Jena and anywhere
I was listening to the news today and heard that there had been a protest in Jena, LA.
White supremacists were in lawful protest in opposition to the outcome of the "jena 6" case.
There were about 120 "counter protesters" to protest the white supremacists.
I reckon that, as much as you may disagree with the message, the white supremacists had the RIGHT to protest, or assemble, or whatever.
I knew a guy once that made it his hobby to follow the KKK around and harass them as they met. He was a self proclaimed liberal and activist. When I asked him who's rights were being trampled when he screamed at the klanspeople, he indicated that they had no rights as thier message was so absurd.
This unclear logic is what runs so rampant here on GB, and I would hope that those of us that espouse freedom at all costs proclaim that freedom for everybody and every idea, not just those we agree with.
White supremacists were in lawful protest in opposition to the outcome of the "jena 6" case.
There were about 120 "counter protesters" to protest the white supremacists.
I reckon that, as much as you may disagree with the message, the white supremacists had the RIGHT to protest, or assemble, or whatever.
I knew a guy once that made it his hobby to follow the KKK around and harass them as they met. He was a self proclaimed liberal and activist. When I asked him who's rights were being trampled when he screamed at the klanspeople, he indicated that they had no rights as thier message was so absurd.
This unclear logic is what runs so rampant here on GB, and I would hope that those of us that espouse freedom at all costs proclaim that freedom for everybody and every idea, not just those we agree with.
0
-
I like your attitude.
One suggestion though. I have been preaching that when referring to Jena, we should use the full term to actually describe what happened down there. When 6 young black men launched a cowardly attack on a lone white, simply because he was white. The white was knocked unconcious from behind then, while one black stood on the victim's head, all six blacks savagely beat the prone and helpless victim.
So the correct phrase when referring to that gang attack should be "The Jena 6 on 1."0 -
I support the racists' right to march.
I support their detractors' right to march at the same time.
IMO all have the right to protest and let their feelings be known.0 -
i'm going to keep quiet, i'm in enough trouble already. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I support the racists' right to march.
I support their detractors' right to march at the same time.
IMO all have the right to protest and let their feelings be known.
One side marched in support of 6 of their members committing vicous, cowardly gang violence against a lone white just because of his race. The other side marches to protest that immoral position.
Are you saying there is no difference in the rightness of one side compared to the other?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I like your attitude.
One suggestion though. I have been preaching that when referring to Jena, we should use the full term to actually describe what happened down there. When 6 young black men launched a cowardly attack on a lone white, simply because he was white. The white was knocked unconcious from behind then, while one black stood on the victim's head, all six blacks savagely beat the prone and helpless victim.
So the correct phrase when referring to that gang attack should be "The Jena 6 on 1."
+ 1
you forgot to mention the extensive criminal records of the black thugs and their current criminal trial for their hate crime against the innocent white student.
also, lets not forget that it is LEGAL to hang a noose and the noose is NOT an exclusive symbol of lynching blacks. In fact, the noose has been used to hang far more whites than blacks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I support the racists' right to march.
I support their detractors' right to march at the same time.
IMO all have the right to protest and let their feelings be known.
so, you support the "detractor's" attempt to squelch the free speech of the supremacists?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I support the racists' right to march.
I support their detractors' right to march at the same time.
IMO all have the right to protest and let their feelings be known.
One side marched in support of 6 of their members committing vicous, cowardly gang violence against a lone white just because of his race. The other side marches to protest that immoral position.
Are you saying there is no difference in the rightness of one side compared to the other?
What does the "rightness" of one's opinion have to do with the Constitutional Right to assemble?0 -
This isnt about which side is right...which side is wrong...which is more right...etc.
It is about the right to peacefully assemble and protest. As long as the groups do so peacefully...then I support their right to speak. Once they get out of hand and escalate to violence, then they have lost their right.
Personally, I want groups to publically march and speak. It lets you know exactly what their thought process is. Know thy enemy...0 -
I THINK...IMHO....MY OPINION
Our forefathers recognized the need to keep ideas and the discussion of those ideas an inviolate right.
I have a guy I know who, when he talks himself into a hole, just keeps talking louder and with less regard for the other points in the discussion.0 -
if blacks and asian and hispanics can be openly racist then why is it such a problem if whites are. there seems to be a world wide drive on that tries to make all whites feel some kind of guilt because a lot of blacks , asians, and hispanics live below the poverty line. it will be a cold very wet day in hell before i feel guilt because they elect dictators who`s first job seems to be to rip off their countries treasury and salt the money into foreign WHITE controled banks!!if being proud of being white means you are a racist then i`m proud to be called a racist! 0 -
FYI: The Jena Six refers to a group of six black teenagers who were charged with the beating of Justin Barker, a white teenager at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana, United States, on December 4, 2006. The beating followed a number of racially-charged incidents in the town, of which the earliest that has been reported was when three white students hung nooses from a tree at Jena High School, after a black student asked permission from a school administrator to sit under the tree. The Jena Six case sparked protests by those who view the arrests and subsequent charges as excessive and racially discriminatory, especially as compared with the treatment of white Jena youths involved in other incidents. However, United States Attorney Donald Washington investigated events in Jena and found no indication of racially-motivated prosecutions. On September 20, 2007, between ten and twenty thousand protesters marched on Jena in what was described as the "largest civil rights demonstration in years." Related protests were held in other U.S. cities on the same day.
Mychal Bell, the only member of the "Jena Six" who was tried, initially had his convictions set aside. Bell was originally charged with attempted murder, but the charges were subsequently reduced and he was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy. Both convictions were overturned on the grounds that the defendant should have been tried as a juvenile, not as an adult, on the reduced charges.
On December 3, 2007, Bell pled guilty to a reduced charge of battery and agreed to testify against the others, should their cases go to trial. He was sentenced to 18 months, with credit for time served.
Charges against four defendants who are adults under Louisiana law remain pending. The status of charges against the sixth defendant, who was a juvenile at the time of the attack, is not known.
... sounds like Louisiana screwed up ... or, is it just me?
[:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I support the racists' right to march.
I support their detractors' right to march at the same time.
IMO all have the right to protest and let their feelings be known.
One side marched in support of 6 of their members committing vicous, cowardly gang violence against a lone white just because of his race. The other side marches to protest that immoral position.
Are you saying there is no difference in the rightness of one side compared to the other?
What does the "rightness" of one's opinion have to do with the Constitutional Right to assemble?
The blacks assemble to demand that the 6, in "the Jena 6 on 1" be freed of any criminal penalty and released from jail. Apparently their logic, if any, is that blacks were offended and frightened by something as simple, AND NON-VIOLENT, as some ropes hanging in a tree in the shape of a noose. The reasons why the black 6 were arrested in the first place have already been described on this particular topic thread.
So, to try and respond to your question, the blacks marched in favor of black mob on white violence. The whites protest and may march protesting black on white violence.
Any questions?0 -
I support the right for both of these racist groups to assemble. 0 -
The Jena 6 assault on the small town of Jena, Louisiana, was intended to have been the one event that the civil rights agitators used to breathe new life into a tired movement that uses racism as a catalyst to sharing America's wealth. Instead, the event backfired, and is seen more appropriately as the Jena 6 Hate Crime, perpetrated by the tired old race baiters like Al Sharpton and others like their MSM supporters, and most probably the likes of Dick Morris, a Fox News analyst. 0 -
"Are you saying there is no difference in the rightness of one side compared to the other?"
That's right.
Doesn't matter what position they hold they have the right to express themselves.
Do we shut up those who are on the wrong side? Who decides what is the wrong side? How would you feel if someone... anyone... decided YOU were on the wrong side of an issue or debate and told YOU to shut up?0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
"Are you saying there is no difference in the rightness of one side compared to the other?"
That's right.
Doesn't matter what position they hold they have the right to express themselves.
Do we shut up those who are on the wrong side? Who decides what is the wrong side? How would you feel if someone... anyone... decided YOU were on the wrong side of an issue or debate and told YOU to shut up?
No, we do not shut up those "who are on the wrong side." But it tells us who our naive, liberal friends are when they act as if neither side is good or bad.
In regards to "Who decides what is the wrong side?" my answer is that the people who are on the "right" side decide that issue. In the case of the Jena 6 on 1, it should be obvious to everyone but a flaming liberal which side got violently and physically assaulted by 6 on 1 and which side merely got their feelings hurt.
So.....which side are you on?0 -
Everyone has the right to say their peace.
Why is this an arguable point?
You would silence those you disagree with.
You are assigning who is right and wrong and then saying those in the wrong can't state their position.
Sorry, I disagree.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Everyone has the right to say their peace.
Why is this an arguable point?
You would silence those you disagree with.
You are assigning who is right and wrong and then saying those in the wrong can't state their position.
Sorry, I disagree.
You are mistaken. I would not silence those I disagree with. I would not say that those who I claim are wrong cannot state their case. But I will loudly say, as in the black Jena 6 on 1 marches, that those marchers are on the wrong side of right and wrong.
It would be legal for an organizaed group to publically advocatefor legalizing man-boy love. I would not stop them from preaching their message, but I would certainly and loudly publically say that their message is wrong. Do you disagree with me on that? Or are you just more sympathic and tolerant when it comes to blacks marching for the side of evil?0 -
Everytime something like the Jena case comes up, the citizens of the twon don't get to work together to solve their own problems because both sides import activist to whip everyone up in a lather. I wish the town could stop outside activist from coming in and resolve their own issues among themselves. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
Everytime something like the Jena case comes up, the citizens of the twon don't get to work together to solve their own problems because both sides import activist to whip everyone up in a lather. I wish the town could stop outside activist from coming in and resolve their own issues among themselves.
Sir, in regards to your "wishes", please remember which racial side "importated activists" to whip everyone up in a lather.
In addition, are you now advocating lock-downs of towns that have such problems and not allowing any "strangers" into town? If so, you are becoming more extreme than some others here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Sir, in regards to your "wishes", please remember which racial side "importated activists" to whip everyone up in a lather.
In addition, are you now advocating lock-downs of towns that have such problems and not allowing any "strangers" into town? If so, you are becoming more extreme than some others here.
Doesn't matter who did it first, it shouldn't have been done at all.
I didn't "advocate" anything, I said I "wish" they could keep them out and "resolve" their own issues between themselves. That is the only solution that will work.
Don't read something that isn't there into my comment, and the "they did it forst" comment brings it down to the 6 year old level which is the current problem as I see it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
Everytime something like the Jena case comes up, the citizens of the twon don't get to work together to solve their own problems because both sides import activist to whip everyone up in a lather. I wish the town could stop outside activist from coming in and resolve their own issues among themselves.
That assumes there was an issue to begin with. What started the whole Jena thing was a fictional story written by a white guy with a serious case of white guilt. In his version of the story there was a series of racial incidents that culminated in the "Jena 6" being charged while the white kids were not. He did not do any research, and did not report the facts as a journalist, he knew it was fiction all along. He placed his story in the hands of folks he knew would "do a good job with it," and the rest is history.
Apparently there are not many real journalists, who check their facts, left to tell the real story. Modern-day hangings and rampant systemic racism sells way better than a story about a very bad black kid.0 -
What ever the case, outside influence is what blew the whole thing out of sight, and still is. 0 -
HAVE YOU EVER MET A BLACK AND YOU FELT THE HATE POORING OFF OF him TO THE "WHITE MAN" WELL I HAVE AND GUESS WHAT? Blacks are just as racist as the white boy. These marches bring nothing good to any community, period. They serve no purpose. I think that the white sup kkk jerkoffs are right there with that white stuff that forms on the sides of ur mouth when ur thirsty. They make me sick. Free speech my azzzzz.... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Sir, in regards to your "wishes", please remember which racial side "importated activists" to whip everyone up in a lather.
In addition, are you now advocating lock-downs of towns that have such problems and not allowing any "strangers" into town? If so, you are becoming more extreme than some others here.
Doesn't matter who did it first, it shouldn't have been done at all.
I didn't "advocate" anything, I said I "wish" they could keep them out and "resolve" their own issues between themselves. That is the only solution that will work.
Don't read something that isn't there into my comment, and the "they did it forst" comment brings it down to the 6 year old level which is the current problem as I see it.
So it doesn't matter to you "who did it first?" I am not exactly sure what you are referring to in regards to what "it" is, but in regards to extreme, vicous and cowardly violence, the black Jena 6 did "it first." In fact they are the ONLY ones who "did it first." Up until the Jena 6 on 1 assault, there had been no physical attacks on anyone. Instead, the Jena situation strarted with some non-violent, non- physical attacks and only symbolic acts by a few white kids. It ended with 6 black young men sneak attacking a lone white, just because he was white. As already mentioned, they knocked the white out from behind and then while one black stood on the prone, unconcious white's head, the other blacks savagely beat the white.
I feel you and others here are struggling way too hard to remain what you consider politically correct. So let me attempt to draw you out so that I can be sure that I do not misunderstand your position.
Say some white kids had done the noose hanging bit at your kids school. Even go farther and say that your kid was one of the ones who hung the noose. Now, say that your son was walking out of the school gym and was knocked unconcious, from behind by one of 6 blacks. Then, while one black stood on your son's head, all 6 blacks savagely beat your helpless, unconcisous son enough to where he had to go to the hospital emergency room. Now, say the police summoned you to the emergency room and explained what had happened to send your son to the emergency room.
The the police close the case saying they were letting everyone go because it was just a fight among students..
Can you, or anyother Jena 6 supporter here, honestly tell me you would take that calmly or would you fly into a rage and tell the police that what happened to your son was not a "student fight", it was a vicous, cowardly gang attack against your son becasue he is white.
Who here can give me a short, honest answer on what you would do in this emergency room situation I have just described?0 -
TR, you're off on a tangent. The it is bringing in outsiders to protest, and you were the one who said "they did it first". I said it doesn't matter, no one form outside should be there protesting because they only stir up feelings and issues that aren't even part of the problem.
Last time, I said they need to keep ALL outsiders out and resolve thier own issue between themselves. The whole issue was blown out when the outsiders decided to make it an issue. It would have been resolved and forgotten by now if "they" had stayed out of it.
You, yourself, are doing nothing but promoting the issue with your constant ramblings about it, and I'll bet money you don't live in Jena.
For Gods sake, if you don't pay them the attention they crave, they go somewhere else. If you don't like what is going on in Jena, stay away from it. All you're doing is giving them ammunition for hate.
Let the citizens decide what they want to do, and how they want to handle it, without stirring up more problems. States rights, town rights and personal rights should be respected even if we don't agree with them.
Sheesh!0 -
dheffley, OK. But just for the record, will you answer my question I posed to everyone here?
We might agree on the outsiders causing problems, but I want to know if we agree that in the Jena case, who did what to whom and who were the criminals.
Let's see if we can agree on that. Tangent or no tangent.0 -
It's not our place to decide who were the criminals. That's for the legal system to adjudicate. You are still placing blame based on your own opinion. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
dheffley, OK. But just for the record, will you answer my question I posed to everyone here?
We might agree on the outsiders causing problems, but I want to know if we agree that in the Jena case, who did what to whom and who were the criminals.
Let's see if we can agree on that. Tangent or no tangent.
I don't possess enough facts to make that decision, and I don't think many others do either. All I hear is two different stories. Who knows what is the truth and what isn't. I don't.0 -
Saxonpig and dheffley. There has been a torrent of information about the Jena 6 on 1. From several different sources. Surely, if you weren't intent on giving the Jena 6 blacks an unfair break, you could at least make up a tentative opinion.
If your kid was involved, I guarantee you would form an opinion. I have read other opinions you have offered with a whole lot less "evidence."
Even at that, the physical violence/attack information is so onesided (6 blacks on 1 white) and with no white on black violence, how can you not form an opinion to some degree based on that heinous crime? Surely with all the info that came out of Jena, you will not claim there WAS NO black 6 on 1 attack. Or will you?
And surely you will not claim there WAS a white on black physical attack. Or will you?
I cannot believe you both are so evenhanded and pure of thought that you really and truly have not yet formed an opinion. I believe you are doing what so many other people do and holding blacks to a lower standard of behavior than you hold whites.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments