paint them as victims or symphathetic figures. Yet instead of mourning the loss of a young life, people are more worried about who said what and why. So....what I am missing?

[Anonymous]

Obama?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion

See, this is why liberals are asshats. They would rather take the word of one single man -- W.E.B. Dubois (isn't that French?) -- rather than a noted icon of American history such as Glenn Beck or his Peabody Award winning website, theblaze.

He's one man with one opinion, not a deity

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!! That's like saying Martin Luther King was just a Negro in the 50's and 60's. No, it's better than that. It's like the actual recorded words of the people there at the time of a historical event are not more or less valid as the musings of some random conservative poster 100 years later.

Please, keep it coming! This is too good to be true.

I know. I could not have made this up had I tried. LOL!!

Sorry but I'm still chuckling over this one. No wonder conservatives are scared of academia. They don't know what they are reading until someone tells them what it is and what to think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so what exactly is the problem here?

are conservatives upset that this murder isnt getting justice cause the three guys were arrested? are we mad that there is a line of people supporting the killers (outside their family) and think the killing was justified? name them please because they are jackasses. are we mad that we think the three teenagers wont get a fair trial and will be set free, leaving millions of black men with the idea that they can kill a white person and get a pass?

let me know. all this entertaining your nonsense on a non story about who isnt saying what is absurd. there is no outrage here because the people who did the crime are caught, in jail, and hopefully rot in hell. what more do you want?

+1. I do not get the complaint either. I am AA. This murder was heinous and these three killers deserve whatever the justice system has in store for them. Far as I know, they were rounded up and arrested almost immediately and there has been substantial media coverage about them - and that coverage does NOT paint them as victims or symphathetic figures. Yet instead of mourning the loss of a young life, people are more worried about who said what and why. So....what I am missing?

I think the OP is asking the question is it a hate crime since one of the killers openly hates white people and then went and killed one for fun.