- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 53,409
- Reaction score
- 31,478
- Location
- Northern California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Amazing.
Mac asks a perfectly acceptable question, and he is accused of being a race baiter.
People are claiming that the national interest in the Martin case was because of a Florida law, and excusing Obama at the same time. Obama's words were not about Stand Your Ground - he was talking about Martin being followed by Zimmerman because Martin was black.
Obama spoke after Zimmerman was aquitted. His entire speech was about racial profiling.
Talk about disingenuous comments.
If you want to respond to my post without the bother of actually quoting it, hence notifying me, then I suggest that my comments were not the disingenuous ones. Since you didn't bother to refute any specifics cited in my post, I presume it is because everything I cited in my post is true and verifiable... also, in contrast to what others were saying when they pretended that it was Obama's comment and Sharpton's interference that caused the national media frenzy, when in fact it was the national media frenzy caused by Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, which allowed an unarmed teenager to be gunned down without an arrest being made simply because the shooter shrugged and said he was afraid which caused Obama's comments and Sharpton's interference in the first place.
When people post misleading and outright false tripe like that, other people are going to point out their mistakes. When people call posts pointing out verifiable facts as "disingenuous", other people will note that as well.
See, I too can avoid responsibility for responding directly by pretending to be talking about "people" when referring to facts in a post only one person has posted. But I don't do that. I look people in the eye... figuratively, of course... when I am speaking or responding directly to them. It's easy. You should try it.