• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Have you heard of Nathan Trapuzzano?

The killer is in prison, not out manning some crimewatch thingy. See the difference?

This is what I don't understand. The guy's not getting away with anything (at least not yet). The only similarity between this and Z/M is that the killer and victim were of different races. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE CASE IS DIFFERENT. Yet we're supposed to be mad that it's not getting the same coverage?
 
Not going to re-litigate that - it's over, the jury made their decision so deal with it. I'm simply pointing out why the Martin case got national attention and why Trapuzzano's case is not getting widespread national attention.

Because the only way there's any similarity between the two is if you're making it about race. The only similarity is that the shooter and victim are of different races. That's it! So unless you are focusing on the victim being white, there's nothing there.
 
The killer is in prison, not out manning some crimewatch thingy. See the difference?

You have to take that up with the juries.

One was acquitted by a jury. The other hasn't faced one yet.

The national coverage of the Martin crime happened long before he saw his jury.
 
Because the only way there's any similarity between the two is if you're making it about race. The only similarity is that the shooter and victim are of different races. That's it! So unless you are focusing on the victim being white, there's nothing there.

You're right.

One got national attention. The other didn't.
 
Because the only way there's any similarity between the two is if you're making it about race. The only similarity is that the shooter and victim are of different races. That's it! So unless you are focusing on the victim being white, there's nothing there.

I think the point is and has been that because the guy killed was white, no one gives a ****. If the races were switched, this would be the Martin case all over again.
 
I think the point is and has been that because the guy killed was white, no one gives a ****. If the races were switched, this would be the Martin case all over again.

Same as what happened in the case with the Duke lacrosse players. In March of 2006 three white boys from privilege are accused (as it turns out - falsely) of raping a black woman, and it's national news, constantly, daily, incessantly. In January of 2007, two white kids, Channon Christian & Chris Newsom, were kidnapped, raped, tortured, sodomized, and murdered by 5 black people, and you never heard a thing about it.
 
I think the point is and has been that because the guy killed was white, no one gives a ****. If the races were switched, this would be the Martin case all over again.

Same as what happened...


That's because the Jewish media is covering up the secret race war.

Wake up, white people. Fight back!


:roll:
 
That's because the Jewish media is covering up the secret race war.

Wake up, white people. Fight back!


:roll:

Maybe there was a point to your post, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe someone who has an issues with Jews would be interested.
 
Maybe there was a point to your post, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe someone who has an issues with Jews would be interested.

So, you're not aware of the standard neo-nazi call to violence?

1. Claim blacks are slaughtering and torturing whites. Include an emotionally charged story.
2. Claim the media (Jewish, of course), is covering up this race war to the detriment of whites.
3. ?
4. Profit.

Every racist group does that. It's what you're doing, consciously or not.
 
You're right.

One got national attention. The other didn't.

So the tidbit about the respective races is the only thing even remotely similar. Now why would different things get different coverage? Maybe because they're different.
 
I think the point is and has been that because the guy killed was white, no one gives a ****. If the races were switched, this would be the Martin case all over again.

So now we're back to making it about race? Jeez, when I said it was race baiting, it was all "No, it's not about that." Now it is.

If the races were switched, it would be different because it's a different situation altogether. Unless you want to tell me that Zimmerman was trying to rob Martin? Look, if a white guy robbed and killed a black guy and was arrested for doing so, what would be the controversy? Reverse the races, and you've got this case. There's no "there" there. Take race out of it, which I thought Conservatives wanted to do in all cases, and you've got this: One person robbed and killed another person. The perp was arrested and awaits trial. That's a BIG difference from Z/M.
 
So, you're not aware of the standard neo-nazi call to violence?

1. Claim blacks are slaughtering and torturing whites. Include an emotionally charged story.
2. Claim the media (Jewish, of course), is covering up this race war to the detriment of whites.
3. ?
4. Profit.

Every racist group does that. It's what you're doing, consciously or not.

No I'm not familiar with them, nor do I care. I'm not a neo-Nazi.
 
No I'm not familiar with them, nor do I care. I'm not a neo-Nazi.

You still might want to know what they do, and that you are (presumably unknowingly) doing the same.
 
You still might want to know what they do, and that you are (presumably unknowingly) doing the same.

Not at all. I made no comments about Jews. None. I also never claimed blacks are slaughtering whites. Ever.
 
So now we're back to making it about race? Jeez, when I said it was race baiting, it was all "No, it's not about that." Now it is.
Perhaps you didn't read my prior posts on the matter.

If the races were switched, it would be different because it's a different situation altogether.
How exactly?

Unless you want to tell me that Zimmerman was trying to rob Martin? Look, if a white guy robbed and killed a black guy and was arrested for doing so, what would be the controversy? Reverse the races, and you've got this case. There's no "there" there. Take race out of it, which I thought Conservatives wanted to do in all cases, and you've got this: One person robbed and killed another person. The perp was arrested and awaits trial. That's a BIG difference from Z/M.
Am I claiming there not a big difference? Who are you arguing with other than yourself?
 
Perhaps you didn't read my prior posts on the matter.

The only way it is possibly relevant to Z/M is IF you bring race into it. Leave race out, and there's no similarity at all.

How exactly?

It would be different because the facts are different.


Am I claiming there not a big difference? Who are you arguing with other than yourself?

Who are you arguing with? If we agree that it's completely different in almost any respect, then maybe that's why it gets different treatment by the press.
 
The only way it is possibly relevant to Z/M is IF you bring race into it. Leave race out, and there's no similarity at all.
The comparison on race is obvious, yet you want to ignore it. Why?

Who are you arguing with?
No one of consequence.

If we agree that it's completely different in almost any respect, then maybe that's why it gets different treatment by the press.
It is completely different except where it applies to race. Why is it okay to bring race into it with Martin and not here?
 
Not at all. I made no comments about Jews. None. I also never claimed blacks are slaughtering whites. Ever.

You claimed that crimes by blacks against whites are being ignored by the media, while crimes by whites against blacks are sensationalized for days. This is, in fact, a claim of media bias to the effect of covering up a race war.

But that part of the routine serves a second purpose. In the claim that white on black crimes are sensationalized by the media is also a promise of fame for action.
 
You claimed that crimes by blacks against whites are being ignored by the media, while crimes by whites against blacks are sensationalized for days. This is, in fact, a claim of media bias to the effect of covering up a race war.

But that part of the routine serves a second purpose. In the claim that white on black crimes are sensationalized in the media is also a promise of fame for action.

I never said anything about a race war, and would appreciate you not trying to put words into my mouth.

The fact is two cases involving black "victims" got enormous media attention - one turned out to be a lie (Duke lacrosse) and one was ridiculous for the media attention (Martin). Those can not be refuted. I never mentioned Jews, I never claimed it was a race war, and I didn't ever say "why" these facts are true - just that they are.

The Martin case wasn't a white on black crime. It was an Hispanic on black crime which as I pointed out earlier is probably not all that uncommon in places.

So spare me the "facts" you have imagined, and show me where I ever discussed Jews, race wars, or cover ups of race wars. Good luck with that - because it never happened, in this thread or anywhere else.
 
I never said anything about a race war,

Look, I'm NOT saying that you're a nazi! Ok? I'm saying that the "media cover up of black crimes and sensationalizing of white crimes" is part of a racist call to violence routine.

One either sees it or one does not. Obviously you do not, but I believe you could if you tried.
 
Look, I'm NOT saying that you're a nazi! Ok? I'm saying that the "media cover up of black crimes and sensationalizing of white crimes" is part of a racist call to violence routine.

One either sees it or one does not. Obviously you do not, but I believe you can.

But I don't care what those people say or do. I'm no Nazi and don't read threads that disparage Jews or the Jew media, let alone post in them.

And I post it like I see it. The Martin case got way too much attention from everyone from the media, the White House, the Attorney General, and people in this country. And I am aware of far more heinous crimes than the Martin one which are never mentioned by anyone from the media to the POTUS.

For the record, I feel that the JonBenet Ramsey case and the Laci Peterson cases also got far too much attention. I feel terrible for JonBenet but the door in that case swings the other way too. There are hundreds of little black and Hispanic girls who get killed and nobody ever mentions them either. Same with pregnant black and Hispanic women getting killed by their significant others.
 
But I don't care what those people say or do.

That explains why you would support their narrative unknowingly. That does not excuse you from continuing to do so.
 
That explains why you would support their narrative unknowingly. That does not excuse you from continuing to do so.

Stop with snippeting out my posts and ignoring the parts that show your narrative to be BS.

Now back to your proof that I said there is a race war or a Jew cover up in the media, here or anywhere else. Where is it?
 
He has a point. Not surprised you don't get it.
Maybe there was a point to your post, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe someone who has an issues with Jews would be interested.
 
Stop with snippeting out my posts and ignoring the parts that show your narrative to be BS.

Now back to your proof that I said there is a race war or a Jew cover up in the media, here or anywhere else. Where is it?

I'm ignoring your pontification and staying on point, if you don't mind.

I've already explained that you obviously are not aware of the routine, and so that was not explicit in your statement. Nonetheless, the routine, after claiming media bias, goes on to examine Rothchild and other "Jewish" media.

Obviously, you have nothing against Jews and you had no intention of claiming that the "Jewish media" is doing this. You were just claiming that the media -in general- does this, not knowing of an important detail regarding the CT you've engaged in.
 
Back
Top Bottom