Why isn't this murder?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I fully approve of this thread. Rabid chihuahua redux.

[DaShi]

You make it complete.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sorry no comprende the woof woof.

[kentonio]

Beck or Limbaugh's contempt for the Democrats has never translated into a call for a race riot, or a race war; nor has it ever translated into a call for violence against the democrats themselves. Of course, if you can offer a single instance where Beck or Rush did so then I would be all too happy to retract my remarks.

Here's Limbaugh calling for riots to take place in Denver before the last presidential election to prevent democrats being elected.

http://www.infowars.com/limbaugh-cal...at-denver-dnc/

Or how about this treat..

I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...163548,00.html

Or Rush endorsing revolution?

Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, what we are living through right now is exactly why the Revolutionary War was fought?

http://limbaughbook.blogspot.co.uk/2...-birthday.html

Beck of course prefers to say he rejects violence, whilst warning that progressives are violent crazies who are trying to destroy the republic and kill innocent conservatives, before following up with his own barely concealed violent rhetoric.

Beck at Liberty University:

During his May 15 commencement speech at Liberty University, Beck told graduates that they "have a responsibility" to speak out, or "blood ... will be on our hands." His advice for graduates (as well as his daughter) included "shoot to kill."

The army ... of the extreme left is gathering" and they are saying "cops are bad, kill the cops.

we are being pushed" toward civil war and that Obama is "trying to destroy the country.

Glad to be of service. I looking forward to hearing you retract your remarks.

[Zevico]

Here's Limbaugh calling for riots to take place in Denver before the last presidential election to prevent democrats being elected.

http://www.infowars.com/limbaugh-cal...at-denver-dnc/

What a joke. You quoted a truther website.

Here's the full story from the ABC news page the truthers quote, but mangle to fit their own bizarre religious beliefs, which you were very happy to accept as true.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.
Click here to find out more!

Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.

Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."

Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called part of "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

So Limbaugh is clearly appealing for the demographic he clearly controls--Sharpton-Democrat suipporters--to go and riot. Of course! Naturally, his wishes are their commands.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...163548,00.html

Again, if you actually bothered to click the link and read the article you would understand that he's using this funny thing called "metaphor." Like when certain American liberal figures use much the same language. Using the metaphors of war in the context of a political discussion is not over the top; it's everyday and quite expected. If you think it is over the top then you'd better stop using the expression "over the top", among others; over the top is a reference frrom trench warfare. When Rush says "kill them" he means "kill their ideology by convincing people of its madness." You would understand this if you read the full paragraph:

Could it be the bear market in liberal shibboleths? Without Joycelyn Elders, midnight basketball and the Hillary Rodham Clinton socialized-medicine task force, are the easy targets gone? Not at all. "Just look at Dick Gephardt trying to run against Clinton for President, saying the way to get rid of welfare is to spend more on it, and coming up with a flatter tax than the Republicans," he says. "I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for."

In other words, he's saying Dick Gephardt is an idiot, and his ideas belong in an intellectual museum. Unless you think he's trying to tell his captive republican audience to kill people...via an interview with the left-wing Time magazine. Genius!



Or Rush endorsing revolution?

http://limbaughbook.blogspot.co.uk/2...-birthday.html

That's not a call for revolution. It's a comparison between some of the circumstances of the past, and the present. If Rush wanted to call for revolution, he'd quite frankly say: "I'm calling for revolution." Which he didn't. Which means that you're "leaping to conclusions."

Equally, if Al Sharpton wanted to suggest that a man should be kicked out of a neighbourhood because of the colour of his skin, he might call that person a "white interloper." Which he did. Coincidence: that person's store was latter attacked.

And if Beck wanted to express how much he hated Jews and how he'd like to see them beaten up or dead, he might say:

"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house"

Which Sharpton did. In the middle of a violent riot by blacks against Jews, called the Crown Heights riot.

But yes: it's perfectly alright for Democrat party officials to visit this man and endorse him as an ally and a partner. Which they have, over and over and over again. Most recently, by way of the Administration's own Attorney-General, Eric Holder. And it's perfectly alright for Sharpton to have his own television show on a Democrat-aligned television channel, MSNBC. These are just the sort of things we might expect of the Democrats. Normal, mainstream opinion everywhere agrees: for race riot supporters, look no further than the Democrats and their allies.

Beck of course prefers to say he rejects violence, whilst warning that progressives are violent crazies who are trying to destroy the republic and kill innocent conservatives, before following up with his own barely concealed violent rhetoric.

If by 'barely concealed' you mean 'non-existent' and "I imagine that violent rhetoric must exist because I've been told it does and so it must", then you're perfectly right.

Find me an explicit call to violence. Because you haven't. You'd just prefer to imagine that one exists. The fact that Beck is deeply unhappy with Democrat politics doesn't mean that he's calling for violence. Calling for violence only occurs when you call for violence. I'll allow Sharpton this much now: he didn't explicitly call for violence. He just expressed how much he'd be willing to fight Jews if they came over to his house. In the middle of a black riot, where blacks were beating up Jews for being Jews. It's fair to say that in context it amounts to a call to violence against Jews.


As for DaShi's comments on responsibility for media responsibility:

1. MSNBC hosts Al Sharpton, who has sympathised with violent rioters, denigrated Jews, and thereby endorsed and enabled their violence against Jews.
2. NBC is responsible for editing a 911 to make it suggest that an innocent man was basically a racist skinhead out to kill a black person. Not a call for violence per se, merely the mark of an incredibly cynical pack of liars who aren't worth a damn. NBC owns (surprise!) MSNBC.
3. The rest of the establishment media is responsible for being a collection of incomepent halfwits who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag and who were happy to continue this farce along without a second's thought.
4. The entirety of the media is responsible for not:
- calling out the New Black Panthers on the fact they've put a bounty on Zimmerman's head;
- calling out the Administration for failing to charge the New Black Panthers for putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head;
- Calling out Obama, not to mention Hillary Clinton, for marching with the deeply racist New Black Panthers during the Democrat primary race;
- calling out the Administration for endorsing Sharpton, who endorsed violence against Jews;
- calling out the President for making statements that openly suggest that he sympathises with a Travyon, who may or may not be a crime victim or a criminal, just because he's black and now dead.
- Calling out NBC for hiring a bunch of cynical liars.
- Calling out MSNBC for hiring a man who endorses violence and supported a race riot.

What a farce.

[kentonio]

Thanks for proving yourself exactly the predictable GOP stooge I expected. So when Limbaugh says 'kill' we're supposed to just read that as harmless talk of ideology, when he calls for riots that's just just him 'dreaming of riots' which apparently absolves him of any violent intent (seriously WTF?). Even in your supposed rebuttal, you manage to post something which only serves to exacerbate his sins.

There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does.

Yes, no violent rhetoric there..

Find me an explicit call to violence. Because you haven't. You'd just prefer to imagine that one exists.

You mean apart from the quote I already posted of Limbaugh explicitly saying I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for. Oh no I forgot, when he explicitly calls for violence, we're supposed to just give him a free pass.

Here's a hint for you, only a completely naive idiot or a partisan blinded by ideology to the point of stupidity would deny or fail to see the violent undertones in the rhetoric spouted by the likes of Beck and Limbaugh. They have dug a huge fissure right down the middle of American politics and instead of being banished to the fringes where they belong, they are defended and sucked up to by the party and by people like yourself. The twentieth century contains endless examples of what happens when public figures are permitted to demonize and paint targets on their political opponents and if you think there's any way this isn't going to end in tears when the Dems win in November you're in for a very nasty surprise.

[Zevico]

Yes, no violent rhetoric there..

The language of violence can be a metaphor for civil political disagreement and often is. Many Democrats have expressed such civil disagreement in the past. For example, when Jimmy Hoffa called on unionists to "get those sons of *****es", he didn't literally mean that democrats should door knock, ask if you're a republican, and beat you up. (By the way, Hoffa was introducing President Obama. The President did not denounce Hoffa for engaging in "violent rhetoric.") I'll say it again: "violent rhetoric" and "calls for violence" are two distinct concepts! Hoffa meant "let's win this election;" Limbaugh, if you bothered to read his statement in full, intended to say "let's make Dick Gerphardt's idiocy a thing of the past." He said that using "over-the-top" language. Even his interviewer understood that!

What is it you don't get about the difference between violent rhetoric as a metaphor used in a political and civil debate, and actual calls for violence? I think the difference is pretty darn clear. And as the Hoffa example demonstrates, I don't discriminate between party or ideological affiliation when it comes to analysing these matters.

The difference between Limbaugh or Hoffa on the one hand and Sharpton on the other is that Sharpton has actually called for mob violence during a period of mob violence. That means that he literally wants people beaten up.

[kentonio]

Oh and btw..

4. The entirety of the media is responsible for not:
- calling out the New Black Panthers on the fact they've put a bounty on Zimmerman's head;
- calling out the Administration for failing to charge the New Black Panthers for putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head;

Perhaps if the bounty hadn't actually been for someone performing a 'legal citizen's arrest', they might actually have broken a law. Unless you think that the Administration (who are now responsible for charging citizens?) should just start arresting people for holding unpleasant views?

- Calling out Obama, not to mention Hillary Clinton, for marching with the deeply racist New Black Panthers during the Democrat primary race;

Indeed! Oh no actually that would be yet another GOP lie.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hann...lack-panthers/

Apparently someone being in the crowd of thousands at a perfectly legitimate event (a commemoration of the 1965 Selma, Alabama march) means that the two are inexplicably linked..

- calling out the Administration for endorsing Sharpton, who endorsed violence against Jews;

I'm curious, what did they endorse him for? Please provide quotes/links.

- calling out the President for making statements that openly suggest that he sympathises with a Travyon, who may or may not be a crime victim or a criminal, just because he's black and now dead.

He actually expressed sympathy with a young man who had just been murdered, something that apparently now is unacceptable in American politics when the people involved are not white. At no point did he mention Trayvon being black. The relevant preceding part of the speech that was of course ignored by the right was..

When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this.

Seriously if you want to try and support hate figures on the right, at least have the decency to try and be honest in your rebuttals rather than just regurgitating proven lies.

[kentonio]

Yes, no violent rhetoric there..

The language of violence can be a metaphor for civil political disagreement and often is. Many Democrats have expressed such civil disagreement in the past. For example, when Jimmy Hoffa called on unionists to "get those sons of *****es", he didn't literally mean that democrats should door knock, ask if you're a republican, and beat you up. (By the way, Hoffa was introducing President Obama. The President did not denounce Hoffa for engaging in "violent rhetoric.") I'll say it again: "violent rhetoric" and "calls for violence" are two distinct concepts! Hoffa meant "let's win this election;" Limbaugh, if you bothered to read his statement in full, intended to say "let's make Dick Gerphardt's idiocy a thing of the past." He's just using "over-the-top" language. So what?
The difference between Limbaugh or Hoffa and Sharpton is that Sharpton has actually called for mob violence during a period of mob violence. That means that he literally wants people beaten up. Kapich?

No, Sharpton is just as guilty of using violent, homophobic and racist rhetoric as Limbaugh are. I don't know enough about Hoffa Jr to pass an opinion. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable at either end of the political spectrum, and the problem with defending that crap is that it ends up becoming endemic.

[Zevico]

No, Sharpton is just as guilty of using violent, homophobic and racist rhetoric as Limbaugh are. I don't know enough about Hoffa Jr to pass an opinion. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable at either end of the political spectrum, and the problem with defending that crap is that it ends up becoming endemic.

You didn't know enough about Limbaugh and were quite willing to offer an opinion from a Truther website. You don't know enough now because you don't want to know enough.
Here's the quote in full:

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Hoffa told thousands of workers gathered for the annual Labor Day rally.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of *****es out and give America back to an America where we belong,” he concluded.

Oh noes! Look at the terrible threats of violence against poor, innocent Tea Partiers. Surely Democrats will begin starting fistfights in the streets because everyone who listened to that speech surely took the phrase "let's take these sons of bithces out" as a call to violence instead of a metaphor. Or not.

[kentonio]

You didn't know enough about Limbaugh and were quite willing to offer an opinion from a Truther website. You don't know enough now because you don't want to know enough.

I posted the link purely to provide something you could follow to reassure yourself I didn't invent it, if you'd like to put the same quote into google you'll find many many more sources. Of course you won't do that because it's much easier to pretend that a random link actually matters.

Here's the quote in full:

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Hoffa told thousands of workers gathered for the annual Labor Day rally.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of *****es out and give America back to an America where we belong,” he concluded.

Oh noes! Look at the terrible threats of violence against poor, innocent Tea Partiers. Surely Democrats will begin starting fistfights in the streets because everyone who listened to that speech surely took the phrase "let's take these sons of bithces out" as a call to violence instead of a metaphor. Or not.

Yes that is clearly comparable to the many years of race baiting hate speech and violent rhetoric carried out by Limbaugh and pals. Talking about politics in terms of a battle or a war is not particularly nice but its been standard for at least a century or so. Talking about killing your political opponents or dreaming of cities rioting is not standard and until fairly recently was a clear indication that someone is a hatemonger and a nutjob. Well done for aligning yourself with some of the most obnoxious public figures America has seen in half a century.

[Zevico]

Perhaps if the bounty hadn't actually been for someone performing a 'legal citizen's arrest', they might actually have broken a law. Unless you think that the Administration (who are now responsible for charging citizens?) should just start arresting people for holding unpleasant views?

Wanted: Dead or Alive. Not exactly a call for a legal citizen's arrest.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hann...lack-panthers/
Apparently someone being in the crowd of thousands at a perfectly legitimate event (a commemoration of the 1965 Selma, Alabama march) means that the two are inexplicably linked..

Apparently you haven't read Christian J Adam's "Injustice":

Several other speakers advanced to the pulpit to greet Obama. Then, a woman stepped forward and uttered a shocking welcome address. "My name is Pastor Estella Shabazz. ... My husband, he's stuck outside, he couldn't get through the crowd, I bring greetings from him also, who is the National Spokesman of the New Black Panther Party, along with the Chief of the New Black Panther Party is outside also, they are also here in support of Senator Barack Obama."
...
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama's campaign. [Injustice, p. 105-106, 108-109]

The media has failed to ask why President Obama did this. Was he aware of the fact that they would be there? Did they know who they were? Was he happy to take the endorsement? Yes? No? MAybe? Is it proper to even ask the question? If so, then the media has failed by not doing so. According to the media the correct answer is: never mind.

I'm curious, what did they endorse him for? Please provide quotes/links.

What did they endorse him for? I'm not going to read too much into this. I'll simply ask: are you saying endorsing him is okay in some circumstances?

Anyway, here are the attorney general's direct words:

Thank you, Reverend [Al] Sharpton. I appreciate your kind words, but I am especially grateful for your prayers – and for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must fulfill.

It is a privilege to join with you and Reverend [Franklyn] Richardson – and with Executive Director Tamika Mallory, and so many distinguished religious leaders, elected officials, committed activists, and concerned citizens – in kicking off the National Action Network’s 14th Annual Convention. I am honored to be included in this annual gathering once again – and to bring greetings from President Obama.

Thanks for your kind references to white interlopers and Jew-bashing, Al. The attorney-general and I thank you for your work for civil rights. Never mind those times you instigated riots. Never mind when they torched that man's store and killed some Jews in Crown Heights. Yes, those were just happy parts of the great march to obtaining equality.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-120411.html

He actually expressed sympathy with a young man who had just been murdered, something that apparently now is unacceptable in American politics when the people involved are not white. At no point did he mention Trayvon being black. The relevant preceding part of the speech that was of course ignored by the right was..

Sure he did and you get a cookie for pointing out that he thinks it's tragic generally. And then he says:

if I had a son, he'd look like Travyon

.

And if you'd bothered to read my previous post you'd realise that this statement was a complete non-sequitur that belied a racist sympathy for Travyon. As I then put it:

Even Obama's "if I had a son" comment is nothing more than a blase statement of racial sympathy for a boy who happened to share the colour of his skin. And so what? Why should that matter? If Obama married a "Latino" (whatever that is) or a white (whatever that is) then maybe he could say "If I had married a white and had a son he'd look like Zimmerman." My point is that Obama's comment was not merely a hypothetical and in a sense pointless musing, which it was. It is that the choice of this particular musing belied a dangerous sympathy for someone not because he was a victim or a criminal but because he was black, involved in a fight with someone who wasn't, and died. Well, his life ended tragically-no doubt about it. But that has naught to do with how he looks and everything to do with the character, personality and choices of the alleged criminal and the alleged victim.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wanted: Dead or Alive. Not exactly a call for a legal citizen's arrest.

Regardlesss of whether the intent was to do bodily harm to Zimmerman, the citizen's arrest meme is plainly false. In order for citizens arrest to apply (per Wiki)

United States

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil and criminal law including, but not limited to, any infringement of another's rights.[38] Nonetheless many citizens' arrests are popular news stories.[39]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both private citizens and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[40] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[41] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

Bolding mine.

Essentially the $10,000 was a call to committ kidnapping (if no bodily harm was intended).

[kentonio]

Wanted: Dead or Alive. Not exactly a call for a legal citizen's arrest.

If you could step outside your little partisan box for a second you might realize that the democratic party do not support the New Black Panthers any more than the right do. Not even the Black Panthers support the New Black Panthers for goodness sake, yet because they release some incendiary crap (which was almost certainly phrased in such a way as to avoid prosecution) this is seen by the hard right as something that can apparently be used to attack the Democrats? That shouldn't be surprising really considering the desperately sad attempt to tie Obama to the NBP based on him once being in the same city as their leader.

Several other speakers advanced to the pulpit to greet Obama. Then, a woman stepped forward and uttered a shocking welcome address. "My name is Pastor Estella Shabazz. ... My husband, he's stuck outside, he couldn't get through the crowd, I bring greetings from him also, who is the National Spokesman of the New Black Panther Party, along with the Chief of the New Black Panther Party is outside also, they are also here in support of Senator Barack Obama."
...
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama's campaign. [Injustice, p. 105-106, 108-109]

The media has failed to ask why President Obama did this. Was he aware of the fact that they would be there? Did they know who they were? Was he happy to take the endorsement? Yes? No? MAybe? Is it proper to even ask the question? If so, then the media has failed by not doing so. According to the media the correct answer is: never mind.

That's the best you can do? Seriously? Would you have liked Obama to punch her in the face mid sentence to prevent her speaking? Have you maybe considered that the media are not 'asking the question' because it's a ****ing stupid question that only the most inane of conspiracy theorists would bother asking?

This is exactly how pathetic the hard right have become, instead of just disagreeing with their political opponents positions there has to be these constant attempts to try and paint Obama as a radical who associates with terrorists and extremists. Absolutely pathetic.

Anyway, here are the attorney general's direct words:

Thank you, Reverend [Al] Sharpton. I appreciate your kind words, but I am especially grateful for your prayers – and for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must fulfill.

It is a privilege to join with you and Reverend [Franklyn] Richardson – and with Executive Director Tamika Mallory, and so many distinguished religious leaders, elected officials, committed activists, and concerned citizens – in kicking off the National Action Network’s 14th Annual Convention. I am honored to be included in this annual gathering once again – and to bring greetings from President Obama.

Sharpton has gotten away with an awful lot over the years because he was a strong figure who stood up for a racial group who had suffered terrible oppression and continued to be treated largely as second class citizens. Personally I find his rhetoric frequently obnoxious, but then again I've never had to live through a time when people could deny me basic human rights based on the colour of my skin, so I hesitate to attack him too much.

You keep referring to Crown Heights btw, lets just remember what that was about..

The Crown Heights riot began on August 19, 1991, after a car driven by a Jewish man, and part of a procession led by an unmarked police car, went through an intersection and was struck by another vehicle causing it to veer onto the sidewalk where it accidentally struck and killed a seven-year-old Guyanese boy named Gavin Cato and severely injured his cousin Angela. Witnesses could not agree upon the speed and could not agree whether the light was yellow or red. One of the factors that sparked the riot was the arrival of a private ambulance which, on the orders of a police officer worried for the Jewish driver's safety, removed the uninjured driver from the scene while Cato lay pinned under his car.[31] Cato and his cousin were treated soon after by a city ambulance.

So after centuries of being treated as sub human and having to force civil rights through mass protest and civil disobedience, you don't see how an incident like that could possibly be seen as a continuation of the same old hate and the same old hurt? Then again I suppose it's easier to try and pretend that life is simple.

Sure he did and you get a cookie for pointing out that he thinks it's tragic generally. And then he says:

if I had a son, he'd look like Travyon

.

And if you'd bothered to read my previous post you'd realise that this statement was a complete non-sequitur that belied a racist sympathy for Travyon. As I then put it:

Even Obama's "if I had a son" comment is nothing more than a blase statement of racial sympathy for a boy who happened to share the colour of his skin. And so what? Why should that matter? If Obama married a "Latino" (whatever that is) or a white (whatever that is) then maybe he could say "If I had married a white and had a son he'd look like Zimmerman." My point is that Obama's comment was not merely a hypothetical and in a sense pointless musing, which it was. It is that the choice of this particular musing belied a dangerous sympathy for someone not because he was a victim or a criminal but because he was black, involved in a fight with someone who wasn't, and died. Well, his life ended tragically-no doubt about it. But that has naught to do with how he looks and everything to do with the character, personality and choices of the alleged criminal and the alleged victim.

'If I had a son he would look like Trayvon' (aside from being pretty poor oration) can be construed in a range of ways, but personally I think he certainly was talking about how easily that young man could have been his son under different circumstances. As a black man Obama grew up with the same discrimination that other blacks suffered and continue to suffer in America, why shouldn't he relate to that? Calling it 'racist sympathy' not only doesnt make any sense (feel free to go look up the meaning of the word racist before you use it next) but is also a pretty sad attempt to portray Obama's words as divisive when in fact his oh so terrible goal was that..

all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen—and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident.

Wow, that's really going to get people burning cars in the streets..

[rah]

If you could step outside your little partisan box for a second you might realize that the democratic party do not support the New Black Panthers any more than the right do. Not even the Black Panthers support the New Black Panthers for goodness sake, yet because they release some incendiary crap (which was almost certainly phrased in such a way as to avoid prosecution) this is seen by the hard right as something that can apparently be used to attack the Democrats?

In all fairness then you can't attack repugs with what Rush says. I and many other Repugs do not support him or any of his incendiary rants.