• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The Ferguson thread / additional race discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcdonalds sells more food than any other 'restaurant' in the world. your point?

alasdair

Well you would think the majority of people would be rather discerning about news sources, if a paper regularly prints misinformation or lies logic would say their readership would drop. I know there has been errors in Daily Mails published content but that happens with every newspaper and is even more prone with a publication printing breaking news and with a number of staff as large as the Daily Mail. I have noticed the Daily Mail addresses many stores which the rest of the mainstream media shies away from whether it be the 1,400 girls in Rotterham targeted by grooming gangs or this story of a white college student brutally killed by a black police officer.

This story of Ferguson and the Trayvon Martin case were both littering the American newspapers and magazines for months since there occurrence while stories on violence perpetuated against white people usually get coverage of local news and it ends there.

#WhiteLivesMatterToo
 
Well you would think the majority of people would be rather discerning about news sources, if a paper regularly prints misinformation or lies logic would say their readership would drop.
lol. one of the most naive things i've ever read on bluelight. you don't really believe that, right?
I have noticed the Daily Mail addresses many stores which the rest of the mainstream media shies away from whether it be the 1,400 girls in Rotterham targeted by grooming gangs or this story of a white college student brutally killed by a black police officer.
links please.

alasdair
 
lol. one of the most naive things i've ever read on bluelight. you don't really believe that, right?
links please.

alasdair

Links to what? The stories:

Here's the one about Gil Collar the naked student who was shot on campus by a police officer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...deo-shows-naked-Alabama-student-high-LSD.html

Heres the Rotterham grooming gang story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2735194/Girls-young-11-doused-petrol-told-raped-next.html

What are you requesting links to? It's readily apparent that the story of Gil Collar was brushed under the rug while Ferguson and Trayvon Martin were covered immensely.
 
A search for Gil Collar on Google turns up 588,000 results.

A search for Trayvon Martin turns up over 7 million.

Michael Brown is a common name, but "Michael Brown Ferguson" turns up 170 million results.

Obviously, the media tends to cover stories on "White-on-Black" crime far more often than vice-versa, incredibly bias.
 
This should be neutral enough

And yup another sad case of some useless cop wasting someone who was just fucked up on RC's. I mean ffs obviously the guy had no weapon at all so why did he pose a threat at all. I mean christ who has not seen something like this happen anyway sans the person getting shot over it. Worse comes to worse he could have doubled the kid up on the ground by ramming that baton right into his solar plexus. Hurts like a cunt but is usually not lethal.

If cops overreact so much to very minor shit like this i can only imagine them in a situation where lethal force would be allowed. I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near it and we had a similar case where a mentally ill guy high on crack i think got shot after the cop emptied his whole fucking clip and even hitting a neighbors house. And to top it all off there was a fucking fence between them. Hardly a immanent threat.
 
A search for Gil Collar on Google turns up 588,000 results.

A search for Trayvon Martin turns up over 7 million.

Michael Brown is a common name, but "Michael Brown Ferguson" turns up 170 million results.

Obviously, the media tends to cover stories on "White-on-Black" crime far more often than vice-versa, incredibly bias.

Bad logic - you're picking a popular case. It's like me picking OJ Simpson, then comparing it to some podunk white-on-black crime, and then saying the media tends to cover stories on black on white crime far more often then vice-versa.

Lets see what happens if we pick unknown cases. To make it easy, I'm going to pick two murders and both were sentenced to death in the same state, on the assumption that death row crimes are more or less equally offensive. So Texas, here we come! I'll search for the perpetrator's and victim's first and last names together. I'll limit it to one victim.

Here's the list.

Crap. I went back to 1996 or so (because up until then, the race of the victim tends to be listed), and it turns out that for a white person to be sentenced to death for killing a black person in Texas takes exceptional, note-worthy circumstances.

The contenders are the white woman who killed a black mentally retarded woman and set her on fire, and the two white men who dragged a black man to death behind their jeep. Both are newsworthy cases in and of themselves.

Otherwise, if I include multiple murders, there's one guy who shot and killed two members of law enforcement, one white, one black, and someone who killed a black and Hispanic guy.

So, I think in Texas, if you want to avoid the death penalty, you can kill one black person pretty safely.

Don't kill white women though. That'll get you executed.
 
Bad logic - you're picking a popular case. It's like me picking OJ Simpson, then comparing it to some podunk white-on-black crime, and then saying the media tends to cover stories on black on white crime far more often then vice-versa.

OJ was a famous football player. Trayvon and Michael Brown were hardly famous, and there was substantial evidence that they were aggressive in each incident. Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown's case are popular but it's a circular argument, WHY are they most popular cases? Because of media attention! WHY are they getting media attention? That is the question. Why do they get media attention while unjust cases such as Mr. Collar are covered in local media and dissappear shortly thereafter?
 
OJ was a famous football player. Trayvon and Michael Brown were hardly famous, and there was substantial evidence that they were aggressive in each incident. Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown's case are popular but it's a circular argument, WHY are they most popular cases? Because of media attention! WHY are they getting media attention? That is the question. Why do they get media attention while unjust cases such as Mr. Collar are covered in local media and dissappear shortly thereafter?

All Martin did was slap up some wanna be cop and id have done the same in that circumstance. The fat fuck would not stop following him so he escalated the situation himself when he was told by dispatchers to back off. Now i guess Martin like all of us don't like being followed on dark streets so he reacted by showing that fat cunt Zimmerman that he was not Charles fucking Bronson. If there had not been a gun involved the worst that would have happened in the case would be both men going home with nothing worse then a few bruises and a wounded ego. But nope Zimmerman had to play cowboy i guess he watched 1 too many dirty harry movies.

That should have been manslaughter right there especially since Zimmerman provoked the incident in the first place.

As for keeping violence by the police against nice white people off the news id say it's because unlike the Blacks whites have been so pacified in America that they probably figure they got what was coming to them. It's been the protesters not the case itself that kept both cases in the news.
 
Respect... It's nice to see that there's still some good people in the world.

Black Residents Armed With Assault Rifles Stand Guard Outside White-Owned Business During Ferguson Riots

A group of black Ferguson residents armed with high-powered rifles stood outside a white-owned business in the city during recent riots, protecting it from rioters that looted and burned other businesses.

After a grand jury returned no indictment against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed unarmed black teen Michael Brown, protesters took to the streets and the demonstrations quickly turned into rioting. Several buildings were set ablaze, but a group of heavily armed black men stood outside a Conoco gas station.

One of the residents, a 6-foot-8 man named Derrick Johnson, held an AR-15 assault rifle as he stood in a pickup truck near that store’s entrance. Three other black Ferguson residents joined Johnson in front of the store, each of them armed with pistols.

In a city torn apart by racial tensions, the fact that black residents took up arms to defend a white-owned store made headlines.

The men said they felt indebted to the store’s owner, Doug Merello, who employed them over the course of several years.

The men said Merello always treated them with respect.

“He’s a nice dude, he’s helped us a lot,” said a man identified himself as R.J. The 29-year-old R.J. said the group chased away several groups of teenagers who wanted to loot the store, but also nearly got into a brush with soldiers from the Missouri National Guard, who initially mistook them for looters.

The gas station’s owner said the men definitely saved his store.

“We would have been burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” said Merello, whose father first bought the store in 1984.

While the black Ferguson residents defended the white-owned store, dozens of other businesses were not as lucky. Officials said more than a dozen businesses received “significant” damage as groups of rioters threw bricks, broke windows, and set fires.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1638935/bl...ss-during-ferguson-riots/#K3yFPhXZP5Fz7jTX.99
 
What are you talking about? Unless I missed a joke somewhere an AR-15 is semi-automatic just the same as any other rifle a civilian can buy in the U.S.
 
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=454637040

An assault rifle has full automatic capabilities, by the technical definition. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

Oh good lord...

The AR-15 is a lightweight, intermediate cartridge magazine-fed, air-cooled rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. It has been produced in many different versions, including numerous semi-automatic and selective fire variants. It is manufactured with extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials.

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle like the AR-10 to the rear of the receiver), the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16 rifle.[7] Colt then started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian sales in 1963 and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Thanks for derailing the original point of my post btw. Real classy. The more I see and hear from the anti-gun crowd the more it occurs to me on how little they actually know about guns.
 
Last edited:
Bah, whatever. I can't tell whether people are being serious or not in this section anymore. I find it a bit irritating tho when what are imo worthwhile articles to read whether or not you agree with them just get ignored or reduced down to a frivolous quip that doesn't do anything for the conversation. Like "stopped reading after (insert news source here)". Not saying that someone should agree but at least take the time to read the fucking thing before you just write something off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top