• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

executive order 3/16/2012

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##
Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:01 am
Alvin Bessent / A young man is dead for the crime of being black0 comments
Two people crossed paths one rainy night last month.
One was Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old on a snack run before the NBA All-Star game. He bought Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea and headed back to his father's fiancee's home to catch the game.
The other was George Zimmerman, a beefy 28-year-old packing a 9-millimeter handgun, who spotted Martin walking alone, got out of his truck, trailed him through the quiet neighborhood and then confronted him on the street.
Which one had more reason to be suspicious of the other? Any reasonable assessment suggests it was Martin who had cause to fear for his life.
Add two more facts: Martin was black. Zimmerman isn't.
Because of that one simple reality, the weight of suspicion fell lethally on the teen. That is a burden no innocent person should have to bear.
And no, it doesn't matter that some other black men may have committed crimes in the area on some other occasions. Martin was a kid who did nothing wrong. Yet Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, a tragic victim of racial profiling. That has sparked national outrage.
So should Florida's wild-west-style "stand your ground" law, which Sanford police cited as the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested and hasn't been charged. The law allows the use of deadly force if you're in imminent danger of being killed or badly hurt, and doesn't require retreating to avoid the threat. Since it was enacted in Florida in 2005, the number of "justified" killings each year has tripled.
Twenty-one states have similar laws. Coupled with pernicious prejudice that leads too many people to view young black men as a threat to life and limb, such laws all but paint targets on their chests.
According to the call Zimmerman made to police, to his eyes Martin was "a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he's up to no good, on drugs or something. He's got his hand in his waistband and he's a black male," Zimmerman said.
When Zimmerman said he was following the man, the police dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." He didn't listen.
Zimmerman, by all accounts, is an aggressive crime-watch volunteer who wanted to protect his gated community in Sanford. But painful history says Martin's race was the reason Zimmerman stole his life. He didn't see a carefree kid who a teacher said majored in cheerfulness. He saw a black man in a hoodie and just assumed he was a hood.
Zimmerman told police he shot Martin in self-defense. But Zimmerman weighs 250 pounds, had a gun and was clearly the aggressor. If anyone was in imminent danger, it was Martin, an unarmed, 140-pound kid.
Zimmerman said he was attacked, and, of course, Martin isn't around to dispute that claim. But phone records show a 16-year-old girl spoke with Martin in the final moments of his life. He told her a man was watching him. According to the girl, Martin said, "What are you following me for?" and the man said "What are you doing here?" She heard what she described as some pushing. Then the line went dead.
The Florida State Attorney has said he will present the case to a grand jury. And the U.S. Justice Department announced this week it will take a look as well. It's about time, but offers cold comfort.
Young, law-abiding black men can't be fair game simply because their skin scares people.
Alvin Bessent is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
 
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/live/##
Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:01 am
Alvin Bessent / A young man is dead for the crime of being black0 comments
Two people crossed paths one rainy night last month.
One was Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old on a snack run before the NBA All-Star game. He bought Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea and headed back to his father's fiancee's home to catch the game.
The other was George Zimmerman, a beefy 28-year-old packing a 9-millimeter handgun, who spotted Martin walking alone, got out of his truck, trailed him through the quiet neighborhood and then confronted him on the street.
Which one had more reason to be suspicious of the other? Any reasonable assessment suggests it was Martin who had cause to fear for his life.
Add two more facts: Martin was black. Zimmerman isn't.
Because of that one simple reality, the weight of suspicion fell lethally on the teen. That is a burden no innocent person should have to bear.
And no, it doesn't matter that some other black men may have committed crimes in the area on some other occasions. Martin was a kid who did nothing wrong. Yet Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, a tragic victim of racial profiling. That has sparked national outrage.
So should Florida's wild-west-style "stand your ground" law, which Sanford police cited as the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested and hasn't been charged. The law allows the use of deadly force if you're in imminent danger of being killed or badly hurt, and doesn't require retreating to avoid the threat. Since it was enacted in Florida in 2005, the number of "justified" killings each year has tripled.
Twenty-one states have similar laws. Coupled with pernicious prejudice that leads too many people to view young black men as a threat to life and limb, such laws all but paint targets on their chests.
According to the call Zimmerman made to police, to his eyes Martin was "a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he's up to no good, on drugs or something. He's got his hand in his waistband and he's a black male," Zimmerman said.
When Zimmerman said he was following the man, the police dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." He didn't listen.
Zimmerman, by all accounts, is an aggressive crime-watch volunteer who wanted to protect his gated community in Sanford. But painful history says Martin's race was the reason Zimmerman stole his life. He didn't see a carefree kid who a teacher said majored in cheerfulness. He saw a black man in a hoodie and just assumed he was a hood.
Zimmerman told police he shot Martin in self-defense. But Zimmerman weighs 250 pounds, had a gun and was clearly the aggressor. If anyone was in imminent danger, it was Martin, an unarmed, 140-pound kid.
Zimmerman said he was attacked, and, of course, Martin isn't around to dispute that claim. But phone records show a 16-year-old girl spoke with Martin in the final moments of his life. He told her a man was watching him. According to the girl, Martin said, "What are you following me for?" and the man said "What are you doing here?" She heard what she described as some pushing. Then the line went dead.
The Florida State Attorney has said he will present the case to a grand jury. And the U.S. Justice Department announced this week it will take a look as well. It's about time, but offers cold comfort.
Young, law-abiding black men can't be fair game simply because their skin scares people.
Alvin Bessent is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
This is the most biased POS article I've ever had the misfortune of wasting my time reading.
 
Well, according to this logic, every article is racially biased.

Which they probably all are, when it comes down to it.

Honestly, the way that article was written, whether it came from a white guy, black guy, yellow guy, pink guy, purple or green guy, to me, sounded extremely biased.
 
Right, but Calvinata made sure to point out that the author was black, and he suggested (Intentionally or no) that he was biased because he was black.

Since he has made protestations to his not-racist status, I can only assume that he would assume that an article written by a white person would have a racially motivated bias as well.

Which is probably a given - we are all products of our environment, including the way race affects the way people perceive others.
 
Honestly, the way that article was written, whether it came from a white guy, black guy, yellow guy, pink guy, purple or green guy, to me, sounded extremely biased.

Sorry I had to run out before finishing. Something fell off the roof.
My take on it was the same ( not extreme). But I posted it to show flip side of the ""biased" being showned here.

I put in bold the ""law"" and the weight difference.

Hmmmmmm
 
It was started on states rights actually. The southern states did not like Lincoln's views on a states bank or world bank (I would have to look up the specifics). They believed if the became president that states rights would be infringed upon and or taken away. Lincoln wasn't set out to free the slaves when he be came president and not even in the beginning of the war.

The confederate flag was the flag of the confederate states of America. Not the flag of slavery. As Outcast stated their were states that had freed the slaves but still fought because it was about states rights. The flag has now, in todays times, come to symbolize being proud of being southern or rebel, someone that goes against the grain. Some people still view as a sign of racism and slavery but others do not. They have groups like the daughters of the confederate. It isn't a racist group.

I understand what you are saying but how many blacks fly this flag proudly!!
 
Probably none and to them it is viewed as racist. It was flown by the KKK during the late 1800's to present day.

I was just stating the origins of the flag wasn't about race or racism
 
Back
Top