Trump Supporter Arrested In Alleged Plot To Bomb Muslims

[LegendKiller]

Trayvon?! Tray-von-n-nn!? You think that's a "non-issue?!

I watched that entire fiasco unfold from day one, through an entire year, through the televised parts of the trial and their witnesses. They interviewed the jurors. It was obvious to me that one of the "white" jurors had applied a stereotype from a recent movie to Rachel Jeantel. "The witness simply wasn't credible." For what? Verifying that she was talking on the cell-phone with her friend at the time Zimmerman interrupted him? That was corroborated by the cell-phone records!

Passive-aggressive? Sure! "Yes! Sah!" "No, Sah!" "That wasn't what I said, Suh!"

Some say that Trayvon should've called 911. But I can see it for myself. Somebody comes up to me, with no appearance of authority, on the turf where I'm staying overnight at my father's house (or any other situation) to interrupt me during a telephone conversation -- I'm gonna be tempted to rearrange his face!

Stand my ground! Stand your ground!

All of these cases are different. Darren Wilson got a raw deal, and the rest of his life will taste like dry, hard-pan dirt. But the episode sparked attention to the fact of something very wrong with the governance of that community.

Be careful how you throw all the stories into the same pot.

Trayvon was a dirt bag fighting fool who did drugs, was a thief and who wanted to fight ( and glorified it). He was only there after being suspended. His father had a lot of problems with him. Jeantel said he was going out, after going home, to confront Zimmerman. That's it.

His family hired good pr guys to scrub the bad side, present a "kid" picture and froth up racism. Hence the "white hispanic" and "f'ing c##n" garbage.

You wanna pick somebody who needs to be held up as a standard bearer to fix black people getting killed? Pick Hadiya Pendleton. That's it. Nobody else is needed.

The two fucking clowns that killed her exemplify the problem. Fighters, thieves, druggies.

 

[CZroe]

Trayvon?! Tray-von-n-nn!? You think that's a "non-issue?!

I watched that entire fiasco unfold from day one, through an entire year, through the televised parts of the trial and their witnesses. They interviewed the jurors. It was obvious to me that one of the "white" jurors had applied a stereotype from a recent movie to Rachel Jeantel. "The witness simply wasn't credible." For what? Verifying that she was talking on the cell-phone with her friend at the time Zimmerman interrupted him? That was corroborated by the cell-phone records!

Passive-aggressive? Sure! "Yes! Sah!" "No, Sah!" "That wasn't what I said, Suh!"

Some say that Trayvon should've called 911. But I can see it for myself. Somebody comes up to me, with no appearance of authority, on the turf where I'm staying overnight at my father's house (or any other situation) to interrupt me during a telephone conversation -- I'm gonna be tempted to rearrange his face!

Stand my ground! Stand your ground!

All of these cases are different. Darren Wilson got a raw deal, and the rest of his life will taste like dry, hard-pan dirt. But the episode sparked attention to the fact of something very wrong with the governance of that community.

Be careful how you throw all the stories into the same pot.

Hook, line, and sinker. You swallowed that bait so hard you took the rod and reel with it.

 

[zinfamous]

did trump tell this guy to go hurt somebody?

I agree that the headline is terrible and rather disingenuous, but yeah...Trump pretty much did.

Ignoring his hateful rhetoric for exactly what it is, is rather naive.

Trump isn't an idiot, and while I generally don't think he is as hateful as he presents himself (I still think he is basically acting on stage at this point--playing a role generated to appeal to a certain group), he is very much intentionally exploiting the passions of a certain group of people.

He knows exactly what he is doing. It's common enough knowledge that you don't have to directly command people to do the thing that you want them to do. The mere presence of a leader that people respect is enough, and we know this through history.

Trump has captured the minds of the dumbest of the dumbest pieces of shit in this country, no question. Clearly, when we have seen several stories already about intended violence against immigrants or muslims (citizens or not), and these brainless trump supporters announce their allegiance to the hairless one, you don't have to think too hard to accept the fact that they absorb his rhetoric as true support from their leader.

Not to sounds too cliche, but Hitler managed this to great affect early on in his path to power, when he didn't have the powerbase to make direct commands. Exploit the weak, the poor, and the uneducated by appealing to their basest passions, promise them the world (A restored German power; something "more terrific!" than Obamacare), and set them loose.

So, yeah, the title is retarded, but it's certainly useful to continually remind the public of the fact that this wise and beautiful woman Stain in a political campaign bus is, without any shred of a doubt, encouraging this kind of activity from some rather serious individuals.

 

[zinfamous]

Lol, you do realize how much of the leftist media is doing the same to trump. Don't see you calling them out.

This is basically how the media has handled Trump so far:

--show his clips over an over again
--Media Comment is essentially nothing more than "What will Trump say next? Is this finally the comment that will bury Trump? Trump support rises despite inflammatory rhetoric" etc.

Yet, you interpret this as "The Leftist Media is doing things to Trump!"

No, the media, which really isn't leftist you fucking twit, is simply showing trump be trump.

Trump says trump things over and over, CNN and Fox continually wonder why his support rises, (it's actually relatively steady and minor--so if anything, they are showing him to be more popular than he actually is) but they keep showing Trump be trump. That is it.

It seems you are suggesting that they are showing trump in a bad light, something that seems worse than it is. It actually suggests that you don't like what you are seeing....yet all they are doing is showing Trump. So you are essentially arguing that you really don't like trump, yet you have been out here claiming that you support trump, and blaming any negative character about trump on media lies...none of which is happening.

You are the perfect trump supporter: A paranoid and delusional bigot with the brainpan of a stagecoach-tilter.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

This is basically how the media has handled Trump so far:

--show his clips over an over again
--Media Comment is essentially nothing more than "What will Trump say next? Is this finally the comment that will bury Trump? Trump support rises despite inflammatory rhetoric" etc.

Yet, you interpret this as "The Leftist Media is doing things to Trump!"

No, the media, which really isn't leftist you fucking twit, is simply showing trump be trump.

Trump says trump things over and over, CNN and Fox continually wonder why his support rises, (it's actually relatively steady and minor--so if anything, they are showing him to be more popular than he actually is) but they keep showing Trump be trump. That is it.

It seems you are suggesting that they are showing trump in a bad light, something that seems worse than it is. It actually suggests that you don't like what you are seeing....yet all they are doing is showing Trump. So you are essentially arguing that you really don't like trump, yet you have been out here claiming that you support trump, and blaming any negative character about trump on media lies...none of which is happening.

You are the perfect trump supporter: A paranoid and delusional bigot with the brainpan of a stagecoach-tilter.

"Liberal media" is a cliché. Cliché-s more often than not provide repetitive propaganda. There are two types of journalism: objective, and advocacy.

Neither type of media will likely be accused of printing or broadcasting news which is false, because there are enough individuals or organizations that fact-check. And news-consumers can cross-check stories from different sources. Something in a news story actually happened, or it didn't happen.

Now, the media can spin the story about the facts, but advocacy media is more likely to infect AP and UPI releases with editorial comment and phrases that belong in the "opinion" section. I've seen locals in my area suggest that something appearing in the "opinion" section is "news" -- which is totally absurd. If an op-ed writer cites some fact or story, it should be independently verifiable from any number of sources. How he uses those facts -- is more likely opinion. Opinion could involve lock-tight inference and deduction, or totally flawed logic, and that all eventually gets thrashed out if there's an open discussion about it.

Our paper here had been run out of a Dallas penthouse by an umbrella media corporation. If they ever published "both sides" of op-ed opinions, it would mostly be the occasional Maureen Dowd article or Leonard Pitts. But they would never, never offer any other than criticism of an Democrat elected official; they always advocate for the GOP; they choose their headlines and which page to publish a story to bolster that viewpoint.

Yet, their readership has accused them of being "Liberal media." They've recently changed hands -- from the Dallas company to ownership by the conservative Orange County Register. Suddenly, they won't even make an appearance of "fair and balanced:" No more op-eds from journalists generally agreed to offer a "liberal" viewpoint.

And yet the voter registration profile of the county served by the newspaper shows over 700,000 registered voters, but only a spread between "D" and "R" of some 30,000 favoring the latter.

People who subscribe to the Liberal Media Myth more likely just don't like the facts or presentation. Because the facts don't support their view of how the world should be, as opposed to how it is. They have a right to complain or dislike editorial comment: For instance, just about all the "opinion" offered by MSNBC, as opposed to the limp-wristed "Morning Joe" which even includes mildly liberal counterpoint by Mika Brezinski. But news is news, and Andrea Mitchell is Alan Greenspan's spouse -- last I heard. They may emphasize some news item over others while FOX may suppress the same item to "minor status." But newspapers do that, and certainly not all newspapers are "Liberal media." Nor is FOX.