After Obama splashed gasoline on the Trayvonista uprisings Friday, again explicitly identifying with the violent hooligan who attacked George Zimmerman (“Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago” — yeah right) and even denouncing white women for clutching their purses nervously when blacks (who are eight times more likely to commit robbery than other races according to the federal government itself) step onto the elevator, it was too much to expect that the people who installed him in power would call him out for being irresponsible. But are gratuitous insults to our intelligence really necessary? AP led off its piece on the speech with an oversized version of this:
[Photos of a young Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.]
Can they possibly be serious? By now everyone on the planet knows that it was not a cherubic 12-year-old who repeatedly bashed Zimmerman’s skull against the sidewalk but a full-grown thug just short of 18. This could be yet another example of information gatekeepers taking the Big Lie strategy to the point of self-parody — or maybe it is a tacit admission by the “mainstream” media that it has no credibility left to lose among anyone except Kool-Aid–guzzling cretins who like to be told how special they are for swallowing establishment ideology.
23 comments
Edit: Expanded on comment.
How do you get through each day living in your fantasy world where everything is on fire all the time?
Trayvon Martin was neither a twelve year old Jesus allegory nor a twenty year old ex-con. He was a perfectly average teenager - yes, even considering the pot suspension - on his way home from a trip to the store that was chased down, accosted, and ultimately shot dead after being "profiled" by a wannabe vigilante.
Zimmerman had no authority to detain Martin, and in attempting to do so was commiting a crime himself. Zimmerman gave a changing account that contradicts itself and physical evidence.
It's starting to look like an actual goddamned criminal would win more sympathy from you, so long as they weren't black. But you know something? If Trayvon Martin had been a 60 year old who was released from prison the previous day with a rap sheet longer than my list of reasons to hate you what Zimmerman did would still have been a crime. Even if we ignore blatant racial profiling it would still be a crime. As Trayvon Martin was not in the immediate process of breaking and entering or assaulting an old woman or burning a house down or the comission of any crime whatsoever there was no legally defendable reason to attempt to detain him as Zimmerman was trying to do.
There is a first aggressor clause in Florida's laws that negates a self defense claim if the defendant initiates a confrontation or threatens the victim. Trayvon Martin had ample reason to believe his life was in danger and had a right to defend himself whereas Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, but going over the court proceedings I've found that the jury was specifically instructed to ignore this. The jury was asked to disregard a lot of things. They were even flat out told to find Zimmerman not guilty of the murder charge even if they had reasonable doubt to the justification of deadly force or even Zimmerman's claim that Martin ambushed him.
and even denouncing white women for clutching their purses nervously when blacks (who are eight times more likely to commit robbery than other races according to the federal government itself
Men are nine times more likely to commit homicide than women. Yet you get antsy when women express any sort of worry about men who are violent. Why would that be?
1. There were no uprisings.
2. There was no "denouncing" going on.
3. Unless Zimmerman knew about Martin's record, it is simply irrelevant. You can't drive over somebody with a car and when it turns out it was a serial killer, use that as a defense.
Well said Passerby, that was much more eloquent than this sack of garbage deserves, but very informative and true. And to think, I just came in here to call Dave a 'fuck head'.
@1570745: The Spanish suffix -ista is English now. In the Spanish original -ista is either the translation of of the English suffix -ist, or denotes a scholar or well skilled laborer of a craft - for example, a barista is a loan word from Italian (which shares a lot of grammar with Spanish) meaning "bar person", but the meaning shift in English (thanks to the loaned suffix from Spanish) puts the barista behind a coffee bar and makes him or her (baiscally) a "skilled maker of coffee".
So, if "Trayvon-" in this case stands for an ideal or tactic, the word Trayvonista is absolutely grammatically ok. Though, as Davie fails to actually define what the hell he means, he fails with the word. Which really isn't the word's fault...
@Rabbit of Caerbannog
That's why I said:" Just kidding. Most of the sources they provide are full of bias and bullshit. Still hate liberals, though." Jeez man, you liberals not only have trouble reading but also can't take a joke? Well, that explains why liberals are adamant in defending political correctness.
@Ebon
I did not come on to this website with the intention of "making friends". I came on FSTDT to chastise and laugh at the most paranoid, bigoted and idiotic people of the internet. But alas, my words land on the ears of close-minded leftists. Which is at least better than being called a "nigger lover", "naive lefty" or a "slave of the jews".
Oh great, now we have another troll registered with us.
Better hope this guy's not The Real American Cowboy 2.0.
^ Posting a racist study as evidence, only going "haha it was a joke" on us, then taking pot shots against the left after, what, 3 people calling you out on your bullshit somehow makes us worst than shitefront.
Listen kid, what did you expect going on F(R)STDT posting shit and going "dohohoho lib'ruls are dumb"?
@Lord Ghetsis
"Sigh" I admit my attempts at "humor" were just bad examples of sophistry and my comparison to stormfront (which I deleted)was unwarranted. Now, back to the topic at hand, "or maybe it is a tacit admission by the “mainstream” media that it has no credibility left to lose among anyone except Kool-Aidguzzling cretins" I bet the media had tons of credibility when it was right-leaning, right? Especially when it was TOTALLY not racist towards the civil rights movement. "or maybe it is a tacit admission by the “mainstream” media that it has no credibility left to lose among anyone except Kool-Aidguzzling cretins who like to be told how special they are for swallowing establishment ideology." Funny,I thought fascism was a right-wing thing.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.