Meet the New Klan
Left-wingers aren't the only ones disgracing themselves by prejudging the Trayvon Martin case. My print column is up.
posted by Spencerblog at
9:22 AM
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
posted by Spencerblog at
9:22 AM
RSS Feeds© Copyright The Delaware County Times, a Journal Register Property & part of Journal Register PA -- All rights reserved | Our Publications | About Our Ads | Privacy Policy/Terms of Service
97 Comments:
Gil - Thanks for the opening. You ask "If Zimmerman had been a 27-year-old black man, and the 17-year-old he killed had been white, would all these nitwits be assuming they know more about the facts of the case than the police investigating it? Would they be declaring a black man’s guilt and marching for justice for the white kid’s family?" Shouldn't you also be asking "If Zimmerman had been a 27 year-old black man, and the 17 year old he killed was white, would Zimmerman still be walking the streets?"
A fair point.
But as mentioned in the paragraph above the one you quoted, a black man in Philadelphia was immediately locked up after defending himself against a robbery assault.
No one of any color should be presumed guilty and have their liberty taken away from them if there is substantial evidence they acted in self defense.
BTW, Zimmerman isn't walking the streets. He's in hiding thanks to the death threats brought on by the inflammatory behavior and comments of Rev. Al and the rest.
It's a credit to the NAACP that it is condemning Sharpton's angry calls to pour more gasoline on this fire.
We agree on that. As I've said, they are fanning the flames of a volitile situation. Not only is it wrong, it's stupid.
So then we all can agree that Obama demonstrated horrible judgment when he made the incendiary comments of Trayvon looking like his son if he had one.
President Obama, Mayor Nutter, Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton have only one thing in their mind here. Stir up the base for a reelection run this November.
Never waste a crisis, even if you have to make up a crisis.
Good job boy's. Keep fanning the flames.
Not fanning just stating fact
Anon - Accusing Democrats of using the Martin Case to rally the base for reelection is fact? Like I said. Keep fanning the flames of hate boy's.
Conveniently changing the subject, Bob. Do we agree or not that Obama was totally out of line?
Jake - I just read the Presidents statement again. No doubt you would like to make his statement an issue, but no. I don't think it was exceptionaly inflamatory. I would agree that Sharpton and Spike Lee went way over the edge, but to group the president with them for his statement isn't fair.
Maybe you should listen to it again. He calls for calm and a thorough investigation.
I posted his statement for you. I hope it helps you differentiate his remarks from the others.
President Obama statement on Trayvon Martin case
“Obviously this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. When I think about this boy I think about my own kids and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.
I’m glad that not only the Justice Department is looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place.
I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened. That means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident.
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
Once again, Bob, you can't see the forest for the trees.
When the President of the United States interjects himself into a local criminal matter, it's inappropriate and out of line.
When POTUS emotionally describes the victim as looking like his son, it's incendiary.
All of the wild statements and bounty talk by the liberal Democrat crazies occurred after Obama tacitly gave his blessing to their beat down of Zimmerman.
Of course, his written statement looks okay. He has hundreds of people paid millions of dollars to make him appear Presidential.
But it doesn't change the fact that Obama chose to pick this fight, in the middle of a campaign, and is culpable for all the animosity and potential bloodshed his self-serving interference could cause.
Jake - You write "All of the wild statements and bounty talk by the liberal Democrat crazies occurred after Obama tacitly gave his blessing to their beat down of Zimmerman." Check your facts. The Sharpton rally and the Spike Lee incident happened before the Presidents statement was made.
Even if his statements rubbed some people the wrong way, they were far from inflamatory. To suggest that is, in itself, hyping the words of the president to create more division. Consider the words of Mayor Nutter. His words were inflamatory.
Obama made a serious error in judgment, sticking his nose into a matter where it didn't belong.
Check your facts, Bob. We're tired of your distortions to cover up this administration's incompetence and partisan agenda.
The Black Panther bounties, the hoody marches, the black Congressman wearing a hoody in Congress, Mayor Nutter's crazy talk, and countless other inflammatory rhetoric all were inspired by Obama's divisive political involvement.
The President acted shamefully and his pandering does a disservice to Americans of all races and colors.
Now tell me how you really feel Jake.
Bob,
Why this boy? Why comment on this parents son? Can you not see through this?
Look at the deaths in Chicago, Detroit, Philly and our own local Chester. Why don't these people "look like Obama's son?"
It was race baiting, plain and simple. It will get in the way of the facts, believe me.
I don't think it's right of you to call a group of people who want justice the Klan.
Danny - Because it's front page news and because a reporter asked him the question. You make it sound like he had someone plant the question so he could comment on it. You say it will get in the way of the facts? Seems to me as though certain people have already gotten in the way of the facts, and thats why Zimmerman walked. Maybe you should ask Inspector Serino who's getting in the way of the facts. For some reason people on the right have become so focused on the fallout and politics surrounding this case that they are forgetting about the death of this poor kid. This kids parents deserve answers Danny. What if it were your kid? You've constantly made excuse after excuse for Zimmerman. I'm not buying it.
35 days later and no charges have been filed. The President could have said he hates all violence. Why mentioning it could have been his son? That was a planned response. Do you not think reporters don't throw softball questions to the POTUS as requested? You do have blinders on. And this tragedy happened at the end of February, and yet the MSM didn't grab onto it until 3 weeks to a month later? Timing is everything.
Walking back all the lies, er I mean mistakes...
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/as-the-trayvon-martin-walkbacks-threaten-to-become-a-stampede.html
Danny - 35 days later and no charges have been filed in a case with obvious inconsistencies. That IS an issue. You have children. So does the president. How can you, as a parent, not want the Martins to get the answers they so badly need? The authorities haven't even interviewed Martins girl friend yet. 35 days later!
Jake - You want to rail against distortions in the case, I'm sure there's plenty that we would agree on. Sharpton, Spike Lee, Nutter, the NBC tape edits. But the Presidents comments are pretty benign.
When it was Marines in Afghanistan urinating on a corpse, Obama was quick to condemn them and promise swift punishment to keep a lid on future violence.Bob applauds.
Yet here in America, Obama incites all the liberal Democrat nut jobs with his emotional adoption of Trayvon as his son. Bob still applauds.
Why is it so important to Obama to keep the peace in a strange land, while encouraging civic unrest in his own country? Bob says we are racists for asking this obvious question.
Jake - Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've expressed sympathy for Zimmerman, but not once have you posted an expression of sympathy for Martin or his parents.
Jake - Here's a quote. You accuse Obama and others of "crucifying this poor Hispanic man."
Obviously, the death of any young person is a tragedy.
Personal expressions of sympathy are best conveyed by family and friends. That's a little more genuine than all the despicable opportunists trying to advance an agenda at the expense of the Martins.
Bob, do you think it's appropriate for Obama to use this awful tragedy, for both the Zimmerman and Martin families, to advance his own political goals?
I don't. I think Obama's actions are offensive.
Buy you're fine with it, right?
Jake - You're the opportunist here. Trying to convince yourself and others that Obamas statements were politicaly motivated.
I've just reviewed all of your replies. You never once express sympathy for Martin. You write "Personal expressions of sympathy are best conveyed by family and friends." and yet you had no problem expressing your personal sympathy for Zimmerman! Why is that Jake? The only person on this blog, other than me, who has expressed sympathy for Martin or his family is Gil, and his expression of sympathy was at best minimal, overshadowed by his focus on the external events surrounding the case.
Contrary to your self-indulgent world, Bob, I'm happy to say it's not about me.
The Martins don't need my sympathy or my intrusion into their grief.
What is needed is a skeptical eye towards all the liberal Democrats who are trying to create an election year issue out of this tragedy.
What is especially needed is a vigorous repudiation of this partisan pandering.
Are you ready to step up, Bob, and denounce Obama for his irresponsible hate mongering?
I've reviewed all your replies and you almost seem happy about the turmoil and potential bloodshed that Obama has provoked.
Jake - You write "The Martins don't need my sympathy or my intrusion into their grief." , but Zimmerman does? Thats twisted Jake.
You also write "I've reviewed all your replies and you almost seem happy about the turmoil and potential bloodshed that Obama has provoked." OK Jake. It's all archived. Give examples. I'll wait.
Bob,
I'm sorry that the understanding and sympathy I expressed for the Martin family seemed "minimal" to you.
Would you say own expressions of sympathy have been more than minimal?
If so, you must have at least sent the Trayvon's family a card expressing your condolences.
"Seeming to care" is one of the great liberal virtues. Bill Clinton was excellent at it. Supposedly "feeling" other people's "pain" was one of his brilliant talents as a politician. Even to the point of being able to tell them how to help themselves. As in "I'd put a little ice on that if I were you."
Touting your own expressions of sympathy and criticizing others for failing to match them is just sort of lame. You should know better.
Sorry, the actual quote, according to Juanita Broderick was "You better get some ice on that."
Gil - I wasn't criticizing Jake and the others for not matching my sympathy. I was criticizing them for showing no sympathy at all. At least not for Martin. I was criticizing them for going the other direction and showing sympathy for Zimmerman! Maybe you Jake Danny and Chuck can send a sympathy card to Zimmerman. My observation as to who is sympathetic to which side might seem lame to you, but any reasonable person reading these posts will find an unusual lack of compassion for the victim and his family. You have posted at least 13 times on the Martin Zimmerman story, and only one of those posts deals directly with the incident and attempts to understand what Martin might have been dealing with. Have you posted once about the Martin family's search for justice and answers in the death of their son?
Gil - BTW, I was referring to sympathy expressed on Spencerblog, not actual expressions of sympathy directly to the family. You should know better.
Bob,
You said you thought Obama's statement wasn't "exceptionaly(sic) inflamatory(sic)".
So it's okay if he's inflammatory as long as he isn't exceptionally inflammatory? You have such a high standard for the leader of the free world.
Your judgment is just as wrong as your spelling.
I ask again, Bob, are you ready to step up and denounce Obama for his irresponsible hate mongering?
Jake - Too bad your reading comprehension skills aren't as good as your spelling skills.
You also wrote about me "I've reviewed all your replies and you almost seem happy about the turmoil and potential bloodshed that Obama has provoked." More archived proof of your lies Jake.
Bob,
Quit with the "expressions of sympathy" crap. They are as worthless and they make you look like a preening jackass.
Maybe the "I care more than you do" stuff works when running for public office, it might work for prosecutors trying to convict someone based on the terribleness of a crime instead of focusing on the facts of the case, but its childish and it's not welcome here.
Thanks Gil. I'll make note of that.
No expressions of sympathy for the Martins on Spencerblog. Got it.
Gil - Ebonics?
Censure blog
Good. And that goes all other gratuitous expressions of "I feel people's pain more than you do."
Thank you. Your cooperation is well appreciated.
Gil - You should have left your botched reply up. It was pretty funny. And you still didn't get it right. Where's your proof reader? Jake? You there? Where's our resident proof reader when Gil makes a mistake?
Jake's probably standing in front of his house waiting for those Amish guys to deliver his free heater.
He's probably out buying more ammunition for when the special prosecutor comes out and does not press charges against George Zimmerman!! I think we will have Rodney King part 2 at that point.
How do I sue Jackson, Nutter, Sharpton and the President for inciting a riot?
I am very sad for the Martin families loss. They should have taught their child to call the police when a strange man follows them.
That's good Danny. Blame the victim.
And he shouldn't have been wearing that hoodie. I heard that on FOX.
Bob,
I know this is just recreational word games to you.
But for the rest of us, there is grave concern about how Obama is dividing and disrupting the country.
This forum permits us to reach like-minded people and explore those grave concerns.
While your archive references and tit-for-tat might make you feel important, they distract from the conclusions that reasonable people have to make about the direction, leadership and motives of this current administration.
Bob,
Anyone on Spencerblog is free to take down a reply that has a typo in it or is otherwise, "botched" as you say. You have done it many times. But not enough.
Cheers
Congratulations Jake! You win the drama Queen of the week award. Sorry Danny. Maybe next time.
You know how much I love that movie, Bob. Forrest Gump said it all. Stupid is as stupid does.
Not blaming him, I'm blaming his upbringing. Or lack of a good one!
Gil - I know, but you should leave the funny ones up.
Appreciate the recognition, Bob.
But my modest comments pale(yes, that was deliberate) in comparison to Obama's incendiary drama of calling Trayvon his son if he had one.
Jake - Pale. Good one Jake! You write "This forum permits us to reach like-minded people and explore those grave concerns"
I'll leave it up to Gil. If he wants me to stop replying to posts on Spencerblog, I'll do so.
Bob, don't stop posting, we need someone to be as wrong as you constantly are.
I'm sure Gil welcomes you, as do I.
Your recreational word games are amusing, but substance is generally more effective in helping review current events.
We'll see
Jake - Claiming that sailors are actually soldiers? Word games. Danny claiming that Travon was armed because he had arms? Word games. You can do better than that.
But I'm feelin the love.
Believe in America, Bob.
I do Jake. I do believe in America. I'm optimistic. Not only do I believe in your right to disagree with me, I'm glad you disagree with me. America is the great balancing act.
Believing in America isn't the same as believing in the flawed people running the government.
Believing in America isn't believing that government will take care of you and make life fair.
Believing in America means government gets out of the way and stops needlessly intruding into our lives.
Believing in America makes us not want to leave an irresponsible burden of debt on our children.
Believing in America is believing and electing people of skill and accomplishment, who solve problems and bring us together.
Believing in America is believing in the dignity of employment, the value of citizenship, the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for, and the smallest government possible to address its specifically enumerated role.
My point was, Bob, that a man can beat someone to death, and an assault of having ones head allegedly slammed against the cement could possibly make someone feel their life is threatened. Maybe it was a poor example, but if those ARMs belong to Mike Tyson they are weapons.
I could have expressed my thoughts better. Sorry you took it as word play!
jake - Considering the topic at hand, I'm surprised you missed this one. The last four words of our pledge of allegiance.
"....AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
Yes, Bob, but when Obama skips saying "under God" to appease his liberal heathen supporters, he invalidates the Pledge.
Jake - VERY GOOD POINT! So all of the people who pledged allegiance to this country prior to 1954 were making an invalid pledge. My Dad is WWll Vet. I'll let him know.
Check Mate
Congrats, Bob, that might be your dumbest post yet.
If your dad were to read it, he might think your conception on or about 1954 was invalid.
Jake - Here's a little history lesson for you. The "Under God" wasn't added until 1954. Funny how you lash out with personal insults when you realize you've made a fool of yourself.
Stop it, Bob.
Don't double down on dumb.
Obama wasn't even born in 1954, if you believe his half-assed birth certificate.
The fact that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge 58 years ago is completely irrelevant to whether Obama says them today.
Jake - You lose. Your post was stupid. You got called on it, and you resorted to a personal attack because you have the need to lash out like a child. Maybe you need to talk to someone Jake. You have issues.
Playing the martyr card while off-topic and spouting nonsense...another stellar liberal contribution to the dialogue.
Yes, Bob, I do have issues. America has serious leadership problems. This forum ought to be issue-oriented rather than your recreational word games.
Jake - OK. Just for the sake of argument, I'll entertain your thoughts on this, but first I need a few answers. Did Obama leave out "under god" while saying the pledge, or is this a hypothetical situation? Does leaving out "under god" invalidate the pledge only when Obama leaves it out or does this pertain to anyone who says the pledge leaving out the "under god" part? You say this invalidates the pledge. If so, how so.
Bob,
I don't care how Obama says the Pledge. I think it is meaningful that he chooses to say it differently than most Americans.
I also think it is meaningful that he has interjected himself into a local criminal matter using an emotional appeal that is racially divisive.
You don't think either of these actions are wrong. I disagree.
Jake - If you don't care how Obama says the pledge, why even bother to bring it up. And you accuse me of veering off course!
Captain Hindsight,
You brought up the Pledge.
I gave you the courtesy of my profound insight, even though you were off-topic.
Jake - It's the Travon Martin case.
Justice is off-topic?
Anyway, thanks for being my little conservative guinea pig.
And I thought when you mentioned "and justice for all" you were taking a stand against the liberal rush to judgement against Zimmerman.
jake - If I was, that would still be on topic, wouldn't it?
Check Mate
Bob,
I'm glad you've finally recognized your problem with staying on topic.
Now all you have to do is focus on making sense.
Jake - You kind of remind me of Wylie Coyote. You just can't wait to have another anvil dropped on your head. Now Danny, he reminds me of Elmer Fudd.
There you go again
I'm huntin' wabbit.....
Waiting to see if charges will be brought. Should know soon!
No charges and riots will occur.
Charges and money will flow like lava to Zimmerman.
See Jake. Danny get's it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nice to see us rolling up to 100 posts.
The NBC audio script that NBC played was a "mistake."
The CNN audio of an ethnic slur was incorrect stated.
The ABC video of no injuries was over ruled by proof.
Still no charges. Maybe next week. 6 weeks and nothing yet!
Yes, Bob.
It does look like Danny gets it.
NBC editing the dispatcher's tape to make Zimmerman sound racist is just as shameful and incendiary as Obama calling Trayvon his son.
Jake - I agree with that. I'm thoroughly disgusted wuth NBC's actions and I'd like an investigation into that. And you write "The CNN audio of an ethnic slur was incorrect stated."(sic)That's still debatable. And yes, I believe there were injuries in Zimmerman, but then if you go back and read my scenario of what I think took place, you'd see that I'm being consistant. The fact remains that Zimmerman was armed, Martin wasn't, and Zimmerman was following Martin even though he was instructed not to. I call that agressive behavior. As a result, a 17 year old boy is dead.
NBC refuses to release the name of the responsible party for the doctored Zimmerman/dispatcher tapes.
Maybe we can just get Spike Lee to tweet his address...1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20500
Jake - From what Ive read, NBC has fired the resposible party.
Only the American voters, not NBC, can fire the responsible party.
Bobby my boy,
You leave one very important fact out of your statement.
Zimmerman was LEGALLY armed.
His fingerprints, photo, shooting classes, written and practical, are all on file.
IF he allegedly felt his life was in danger would you then allow for his defense of himself? Or should he just lay there and get the alleged snot beaten out of him?
Jake - So Obama edited the NBC tapes? WOW! I had no idea. Hear that on FOX?
Danny my white Irish friend - Either that, or fight back like a man using his fists.
Zimmerman kind of reminds me of the guy that walks by a fenced in yard containing a dog, and he pokes the dog with a stick. The owners tell him to knock it off but he doesn't stop. Then one day the dog jumps the fence and bites him. He shoots the dog and claims he had a right to do so because the dog attacked him.
Your analogy would predispose that Zimmerman initiated the hate in Martins alleged attack?
I don't see it as this. I conform to the rule of law. A man is innocent until proven guilty. The press, in this case ABC, NBC and CNN truly screwed the pooch(sticking with your dog analogy)along with Sharpton, Jackson, Nutter, Farakhan and YES, President Obama have initiated a discrimination on an individual that only divides the masses.
It is an unforgivable, and in my opinion, calculated error!
OH and IF George Zimmerman is NOT accused of any crime, the riots that may occur lay at the above mentioned mens feet.
Also George Zimmerman should sue the pants of those three stations for their failure to follow the rule of law.
Danny - NBC,ABC,CNN Spike Lee, Sharpton - all after the fact. I agree that they all acted like a**holes. My analogy takes place before any involvment of outside forces. I believe Zimmerman became the agressor the moment he disregarded the dispatchers instructions not to follow. Hopefully everyone will have their day in court. Don't you believe the Martins are entitled to a full, fair, and impartial investigation
Yes, I agree that the Martin family deserve a full investigation of the facts. If those facts do not support your hypothesis charges MAY not be filed. Which would mean the investigation doesn't support your hypothesis and supports a mans ability to legally defend himself against fear of death.
We'll see
Wow?!!? What a stunner of an answer!!
That almost sounded like agreement!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home