88 year old WWII war hero beaten to death by two teens

NP, luv. The list is long.

I also don't want you to feel like your opinion doesn't count, either. It does, because it isn't isolated in the least. And that applies for every race.

If you took a bit of what Arch suggests to keep trying to discover who you are, and a bit of what AB is thoughtfully explaining to you that it's not all what is presented on the surface, you may get a better feel of what is realistic in your world. Please discern there is a balance or middle ground, and try to ignore the extremists on either end of the spectrum.

(ps: there are a cpl of other posts you made I want to mention something about when I have a bit more time)

 

Mikey, why do you keep mentioning AG Eric Holder as an example of a Black person's behavior hurting Blacks in the eyes of White people??

I don't have a problem is someone thinks Holder is a poor AG. But I don't know anyone who publicly thinks he's a poor AG because he's Black.

In the same way Bush's AG Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign, I don't know anyone who felt his resignation set back the advancement of Hispanics or made Whites more prejudiced towards Hispanics.

Are you parroting a critique you've heard about Holder from his detractors, or is your opinion grounded in your own thoughts??

These macro-social analyses you make sometimes are bizarre to me.

 

USAToday – non-partisan, no political slant.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/28/fire-eric-holder-column/2367713/

Jonathan Turley (Public interest law professor at George Washington University) was the writer of the above article. This has to do primarily with Holder’s overreach with using technology. I’d say that Eric Holder engages in race-based cyber warfare. Basically what he did was create electronic investigations (hacking) on most journalists who work at The Associated Press without their consent. The journalists he went after (investigated) were the ones that made articles based on politics or race relations.

Usually Holder would always say “no” or whatever and doesn’t take responsibility or admits he was at fault and made a mistake. Other people are able to take responsibility for their actions and admit if they aren’t correct or they made a mistake. Holder isn’t able to do that. Instead, Holder represents political corruption and just ends up contributing to dysfunction in Obama’s administration, and in Congress.

Basically, Holder represents political corruption. He also kept getting outsmarted by the Republicans about the Fast & Furious border operation.

[Youtube]Zw_L2ZiMJ-s[/Youtube]

I have mentioned this in the Trayvon Martin case, that it was difficult to figure out Zimmerman really shot Martin out of racial prejudice. The FBI concluded that a race-based feeling wasn't around.

 

Do you have actual views & opinions based on your own observations & experiences?? You are always posting up other people's opinions that you believe make sense. And whenever you put up any opinions not based on what someone else posted elsewhere on the internet, they are always these rambling rants that are all over the place.

 

Holder didn't target AP and Fox journalists because of race-based motives.
He was trying to target journalists he believed were responsible for leaking classified intel.

The Trayvon Martin case became racialized when George Zimmerman decided to racially profile TM and assume an unarmed Black teen had criminal intent.
That's not on Holder. Or is Colin Powell injecting race in it too??

Holder said the JD would investigate the Zimmerman case to see if it QUALIFIED as a hate crime. He never said that it was.

Holder's actions only represent political corruption if you believe Obama was telling his AG who and what to investigate.

BTW every media and all writers have a political slant. There's no such thing as pure objectivity, which is a the goal of most writers, not reality.

Your generalizations and broad strokes are just sketchy.:smt120

'Race-based cyber warfare' is just not true.
I have no idea where you're getting that from or what your sourcing is for that opinion.

 

Yes, I do remember hearing Holder's speech shortly after Obama was inaugurated in his first term. That's why I did talk about Eric Holder initially in my posts.

I thought it was racially based because when Obama was inaugurated, Holder made a speech almost immediately after, like within 2 or 3 weeks of his inauguration. It was in February of 2009. He basically said that the nation as a whole, is full of racist cowards. When he explains that, he is referring to the whites, and people who either voted for McCain or didn't vote at all in the 2008 election. It would lead you to believe that things he would do afterwards may have some kind of racial benefit that he was looking for.

[Youtube]LbxVIDlKRiY[/Youtube]

 

You might want to check out other sources other than the usual right wing networks, see below for an alternate viewpoint of the so called AP/hacking scandals...

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/29/gop-press-fox-news-subpoenas-scandals.html

As far as Fast and the Furious, I have already posted the Politifact reviews, here is another one from Fortune magazine.

"Republican senators are whipping up the country into a psychotic frenzy with these reports that are patently false," says Linda Wallace, a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service's criminal investigation unit who was assigned to the Fast and Furious team (and recently retired from the IRS). A self-described gun-rights supporter, Wallace has not been criticized by Issa's committee.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

By the way, "gun walking" operations are nothing new, there was a very similar operation done under Bush with many parallels that did not create a so called "scandal".

 

Mikey, you truly need to vet your sources a lot better. I used to listen to Savage back when I was in grad school, one of the only times I was compelled to call a talk show is when he was doing a show on the OJ case and he agreed with a guest host who said OJ's behavior was usual for Black men because on average they beat/abuse/kill their spouses. Savage has never, to my knowledge, had one positive thing to say about Black people as a whole and Black men in particular, while have A LOT of negatives to say about us.

Be aware of what multiple sources are saying for sure, but know that Savage is not your friend, learn to read between the lines, or I seriously worry for your future.

 

I haven't found the 2009 speech yet, I just decided to post that up since that was the closest thing I could find. I have no opinion about Michael Savage. Regarding Holder's speech though to bash the nation right after Obama won his first term, was IMO a bad move for race relations.

Thanks for posting. I'll try and find sites from non-partisan websites that talk more about the Fast and the Furious. The Washington Post is my local newspaper, do they have a conservative bias?

 

He didn't have favorable things to say because he eyewitnessed the complete transformation of the bay area in California from what it was 35 years ago------ as opposed to what it is today........You have to imagine; that would embitter most elderly americans of that era and generation......It was more the lost nostalgia of the San francisco he knew....than the races of his fellow countrymen....

 

You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the matter, I would disagree, I listened to him very closely during my time in the S.F. bay area, called in to his show on occasion to take him to task and call him on his BS on multiple occasions. IMO Savage continually paints Black people in the worst light possible, often times lumping us all in with those in the small minority of us that exemplify the worst behavior, criminals, thugs, welfare abusers, ect.

 

This is why you are highly questionable to me, Mikey.

Eric Holder said that America is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race.
He never said racist cowards, which is an entirely different message altogether and might seem targeted towards White people indirectly.

Either you are one of those naive people I've ever met, or one of the most disingenuous and manipulative people on this board.

All I had to do was type in Holder+racist+cowards to get the actual quote, because I knew in my gut you had gotten it wrong. Or was it deliberately??

Because I can't believe you are that clueless and so I think it must be a front put on by you to promote so much ignorance on this board, which lets you have your fallback of your own naivete.


Holder's speech was profound and groundbreaking for Black History Month, yet you allow right wingers to 'convince' you he's race baiting.

Here's the speech in its entirety.
[YOUTUBE]jCiUFE5QTYI[/YOUTUBE]

Ask yourself Mikey why certain right-wingers DELIBERATELY lie or misconstrue factual events that can be easily refuted with a simple internet search???

Who's really doing a disservice to advancing the cause of race relations??
The ones who lie and distort the reality of race, or those who think we should be able to talk about race openly in this county?

I truly hope you listen to the entire speech, Mikey.
If you are who you say you are, Holder's speech was meant for someone specifically like you.

 

You are right personally about me, I do have that tendency of being deceptive or manipulative. You mentioned about the right-wingers, but some of the sites I have come across appear to be journalists who identify politically as Independents, or people who have no political affiliation at all.

To answer your question about who's doing a disservice to race relations, I cite an article from The Root, which is a news site designed primarily for blacks. There isn't a political bias here. That site also cites a poll from NewsWeek, which gives you the answer as to who's really doing a disservice to advance the cause of race relations.

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/blogging-beltway/holder-if-were-still-nation-cowards

And even on the comment boards on that site, blacks still disagreed with one another about Eric Holder. I'd like to point out a good comment that was made by LouiseC (not sure if she's a WW or BW).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...l-show-americans-still-divided-over-race.html

Regarding this case about the WWII war hero that was jumped by two black teenagers, it leads me to believe that the group of people most Americans are sensitive to are young black men, ages 15 - 24. This specific demographic of black men (myself included) is what needs to be addressed. The posters on CNN are basically telling us that white men need to make a major intervention in the black community and basically revamp it. That's what I'd like to see happen. They want a whole new system of black leadership and black role-models created, rather than to say that the black race can't ever fix its problems. The people on racist site and WhiteNewsNow would say that about the case.

 

Breaking news, they found the second suspect!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/us/wo.../index.html?sr=fb082613secondteenwIIdeath915a

 

Exactly, well said Tamstrong.

Can't you just admit that conditions in your own country aren't how you and the people on your bandwagon perceive it?