1 - 10 Next
Darb, You need to work on your ebonics. Quite insulting, my friend. Improve on your intelligence level while you're at it.
My ol' friend Darb. When scum sucking bottom feeding wannabees like Lancer start circling, I knew it wouldn't be long before you would be in their midst. How's life been for you racists, Darb?
In response to:

Ferguson—Michael Brown Got Justice

Denmark Vesey Wrote: Nov 22, 2014 12:30 PM
Nantz, Salient facts? “Brown attacked officer Wilson, fracturing his orbital socket..” A straight up lie and you know it. Several reports have come out debunking this lie. Nantz: “Just before officer Wilson was beaten to the point of unconsciousness, he fired at Brown, fatally wounding him.” Another bald-faced lie. Brown was shot at least 30 ft from the cruiser after running from Wilson. While running, he suddenly stopped and turned to face Wilson. Witnesses state Brown then raised his hands in surrender. Wilson says Brown charged him threateningly. Herein is the issue to be determined by the grand jury. Nantz is feeding the lie that talk radio and Fox News have expoused. Nantz: “Additionally, autopsy reports do not support the claim that Brown was in a position of surrender, with his arms raised, when he was shot.” Nantz is purposely distorting facts surrounding the autopsy report in an attempt to solidify his point. The autopsy report did not confirm no such thing. This guy is really a piece of work. The below is from Michael Graham, the St Louis Medical Examiner. “Graham, who also reviewed the autopsy report for the Post-Dispatch, told the NewsHour that the report showed an altercation took place at the car. ‘Whether or not it’s self-defense, you’ve got to look at all the accounts,’ he said. ‘This report doesn’t fundamentally answer the question of whether at some point [Brown] had his hands up as witnesses have said, or whether he surrendered, or whether they were up in an aggressive posture.’ ‘As you look at this [report], people are grabbing onto one thing, trying to make a whole case on this one finding,’ said Graham. ‘You can’t do that.” Nantz: ‘We also know, through Grand Jury leaks, that there are several black witnesses who support officer Wilson’s version of the incident.” Really? We don’t know exactly what these witnesses testified to but my guess is that these witnesses testified that an altercation did occur at the vehicle prior to the killing and not that Brown was approaching Wilson in a threatening manner at the time of the fatal shots. Can’t say for sure but neither can Nantz. Nantz: “Ferguson, then, isn’t about objective facts but about black bigotry and racism.” This line qualifies as a “pants on fire” lie.
Alice, Thanks very much for your input. --DV
USA, I do respect your point of view and appreciate the fact that you did not fall back on standard republican innuendos in stating your position. I disagree with you that the dem platform is not beneficial to the black community (access to better education, jobs, housing, and healthcare) but you are correct when the actual actions of dem congressmen are matched against their campaign rhetoric. Dems this year have proven to be spineless and apparent unbelievers in their own policies which resulted in 2/3 of the voting populace staying home. On the other hand, past republican antics, in particular since the advent of Barack Obama’s candidacy for POTUS, have provided too many glimpses of clandestine racism and at times, overt hatred. You may disagree but the perch from which I view such incidences is much different than yours. The current repub majority in both houses presents an excellent opportunity to refute all assertions regarding how African Americans and other minorities are dealt with. I relish the chance to vote for a non-democrat who does not view me as a government parasite and whose policies have been designed to have many positive effects within the black community as well as the rest of America. We shall see.
USA said "So, what percentage of the 95% of blacks who continually pull the lever for (D) do so for some other reason than they're black (and they've been generationally conditioned to vote D)?" The GOP's problem is that the racist perception of this party held by most minorities is continually validated by neocons with high visibility. The antics of Breitbart, statements made by Newt and Rick, the 47% comment made by Mitt, and many more that surfaced over the last two POTUS elections were instrumental in preserving a view of repubs as a party infested with racists and bigots. The GOP does not need outreach projects nor any other phony attempts initiated to attract minorities. What's needed is for leadership to immediately and soundly condemn actions and quotes considered as racially offensive rather than gloss over these insults or just completely ignore such. Moreover, GOP messaging is a problem. Talk radio, Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, and others routinely opine that most African Americans vote for dems because of getting something for nothing (in particular, food stamps and welfare). This is utterly absurd and ridiculously ignorant. The truth is that blacks vote democratic in this day and age for one specific reason...to keep repubs out. Blacks do not view dems as saviors as most cons believe but repubs can be so insulting and racist in their statements that any black person that votes repub can only be considered as a d---n fool. Consider this. If Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas ran for president against Hillary, only the most ignorant among you would think either one of these two would receive more than 30% of the black vote. Absolutely ridiculous.
Star, Being liberal, I do see many positives in your article this time around. I certainly hope the focus of Mia and Tim will be to improve access to better education, better paying jobs, safer neighborhoods, and opportunity for higher education for all Americans. Btw, I also appreciate you not writing an article similar to your past endeavors that insinuate that African Americans only want food stamps and welfare and not jobs or better educational opportunities. Hopefully, we all can have a vision of truly what all Americans desire without denigrating (falsely) those who are impoverished and seeking only to improve their daily existence.
Lib, Better watch it. Your pragmatic post will get you labeled as a flaming lib. Way too much sensible conclusions derived from factual data rather than ideology and personal biases. The below is response to the stupid post by Darby... Young Black Men 21 Times More Likely Than Whites to Be Shot Dead by Police (http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/young_black_men_21_times_more_likely_to_be_shot_dead_by_police_than_whites.html) Federal data of fatal police shootings from 2010 to 2012, reviewed and analyzed by ProPublica According to the report, “Blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police.” The report also noted that from 1980 to 2012, 41 teens, 14 years or younger, had been fatally shot and 27 of them were black, eight were white, four were Hispanic and one was Asian. According to the ProPublica findings, “There were 151 instances in which police noted that teens they had shot dead had been fleeing or resisting arrest at the time of the encounter. Sixty-seven percent of those killed in such circumstances were black. That disparity was even starker in the last couple of years: of the 15 teens shot fleeing arrest from 2010 to 2012, 14 were black.”
In response to:

Voter Fraud and Voter I.D.

Denmark Vesey Wrote: Nov 04, 2014 6:55 PM
Its apparent that you folks missed the point of my post. The post confirms that right wingers primary reason for instituting voter id laws was to restrict the ability to vote of African Americans. Period. The quotes I copied were not from dem opposers of such laws but of conservatives caught with their pants down. 2nd, many of you indicated black folks should be insulted regarding insinuations that we don't have proper id. You miss the point. The fact is that most African Americans have a drivers lic or a state/federal issued id card. The point is that if ANY person is not allowed to vote due to a restrictive id law whose ultimate goal is to restrict the voting ability of certain groups, that individual has been disenfranchised. In particular, restrictive voter id laws that have been imposed with no substantial history of fraudulent in-person voting occurrences. And Darby....In Fort Worth, I have a name for you also
In response to:

Voter Fraud and Voter I.D.

Denmark Vesey Wrote: Nov 04, 2014 4:33 PM
In 2011 an Associated Press analysis found that South Carolina’s proposed voter-identification law would hit black precincts the hardest, keeping thousands from casting nonprovisional ballots. Likewise, if Alabama’s voter-ID law goes into effect, it will place its largest burden on black voters who lack acceptable forms of identification and don’t have immediate access to alternatives. And while most of these laws—which, it’s worth noting, have been passed in most of the states of the former Confederacy—provide for free identification, it’s not an easy reach. To get one in Mississippi, for instance, residents need a birth certificate, which costs $15 and requires the photo identification they don’t have. They’ll also need time to travel to the state office to pay or a computer to do the transaction online.
1 - 10 Next