The Zimmerman case?

  On 7/19/2013 at 8:48 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Whereas Zimmerman thought that his altercation with Martin was "God's plan."

That's a fucking major tenant of right-wing Christians - it's one of many cop-outs when they actually realize that they're losing a moral argument. It's their falsely non-cynical alternative to "shit happens."

God works in mysterious ways.

Pray For Rain

Let-Allah-Sort-It Out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-seay/i-am-not-trayvon-martin_b_3603241.html

  Quote

 

I am not Trayvon Martin.

I keep seeing people say, "I am Trayvon Martin." I understand the sentiment. If that is you, then I respect that.

I am not Trayvon Martin. I am a middle-aged, middle class, overweight white guy. I am also a teacher, and in 20 years of teaching, I have seen plenty of Trayvon Martins. More accurately, I have seen plenty of young men who fit the caricatured image that is being portrayed of this kid in the media, Left and Right. Fox News and MSNBC. I'm guessing that neither portrayal -- saint or thug -- is accurate. People are more complex than that.

None of the Trayvon Martins that I know deserve to die. They may arouse suspicion, but your paranoia is not their crime. If they do commit a crime, they deserve to have a trial. Trayvon Martin's jury consisted of one person. That is not how we are supposed to do things in America. Unfortunately, that is our reality.

Here's my point: You don't have to be Trayvon Martin to know this is wrong. You don't have to be black, or young, or a "troubled student" or a pot smoker to know this was murder. And you don't have to be the parent of Trayvon Martin to know this was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Let me be more blunt: This type of injustice will continue until enough guys like me -- guys who are not Trayvon Martin -- have had enough of it and finally say "No more."

You don't have to be Trayvon Martin.

You just have to be human.

Bob Seay teaches music at a high school in Colorado. His Facebook post, "I Am Not Trayvon Martin," was the beginning of the I Am Not Trayvon Martin meme.

also i think part of the problem here is the incendiary claim of calling someone a 'racist'. In reality I think most people have a certain degree of built in unconscious racial profiling which could technically be described as a mild common form of racism. I don't think this is 'evil' or 'wrong' it just is. The fact that liberals use the term in a non nuanced way, like as if you are either a 0 (a not racist) or a 10 (a full blown KKK gun toting racist) is part of this and compounded by the fact that the generic right-wing seems to want to fully deny the idea that racism is a current problem or that they themselves might have racial prejudices. Instead right wingers try to base these off of facts, and claim that they aren't prejudice because most people who commit crimes are black. Well technically even if that were true, it's still prejudice. I think most people even people who would be widely considered racist fall somewhere between a 4 or a 5.

The word itself doesn't really matter to me, but it seems to create a lot of defensiveness and knee jerkery on both sides understandably. I think everybody just needs to employ a little bit of humility, like admitting that racial profiling is very common and not necessarily full blown 'racist' is the first step. It's much more common than I think people are willing to admit among every day common folk who fall somewhere relatively low on that scale.

  On 7/19/2013 at 11:45 PM, joshuatx said:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-seay/i-am-not-trayvon-martin_b_3603241.html

 

  Quote

 

I am not Trayvon Martin.

I keep seeing people say, "I am Trayvon Martin." I understand the sentiment. If that is you, then I respect that.

I am not Trayvon Martin. I am a middle-aged, middle class, overweight white guy. I am also a teacher, and in 20 years of teaching, I have seen plenty of Trayvon Martins. More accurately, I have seen plenty of young men who fit the caricatured image that is being portrayed of this kid in the media, Left and Right. Fox News and MSNBC. I'm guessing that neither portrayal -- saint or thug -- is accurate. People are more complex than that.

None of the Trayvon Martins that I know deserve to die. They may arouse suspicion, but your paranoia is not their crime. If they do commit a crime, they deserve to have a trial. Trayvon Martin's jury consisted of one person. That is not how we are supposed to do things in America. Unfortunately, that is our reality.

Here's my point: You don't have to be Trayvon Martin to know this is wrong. You don't have to be black, or young, or a "troubled student" or a pot smoker to know this was murder. And you don't have to be the parent of Trayvon Martin to know this was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Let me be more blunt: This type of injustice will continue until enough guys like me -- guys who are not Trayvon Martin -- have had enough of it and finally say "No more."

You don't have to be Trayvon Martin.

You just have to be human.

Bob Seay teaches music at a high school in Colorado. His Facebook post, "I Am Not Trayvon Martin," was the beginning of the I Am Not Trayvon Martin meme.

 

very well put. Though I agree with others here who have said it was quite within the law, because in this case the state law is effed.

It's pretty sickening when there's a bunch of pundits taking on Obama's talk on Martin and his personal experiences with racial profiling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/white-men-racism-over_n_3624866.html?ir=Black+Voices&ref=topbar

Some people seem to be able to completely ignore and misunderstand the emotional aspects events like these can have. " dude, Obama has been elected twice, so whenever you're being stared at because you're black, it's not about racism anymore." If this doesn't show how logic can lead to utter stupidity, I don't know what will.

  On 7/19/2013 at 5:39 PM, Mirezzi said:

  On 7/19/2013 at 5:19 PM, lumpenprol said:

he has to bloody your nose first. Pretty decent tradeoff if you ask me.

Yeah, and if he's 17 years + 20 days old, he's an absolute manchild, so don't even wait for him to take a swing at you. The sooner you put that thug down, the better.

 

If he's 5'11" and weighs a little over a buck-fifty, he's a fucking GARGANTUAN BLACK BEAST OF FEROCITY and you should not only shoot the fucker, but drive a stake through his heart just to be sure.

It's just all so reactionary. A bit sickening.

  On 7/20/2013 at 8:21 AM, goDel said:

It's pretty sickening when there's a bunch of pundits taking on Obama's talk on Martin and his personal experiences with racial profiling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/white-men-racism-over_n_3624866.html?ir=Black+Voices&ref=topbar

Some people seem to be able to completely ignore and misunderstand the emotional aspects events like these can have. " dude, Obama has been elected twice, so whenever you're being stared at because you're black, it's not about racism anymore." If this doesn't show how logic can lead to utter stupidity, I don't know what will.

that's pretty much what Dr Laura said after her utterly bizarre revealing rant after a string of 'nigger nigger nigger' ending with her telling the black lady who called 'well if you can't handle these things you shouldn't have married out of your own race' proceeded by her lecturing the woman on how she thinks it's 'hilarious' people still complain about racism since we now have a black president

Rush Limbaugh was using that one lady's interview as justification for white use of the n-word. the funny thing is i couldnt tell if it was satire or serious. Also FOX and most of talk-radio have been nonstop trotting out their token black guests to talk down racial profiling or racial prejudice. great stuff.

"these assholes, they always get away." - George Zimmerman

Turns out he was talking about himself.

  On 7/20/2013 at 8:21 AM, goDel said:

It's pretty sickening when there's a bunch of pundits taking on Obama's talk on Martin and his personal experiences with racial profiling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/white-men-racism-over_n_3624866.html?ir=Black+Voices&ref=topbar

Some people seem to be able to completely ignore and misunderstand the emotional aspects events like these can have. " dude, Obama has been elected twice, so whenever you're being stared at because you're black, it's not about racism anymore." If this doesn't show how logic can lead to utter stupidity, I don't know what will.

whats sick about him saying that is that the judge didn't want the racial aspect brought into the trial because there wasn't enough evidence to support that it motivated zim's actions. later, evidence supported that racial profiling may have motivated trayvon's actions. the trial is over, and again, instead of saying something to help people move on and realize that maybe they shouldn't have allowed media LIES to whip them into a feeding frenzy, he ups the ante on his previous comment about it maybe being his son, to 'that could have been ME'. anyone with a single shred of integrity should see that instantly as being fucked in so many countless ways. with that statement he's basically saying that it WAS racism that led to martin's death, overriding the judge's rule and suggesting that the justice system failed. is this a common thing for presidents to do? he also said politicians should stay out of it. i think he should take his own god damned advice. but i guess he's more of a celebrity cult icon who can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it, rather than a politician at this point.

studies have shown that usa is among the countries of the world with the LEAST prevalent racism. but Dems like obama understand that they need to keep the various superficially defined groups out there segregated. they need to maintain and brainwash their voter base into believing the idea that this country is the WORST case of racism in the world. because they enjoy ~95% of the black vote, ~75% of the non-white and non-black vote. on the other hand, obama only got ~41% of the white vote. they're scared shitless of there being less segregation of ideas among these various groups of population, because they have no idea how it would affect their bid for power. the media made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was out to frame zimmerman as a bad, racist, cold blooded killer, right from the beginning. WHY?

obama said it could be his son. WHY? now he says it could have been HIM. WHY? there ARE answers to those questions. there are reasons people do and say things. there may be reasons why if you look at the thousands of blacks who have died since the zim/trayvon incident, you would see that MOST of those deaths occurred in Dem strongholds. there may be a reason why if you look at the most violent, crime ridden cities in the USA, and i would even say you could go up to the top 50 of them, and then compile who the mayors of those cities going back for half a century were, you would find the vast overwhelming majority of them were from a certain party. guess which one. seriously. do it. i looked up the top 10 violent cities knowing exactly what to expect, and was still surprised to see HOW MUCH of their mayors were dems. 8 of the top 10 on the list i found were almost straight D going down the line. a few all D for half a century back. i'd bet anyone here that a list of most dangerous cities in this country, with more deaths per capita, going to top 50, the vast, overwhelming majority of those mayors are going to be from the D party. it wont even be close. a complete blowout.

so to me, i look at those thousands of deaths and nothing being done about them, and have to wonder if THAT'S where the racism is. i have to wonder. why shouldn't i? DECADES of members of the same party having THEIR policies run cities into the ground. COUNTLESS deaths. to me that should be their main job if they get control of a city with that kind of problem. cutting down on the high rate of murders/violence. but they've had decades to solve these problems so either they don't mind it at all (and plenty of these guys, you'll find, were corrupt and skimming, milking their cities for what they are worth while their citizens were dying, many caught for corruption but who knows how many of them never were) and are ok with it happening, or they are criminally fucking inept. either way, they are doing a shitty job, but keep getting in there, decade after decade. i seriously encourage everyone here to check it out. hard, solid, facts and a death toll that cannot be ignored. this is the same party that fought publicly to keep schools segregated. the same party that founded the kkk, and fought to keep slaves. and then has their historians write a flip-flop into the history books which they call 'the southern strategy' to cover their tracks. but continues to run things with little to no regard for their black citizens, for decades, in the vast majority of the most violent cities in the country. then go and along with the media they mostly control, point at zim as a racist to distract from what THEY are doing.

so here's me. i look at zim, and what happened there, and see no real solid proof for actual racism on his part. i look at decades of rule by the same party, in MOST of the cities where MOST of the murders in the country are happening, and with MANY of those deaths (vastly disproportionate amount) being young black kids, and to ME, that's a whole hell of a lot more suspicious if you want to talk about racism. i don't see how anyone can look at zim and see racism but look at THOUSANDS of deaths under the rule of the same party, with ZERO improvement (if not a, for HALF A CENTURY in some cases, and not see ANYTHING there. it blows my mind. if something is broke you fix it. unless maybe you don't care, considering the skin color of the kids dying in your streets. to me, THAT'S a likely case of 'institutionalized racism'. why fix that problem when they keep voting you back in, so you can commit more fraud/graft, anyway? white on black racist driven crime is actually pretty rare, all things considered, but that reality doesn't get anyone elected.

  On 7/21/2013 at 4:17 PM, MisterE said:

with that statement he's basically saying that it WAS racism that led to martin's death, overriding the judge's rule and suggesting that the justice system failed.

 

 

No he's not. He's explaining the sentiments felt by a lot of "african americans" without putting the verdict into question. And with that he even might be able to keep the fire out of the situation. Because whether or not those angry people are justified in their anger wrt to the verdict, fact is they're angry. And something needs to be done about that. Imo, Obama is doing just that: trying to create understanding, instead of judging the verdict.

Not sure why you draw the conclusions you do. As I'm not sure why those pundits did. And I'm not sure why you can be so certain. Are you "african american" yourself? Do you have experience with being profiled?

  On 7/21/2013 at 4:17 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 7/20/2013 at 8:21 AM, goDel said:

It's pretty sickening when there's a bunch of pundits taking on Obama's talk on Martin and his personal experiences with racial profiling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/white-men-racism-over_n_3624866.html?ir=Black+Voices&ref=topbar

Some people seem to be able to completely ignore and misunderstand the emotional aspects events like these can have. " dude, Obama has been elected twice, so whenever you're being stared at because you're black, it's not about racism anymore." If this doesn't show how logic can lead to utter stupidity, I don't know what will.

whats sick about him saying that is that the judge didn't want the racial aspect brought into the trial because there wasn't enough evidence to support that it motivated zim's actions. later, evidence supported that racial profiling may have motivated trayvon's actions. the trial is over, and again, instead of saying something to help people move on and realize that maybe they shouldn't have allowed media LIES to whip them into a feeding frenzy, he ups the ante on his previous comment about it maybe being his son, to 'that could have been ME'. anyone with a single shred of integrity should see that instantly as being fucked in so many countless ways. with that statement he's basically saying that it WAS racism that led to martin's death, overriding the judge's rule and suggesting that the justice system failed. is this a common thing for presidents to do? he also said politicians should stay out of it. i think he should take his own god damned advice. but i guess he's more of a celebrity cult icon who can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it, rather than a politician at this point.

 

studies have shown that usa is among the countries of the world with the LEAST prevalent racism. but Dems like obama understand that they need to keep the various superficially defined groups out there segregated. they need to maintain and brainwash their voter base into believing the idea that this country is the WORST case of racism in the world. because they enjoy ~95% of the black vote, ~75% of the non-white and non-black vote. on the other hand, obama only got ~41% of the white vote. they're scared shitless of there being less segregation of ideas among these various groups of population, because they have no idea how it would affect their bid for power. the media made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was out to frame zimmerman as a bad, racist, cold blooded killer, right from the beginning. WHY?

 

obama said it could be his son. WHY? now he says it could have been HIM. WHY? there ARE answers to those questions. there are reasons people do and say things. there may be reasons why if you look at the thousands of blacks who have died since the zim/trayvon incident, you would see that MOST of those deaths occurred in Dem strongholds. there may be a reason why if you look at the most violent, crime ridden cities in the USA, and i would even say you could go up to the top 50 of them, and then compile who the mayors of those cities going back for half a century were, you would find the vast overwhelming majority of them were from a certain party. guess which one. seriously. do it. i looked up the top 10 violent cities knowing exactly what to expect, and was still surprised to see HOW MUCH of their mayors were dems. 8 of the top 10 on the list i found were almost straight D going down the line. a few all D for half a century back. i'd bet anyone here that a list of most dangerous cities in this country, with more deaths per capita, going to top 50, the vast, overwhelming majority of those mayors are going to be from the D party. it wont even be close. a complete blowout.

 

so to me, i look at those thousands of deaths and nothing being done about them, and have to wonder if THAT'S where the racism is. i have to wonder. why shouldn't i? DECADES of members of the same party having THEIR policies run cities into the ground. COUNTLESS deaths. to me that should be their main job if they get control of a city with that kind of problem. cutting down on the high rate of murders/violence. but they've had decades to solve these problems so either they don't mind it at all (and plenty of these guys, you'll find, were corrupt and skimming, milking their cities for what they are worth while their citizens were dying, many caught for corruption but who knows how many of them never were) and are ok with it happening, or they are criminally fucking inept. either way, they are doing a shitty job, but keep getting in there, decade after decade. i seriously encourage everyone here to check it out. hard, solid, facts and a death toll that cannot be ignored. this is the same party that fought publicly to keep schools segregated. the same party that founded the kkk, and fought to keep slaves. and then has their historians write a flip-flop into the history books which they call 'the southern strategy' to cover their tracks. but continues to run things with little to no regard for their black citizens, for decades, in the vast majority of the most violent cities in the country. then go and along with the media they mostly control, point at zim as a racist to distract from what THEY are doing.

 

so here's me. i look at zim, and what happened there, and see no real solid proof for actual racism on his part. i look at decades of rule by the same party, in MOST of the cities where MOST of the murders in the country are happening, and with MANY of those deaths (vastly disproportionate amount) being young black kids, and to ME, that's a whole hell of a lot more suspicious if you want to talk about racism. i don't see how anyone can look at zim and see racism but look at THOUSANDS of deaths under the rule of the same party, with ZERO improvement (if not a, for HALF A CENTURY in some cases, and not see ANYTHING there. it blows my mind. if something is broke you fix it. unless maybe you don't care, considering the skin color of the kids dying in your streets. to me, THAT'S a likely case of 'institutionalized racism'. why fix that problem when they keep voting you back in, so you can commit more fraud/graft, anyway? white on black racist driven crime is actually pretty rare, all things considered, but that reality doesn't get anyone elected.

 

pretty brilliant post

  On 7/21/2013 at 4:17 PM, MisterE said:

studies have shown that usa is among the countries of the world with the LEAST prevalent racism

where are these studies? what does this even mean? how do you study whether racism is prevalent? what are the criteria to determine that?

also how can you make a statement like this and then follow it with paragraphs of argument condemning democrats for being responsible for racism on a nationwide scale?

A couple good points being made in ABC's This Week, imo:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/t/video/week-roundtable-race-america-detroit-19727828

  On 7/22/2013 at 7:58 AM, goDel said:

A couple good points being made in ABC's This Week, imo:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/t/video/week-roundtable-race-america-detroit-19727828

I can't access the video for some reason.

Can you sum it up in a couple sentences (if possible)?

  On 7/22/2013 at 3:00 AM, zaphod said:

 

  On 7/21/2013 at 4:17 PM, MisterE said:

studies have shown that usa is among the countries of the world with the LEAST prevalent racism

 

where are these studies? what does this even mean? how do you study whether racism is prevalent? what are the criteria to determine that?

 

also how can you make a statement like this and then follow it with paragraphs of argument condemning democrats for being responsible for racism on a nationwide scale?

exactly

  On 7/22/2013 at 2:51 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 7/21/2013 at 4:17 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 7/20/2013 at 8:21 AM, goDel said:

It's pretty sickening when there's a bunch of pundits taking on Obama's talk on Martin and his personal experiences with racial profiling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/white-men-racism-over_n_3624866.html?ir=Black+Voices&ref=topbar

Some people seem to be able to completely ignore and misunderstand the emotional aspects events like these can have. " dude, Obama has been elected twice, so whenever you're being stared at because you're black, it's not about racism anymore." If this doesn't show how logic can lead to utter stupidity, I don't know what will.

whats sick about him saying that is that the judge didn't want the racial aspect brought into the trial because there wasn't enough evidence to support that it motivated zim's actions. later, evidence supported that racial profiling may have motivated trayvon's actions. the trial is over, and again, instead of saying something to help people move on and realize that maybe they shouldn't have allowed media LIES to whip them into a feeding frenzy, he ups the ante on his previous comment about it maybe being his son, to 'that could have been ME'. anyone with a single shred of integrity should see that instantly as being fucked in so many countless ways. with that statement he's basically saying that it WAS racism that led to martin's death, overriding the judge's rule and suggesting that the justice system failed. is this a common thing for presidents to do? he also said politicians should stay out of it. i think he should take his own god damned advice. but i guess he's more of a celebrity cult icon who can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it, rather than a politician at this point.

 

studies have shown that usa is among the countries of the world with the LEAST prevalent racism. but Dems like obama understand that they need to keep the various superficially defined groups out there segregated. they need to maintain and brainwash their voter base into believing the idea that this country is the WORST case of racism in the world. because they enjoy ~95% of the black vote, ~75% of the non-white and non-black vote. on the other hand, obama only got ~41% of the white vote. they're scared shitless of there being less segregation of ideas among these various groups of population, because they have no idea how it would affect their bid for power. the media made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was out to frame zimmerman as a bad, racist, cold blooded killer, right from the beginning. WHY?

 

obama said it could be his son. WHY? now he says it could have been HIM. WHY? there ARE answers to those questions. there are reasons people do and say things. there may be reasons why if you look at the thousands of blacks who have died since the zim/trayvon incident, you would see that MOST of those deaths occurred in Dem strongholds. there may be a reason why if you look at the most violent, crime ridden cities in the USA, and i would even say you could go up to the top 50 of them, and then compile who the mayors of those cities going back for half a century were, you would find the vast overwhelming majority of them were from a certain party. guess which one. seriously. do it. i looked up the top 10 violent cities knowing exactly what to expect, and was still surprised to see HOW MUCH of their mayors were dems. 8 of the top 10 on the list i found were almost straight D going down the line. a few all D for half a century back. i'd bet anyone here that a list of most dangerous cities in this country, with more deaths per capita, going to top 50, the vast, overwhelming majority of those mayors are going to be from the D party. it wont even be close. a complete blowout.

 

so to me, i look at those thousands of deaths and nothing being done about them, and have to wonder if THAT'S where the racism is. i have to wonder. why shouldn't i? DECADES of members of the same party having THEIR policies run cities into the ground. COUNTLESS deaths. to me that should be their main job if they get control of a city with that kind of problem. cutting down on the high rate of murders/violence. but they've had decades to solve these problems so either they don't mind it at all (and plenty of these guys, you'll find, were corrupt and skimming, milking their cities for what they are worth while their citizens were dying, many caught for corruption but who knows how many of them never were) and are ok with it happening, or they are criminally fucking inept. either way, they are doing a shitty job, but keep getting in there, decade after decade. i seriously encourage everyone here to check it out. hard, solid, facts and a death toll that cannot be ignored. this is the same party that fought publicly to keep schools segregated. the same party that founded the kkk, and fought to keep slaves. and then has their historians write a flip-flop into the history books which they call 'the southern strategy' to cover their tracks. but continues to run things with little to no regard for their black citizens, for decades, in the vast majority of the most violent cities in the country. then go and along with the media they mostly control, point at zim as a racist to distract from what THEY are doing.

 

so here's me. i look at zim, and what happened there, and see no real solid proof for actual racism on his part. i look at decades of rule by the same party, in MOST of the cities where MOST of the murders in the country are happening, and with MANY of those deaths (vastly disproportionate amount) being young black kids, and to ME, that's a whole hell of a lot more suspicious if you want to talk about racism. i don't see how anyone can look at zim and see racism but look at THOUSANDS of deaths under the rule of the same party, with ZERO improvement (if not a, for HALF A CENTURY in some cases, and not see ANYTHING there. it blows my mind. if something is broke you fix it. unless maybe you don't care, considering the skin color of the kids dying in your streets. to me, THAT'S a likely case of 'institutionalized racism'. why fix that problem when they keep voting you back in, so you can commit more fraud/graft, anyway? white on black racist driven crime is actually pretty rare, all things considered, but that reality doesn't get anyone elected.

 

pretty brilliant post

 

there are multiple historical inaccuracies stated here. The Democratic party did not create the KKK, the KKK took over the Democratic party establishment in the Reconstruction South. Let's also keep in mind that the Democratic party of the 1860s-1950s was incredibly different from today's modern party system (I will explain why in the next paragraph). Southerners fought to keep slaves, let's get real here. There were plenty of Republican politicians up to and including the Civil War (like Lincoln's Vice President) that supported preserving slavery, and later advocated a loose Reconstruction policy that favored segregationist tactics against enfranchised freemen. Let's be honest here: racism transcended party platforms. The Republican party of the 1850s was also formed out of the remnant of anti-Jacksonian and anti-slavery parties, pushing for greater Federal (and conversely Northern control) over the "peculiar institution." This is quite different from the Republican party of today, which might very well have loved Jackson for his states' rights and anti-central banking stance.

Also, you either have not researched what the "southern strategy" is, or you are being disingenuous. The "Southern Strategy" was something that occurred during and after the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s, which also explains the major party's affiliates and supporters shifting.

If you look at the electoral history, Kennedy was hesitant to sign what became the Civil Rights Bills of 1964 and onward because of a large, predominately Southern voting bloc that had been traditionally voting Democratic. When Johnson got into power, he passed the Civil Rights Acts and conversely lost a ton of traditionally Democratic voters who saw Johnson's signing as "The Great Betrayal". These voters formed smaller third parties such as the Dixiecrat and States Rights movements. The "Southern Strategy" was the Republican party realizing that they could then win over these disillusioned Democrats by avoiding making Civil Rights issues a major part of their platforms. This was an incredibly successful strategy, and handily won Nixon his first election. Nixon and his team saw the electoral success of former Dem. and well known segregationist George Wallace in the previous election, and worked on campaigning to win over that part of the electorate. Nixon's advisers even referred to winning the "Solid South" as a key part of his presidential campaign by avoiding direct references to Civil Rights movements and instead focusing on States Rights terminology.

This is not revisionist history, read most of the interviews conducted by Nixon's closest campaign managers; they admit to it. Here's but one of the many newspaper articles regarding Nixon's campaign advisor Dent on using the term:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_D9CAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qqoMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3040,3364120&hl=en

You make some valid points about Obama making himself part of the Zimmerman dialogue, but don't spread inaccurate histories.

Nice post smetty

sorry, i didn't mean to derail the thread too much, but those particular statements were inaccurate.

I'm assuming Lumpy is joking.

The only thing brilliant about that ahistorical wall of gibberish is that I'm pretty sure it's modeled after the monologue delivered by Ed Norton's father in American History X.

  On 7/22/2013 at 7:51 PM, SR4 said:

sorry, i didn't mean to derail the thread too much, but those particular statements were infuriating

fikst