What's new
By:

White Church Bans Black Couple From Getting Married

Oh..................and why is racism only an issue when whites are the accused racist and the media jumps on their leg and humps away !

"Black-on-White Crime and Media Double-Standards"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL5427EF92F150FCB6&v=aAfjCjgjyA0&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL5427EF92F150FCB6&v=TkudMbyX_L8&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

Hmmm.................let me think about this...............but I think I'd rather be told I can't get married at a certain church and find one of millions of other churhes in the country, than catch bricks with my face !

Again, all you liberals can take your political correctness and shove it where the sun don't shine !
 
southwind said:
I think I'd rather be told I can't get married at a certain church and find one of millions of other churhes in the country, than catch bricks with my face !
Click to expand...

You aren't getting married in any church. It takes two.

Why worry about bricks to your face when you catch anvils with your empty skull daily?

Beep, Beep.
 
southwind said:
Oh..................and why is racism only an issue when whites are the accused racist and the media jumps on their leg and humps away !


Again, all you liberals can take your political correctness and shove it where the sun don't shine !
Click to expand...

Well, if i had to make a guess Id go with 400+ years of enslavement, being valued at 3/5 of a human and only being granted full equality in 1964.

By the way I don't think black on black crime qualifies as racism. Would you like to take a guess where you conservatives can stick your racial ignorance and misogynistc BS?
 
Oh, so black on white violence is justifiable due to things that happened 100+ years ago?...

Got it.
 
Ms Tree said:
Well, if i had to make a guess Id go with 400+ years of enslavement, being valued at 3/5 of a human and only being granted full equality in 1964.

By the way I don't think black on black crime qualifies as racism. Would you like to take a guess where you conservatives can stick your racial ignorance and misogynistc BS?
Click to expand...

Well in that case since we can use references from the distant past to justify Black on white violence we should be able to thump on Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Italians, Jewish folks, American Indians etc etc etc.

I am not interested in hearing double standards.
 
Again, I thought we were addresing the media coverage. I never intended my statement to imply that there is a justifcation for any violence of any type.
 
Ms Tree said:
Again, I thought we were addresing the media coverage. I never intended my statement to imply that there is a justifcation for any violence of any type.
Click to expand...

And the point we are making is why should the media coverage be any different? You seem to be defending racism from a mass media outlet.

In the above media snippits swap the black and white roles in the stories and tell me you would not be all over it like stink on an outhouse . What makessomething like the Martin case and these above cases any different? Nothing except the color of the victims and aggressors.

If you want to defend againt racism you have to defend against all racism, not just the side you want.
 
Keroseneuser said:
And the point we are making is why should the media coverage be any different? You seem to be defending racism from a mass media outlet.

In the above media snippits swap the black and white roles in the stories and tell me you would not be all over it like stink on an outhouse . What makessomething like the Martin case and these above cases any different? Nothing except the color of the victims and aggressors.

If you want to defend againt racism you have to defend against all racism, not just the side you want.
Click to expand...
Not defending it at all, just giving what I feel is a possible explanation. I do. I have never defended any form of racism or bigotry.


Understanding the possible origins of some behavior is not a justification or acceptance of said behavior. I see it as a starting point to address the issues and hopefully resolve them.
 
Ms Tree said:
Well, if i had to make a guess Id go with 400+ years of enslavement, being valued at 3/5 of a human and only being granted full equality in 1964.

By the way I don't think black on black crime qualifies as racism. Would you like to take a guess where you conservatives can stick your racial ignorance and misogynistc BS?
Click to expand...

How do you get 400+ years of enslavement out of a country 236 years old ?

Do you really think blacks were the only people ever enslaved in the history of the world ?

Oh..............that being valued 3/5 of a human is typical bullsh!t, Libtard rhetoric, just like, "If you don't vote for Barrack, you must be racist" !

"Misconception

According to a PBS article, the Three-Fifths Compromise is sometimes erroneously said to mean the founders believed blacks were only partial human beings (i.e. three-fifths of a person). The article also states the compromise had no relation to the individual worth of the black slave.[sup][10]"[/sup]

http://en.wikipedia....fths_Compromise

Now, come up with some more BS to make yourself feel better !
 
Ms Tree said:
Not defending it at all, just giving what I feel is a possible explanation. I do. I have never defended any form of racism or bigotry.


Understanding the possible origins of some behavior is not a justification or acceptance of said behavior. I see it as a starting point to address the issues and hopefully resolve them.
Click to expand...

So why is it then if I gave a possible explanation of why a lot of southern people don't approve of gay weddings you would call me a bigot, but its ok for you to justify why the national news media might run a racist story or in the case of the above largely ignore a racist event just because the perps were yelling "kill whitey" instead of "kill blacky"

By your standards NBC could run a story on how some japanese person was beat up by a group chanting "Dirty japs" and they could say "well you have to understand that such a behaivior was most likely caused by hard feelings left over from the war" and you would be just fine with it?

Racism is racism no matter what color the racists are.
 
southwind said:
How do you get 400+ years of enslavement out of a country 236 years old ?

Do you really think blacks were the only people ever enslaved in the history of the world ?

Oh..............that being valued 3/5 of a human is typical bullsh!t, Libtard rhetoric, just like, "If you don't vote for Barrack, you must be racist" !

"Misconception

According to a PBS article, the Three-Fifths Compromise is sometimes erroneously said to mean the founders believed blacks were only partial human beings (i.e. three-fifths of a person). The article also states the compromise had no relation to the individual worth of the black slave.[sup][10]"[/sup]

http://en.wikipedia....fths_Compromise

Now, come up with some more BS to make yourself feel better !
Click to expand...


The internet is your friend Try researching things for a change instead of throwing stuff up on the wall and hoping it sticks. Are you arguing that slavery magically started on the day the COTUS was ratified? Surely you are not that stupid.


I do not recall saying that they were and I am not sure how that relates to anything.


The 3/5 had to do with representation and wealth. While the 3/5 had nothing to do with the 'value' of a slave it did mean that their rights were not equal to that of a free person. You can call it BS all you want (you seem to like using that term for things you disagree with) but the bottom line is that the the 3/5 compromise was real.
 
Ms Tree said:
The internet is your friend Try researching things for a change instead of throwing stuff up on the wall and hoping it sticks. Are you arguing that slavery magically started on the day the COTUS was ratified? Surely you are not that stupid.


I do not recall saying that they were and I am not sure how that relates to anything.


The 3/5 had to do with representation and wealth. While the 3/5 had nothing to do with the 'value' of a slave it did mean that their rights were not equal to that of a free person. You can call it BS all you want (you seem to like using that term for things you disagree with) but the bottom line is that the the 3/5 compromise was real.
Click to expand...

Here's a few points to ponder.

Who owns the Church?
What are the terms of Pastor's employment?
Who is responsible for the decision?

1. The church is a privately held religous institution, ergo they can marry whomever they choose without Government interference
2. Pastor is usually hired by the Board of either Deacons or Trustees or both and as such are "at will" Some have personal services contracts. They are bound by their employers decision.
3. The various Boards are responsible.

Bottom line!!! Their church, their rules and tough darts to anyone who doesn't like it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top