There is no Rush Limbaugh in that article.
I never said Rush Limbaugh. I said Rush. The article said Rush. That Rush is dismayed at no world-wide media coverage of the arrests. I said Rush is a hatemonger, but you agreed with him.
Vicious hate crime attack on white 16-year old boy
- Thread starter kokonut
- Start date
I never said Rush Limbaugh. I said Rush. The article said Rush. That Rush is dismayed at no world-wide media coverage of the arrests. I said Rush is a hatemonger, but you agreed with him.
kokonut
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,006
- Reaction score
- 2
I never said Rush Limbaugh. I said Rush. The article said Rush. That Rush is dismayed at no world-wide media coverage of the arrests. I said Rush is a hatemonger, but you agreed with him.
Nice classic twist of words there not to mention a desperate attempt to cover your own tracks.
I agreed with Erik Rush what he said in the WND article. Whether Rush Limbaugh is a "hatemonger" is your own opinion, not mine. You assumed I was talking about Rush Limbaugh. Nope.
ADDENDUM, no where did I agree that Rush (Limbaugh) is a hatemonger. That's left up to your wild over-active imagination to believe that.
Words are there in black and white. Hard to miss those. I guess somebody has a dirty crystal ball. :P
Nice classic twist of words there not to mention a desperate attempt to cover your own tracks.
I agreed with Erik Rush what he said in the WND article. Whether Rush Limbaugh is a "hatemonger" is your own opinion, not mine. You assumed I was talking about Rush Limbaugh. Nope.
ADDENDUM, no where did I agree that Rush (Limbaugh) is a hatemonger. That's left up to your wild over-active imagination to believe that.
So now you're a mind-reader? Sure. And you DID agree with Rush that the arrests did not get enough media coverage. Try comprehending the words you read.
kokonut
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,006
- Reaction score
- 2
kokonut
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,006
- Reaction score
- 2
So now you're a mind-reader? Sure. And you DID agree with Rush that the arrests did not get enough media coverage. Try comprehending the words you read.
Erik Rush that is.
Tsk.
Still trying......?
Erik Rush that is.
Tsk.
Still trying......?
Nawww. You're right, I assumed it was Limbaugh since it sounded so much like him. But really, anyone who wants massive media coverage of this has issues.
It was fun razzing you.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 7,618
- Reaction score
- 27
I would be willing to bet that the ABC, CBS, and NBC locals also covered this crime. Did you check them as well? I would hardly consider KCPQ as FoxNews. I would consider them Seattle news.
Bebonang
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 9,442
- Reaction score
- 31
There is one thing that most men and maybe even women who goes out at 2 AM in the morning might be involved with drugs and alcohols that could cause them to behave out of control without thinking. It happened to my husband's young cousin who was involved with his three other cousins and they were all drinking alcohols and using drugs. They beat the hell out of their cousin and cause his death. They have no memory or remember some of the memory of what happened at the wee hour of the morning after midnight. All three had to go to court and went to prison for whatever time they have to deserved to earn their sentences. 
So to my thought of what the black person and the Asian person might be involved with drugs and alcohols that cause them out of control. Also maybe they want him to give them money or what. As for the white teenage boy, I still don't know why he had to walk home at 2 AM which is very late on a school night and claimed that they were racist because of their racist language to him. It is more deeper than what the article said.
So to my thought of what the black person and the Asian person might be involved with drugs and alcohols that cause them out of control. Also maybe they want him to give them money or what. As for the white teenage boy, I still don't know why he had to walk home at 2 AM which is very late on a school night and claimed that they were racist because of their racist language to him. It is more deeper than what the article said.
kokonut
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,006
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,335
- Reaction score
- 5
To me, any violent crime is a hate crime anyway.
While I understand using common sense of not walking around at 2am when you are 16 years old, I also understand the other point of view for a number of reasons:
1) We allow ourselves to lose some freedom in order to avoid interaction with criminals. We can't walk in certain areas, we can't be out during specific times of the day, we (women) can't wear certain things. We have curfews JUST because of criminals. It's upsetting that we allow criminals to dictate how we live our lives, even ever so slightly.
2) Number 1 reason affects some races and females more than others. Because of this, there is an inequality towards those groups when it comes to "freedom" as mentioned in number 1 reason. Especially when it comes to women. Their clothes are restricted, they must rely on a man or a group of women to be with them if they wanna go out late, and so on. And for what? Religon? Nope. Culture? Nope. FREAKIN' CRIMINALS.
3) Using the so called "common sense" can be a morale deflator. Common sense dictates that if you are walking back home alone at night and you see a big black guy nearby, stay away from him. How crushing for that big black guy who was only a college student who plays football also coming home late from a party. Better to be safe than sorry right? Who cares about some guy's feelings when you are just trying to look out for yourself, right? Which is fine. Honestly, I'd do the same. (To a guy of any race, really, cuz um well guys suck.
) But let's be honest, it isn't great for people's morale. It's sad, really.
While I understand using common sense of not walking around at 2am when you are 16 years old, I also understand the other point of view for a number of reasons:
1) We allow ourselves to lose some freedom in order to avoid interaction with criminals. We can't walk in certain areas, we can't be out during specific times of the day, we (women) can't wear certain things. We have curfews JUST because of criminals. It's upsetting that we allow criminals to dictate how we live our lives, even ever so slightly.
2) Number 1 reason affects some races and females more than others. Because of this, there is an inequality towards those groups when it comes to "freedom" as mentioned in number 1 reason. Especially when it comes to women. Their clothes are restricted, they must rely on a man or a group of women to be with them if they wanna go out late, and so on. And for what? Religon? Nope. Culture? Nope. FREAKIN' CRIMINALS.
3) Using the so called "common sense" can be a morale deflator. Common sense dictates that if you are walking back home alone at night and you see a big black guy nearby, stay away from him. How crushing for that big black guy who was only a college student who plays football also coming home late from a party. Better to be safe than sorry right? Who cares about some guy's feelings when you are just trying to look out for yourself, right? Which is fine. Honestly, I'd do the same. (To a guy of any race, really, cuz um well guys suck.
) But let's be honest, it isn't great for people's morale. It's sad, really.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
To me, any violent crime is a hate crime anyway.
While I understand using common sense of not walking around at 2am when you are 16 years old, I also understand the other point of view for a number of reasons:
1) We allow ourselves to lose some freedom in order to avoid interaction with criminals. We can't walk in certain areas, we can't be out during specific times of the day, we (women) can't wear certain things. We have curfews JUST because of criminals. It's upsetting that we allow criminals to dictate how we live our lives, even ever so slightly.
2) Number 1 reason affects some races and females more than others. Because of this, there is an inequality towards those groups when it comes to "freedom" as mentioned in number 1 reason. Especially when it comes to women. Their clothes are restricted, they must rely on a man or a group of women to be with them if they wanna go out late, and so on. And for what? Religon? Nope. Culture? Nope. FREAKIN' CRIMINALS.
3) Using the so called "common sense" can be a morale deflator. Common sense dictates that if you are walking back home alone at night and you see a big black guy nearby, stay away from him. How crushing for that big black guy who was only a college student who plays football also coming home late from a party. Better to be safe than sorry right? Who cares about some guy's feelings when you are just trying to look out for yourself, right? Which is fine. Honestly, I'd do the same. (To a guy of any race, really, cuz um well guys suck.
#1, #2, #3 can be avoided if our Amendment 2 is left unfettered
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,335
- Reaction score
- 5
#1, #2, #3 can be avoided if our Amendment 2 is left unfettered
Well, it's kinda hard to hold a gun when I'm wearing a very skimpy outfit for when I'm walking around at 2am.
Unless I do my kegel exercises?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 143
Well, it's kinda hard to hold a gun when I'm wearing a very skimpy outfit for when I'm walking around at 2am.
Unless I do my kegel exercises?
PPK gun in your little pulse or boobie or on your thigh
Grummer
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 14,707
- Reaction score
- 18
really interesting that we're having reports of reversal hate crimes, its so true and its about time to disspel the myth that white people is the only ones who attack on basis of race. its nothing new, what's seem new its that the way news media is starting to report it. I honesty find it a bit strange...