These liberals are so sad. I teach in an inner-city high school in Long Beach, CA (Snoop Dogg’s school and we are referred to as “the LBC” obviously copied from your blog)

MacDiva and Tamika Jenkins ought to come visit “the LBC” and see the consequences of their politics. We have people murdered, in broad daylight, on the way home from school, in front of a police substation. By the way, MacDiva and Tamika Jenkins, they are all minority young people.

Your political party is the party of protecting the rights of “rapists and thugs.” LaShawn’s politics protects the law abiding, freedom loving people of all races. LaShawn doesn’t excuse rape and murder because of some “racial solidarity.” She believes in right and wrong for ALL people.

MacDiva and Tamika Jenkins, you just keep on. You will perpetuate the deaths of thousands more of your own. Perhaps you will be the last ones to figure out that there is more to life than race. That there is more to reason than racial slurs.

Sad, so sad.

JoeS
LBC

I am an American whose heritage is Puerto Rican. I served and still serve my country in the military and in the government.

I have a conservative viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to the Latinos/Hispanics and Blacks and White liberals I have day to day contact and relationships with. I empathize with you and what you struggle with, concerning the ignorance of the ignorant. Unfortunately for those who are predisposed to think via thier emotional mentality, logic and reason is as alien to them as truth and objectivity.

People like MacDiva and Tamika Jenkins live in a morally relativistic atmosphere, oblivious to reality. It is so sad, because I was just the same way until I came to myself and realized my Father had better at His house than what my proclivities could have (as they drove me into moral and mental bankruptcy).

You keep telling the truth and continue being a light in the midst of this darkness that surrounds us. Keep it tight and keep it right!

Jesus Rules, yo!!!!

Why, because he knew they were just trying to trap him in legalistic doublespeak, or set him up (straw men), or argue about something not important and not the real issue (red herrings).

I bet his enemies said the same thing “he never answers the questions! He just turns them around!”

He knew how to deal with disengenuous people.

now if only whenever someone in the military is accused of war crimes, or when a cop is accused of police brutality, we could get the MSM to use the word “alleged”. Then what a wonderful world we would live in!

HiRez, maybe LaShaw didn’t argue her points because MacDiva didn’t make any. The only point was that the guy was able to kill two armed male guards besides the lone female guard. Which means nothing because by then he was already on the run, two different situations. Unless MacDiva is arguing that men accused of rape should be tied up and rolled in ala Hannibal Lecter?

Besides that, you can’t go around answering every ridiculous thing everyone says, that does not mean you are “avoiding” anything. Most of the time the people I see criticizing this site (and elsewhere) are using red herrings or straw men, both of which SHOULD be ignored in order to stay on the subject in hand.

Besides, I did not see LaShawn going on about the suspect’s “blackness” she posted a picture, and he happens to be black. so what? The point is, why does that make certain liberals so angry? Why do they automatically turn around and say “oh yeah, what about that white guy that killed someone”

And for that matter, why whenever this happens, do people like you attack LaShawn and other conservatives, but never the MacDivas posting ridiculous arguments?

Am I able to say that, or do I have to go leave positive comments on some white person’s blog now to even things out?

Meanwhile, you keep calling ‘em as you see ‘em. I agreed with everything you said in your post and comments, and now I’m going back to read more.

Have a great day, from Chris

Robert Byrd’s “nazi” anaolgy is case in point. Instead of the republicans cowering in the corner of the ring, they came out swinging–along with the Anti-Defamation League(it was a good day for them)Byrd practically wet himself(or at least had an excuse for the mundane)

Now we get to this “thug” bit; a phrase reserved for 1st person declarations in gangsta rap, and white-collar criminals in newsprint.

Actually, ‘thug’ gets applied to any protester not in line with the left.

So why, when this Brian Nichols, heaps to himself the very embodiment of a Tupac Shakur lyric sheet, should we exclude the word “thug,” when it is the identifying moniker?

I relinquish the remainder of my time to the distinguished moonbats from wherever.

-T

You are right…he is a THUG, besides alot other things.

This commenter appears to have almost no contact with terra firma, morally speaking. The terrorists certainly ARE thugs, as LaShawn has often said. The church slayer wasn’t technically a thug– he was a good citizen and neighbour, not in the habit of raping and shooting and stealing as a lifestyle. He snapped and went nuts, and that is a mentally ill person, responsible nonetheless for his actions but not a “thug” in the street-criminal sense of the word.

The world com CEO hasn’t, to my knowledge, raped or killed or shot ANYBODY!! His crimes were nonviolent. A different paradigm.

oh, and btw, the “thug” word was originally the name of a cult in India (the Thuggees) which was famous for its brutality. It became the normative word for anyone who has violent antisocial habits, and mainly those who worked at a low level of organized crime and carried out the violent assignments. (perhaps the ‘cult’ of the Mafia was the inspiration for the redefining of that word.) At any rate, the hiphop culture is very late to the party in their commandeering of that word. I’m 44 years old, and I remember not so long ago when thug simply meant violent criminal. Most people who use the word today (who are not themselves either young black people or those in the music/movie/media business who make a living selling the word to young black people) are using it in its previous sense. And as fast as culture moves, it will soon revert entirely to that previous sense, as the youth culture will drop it and pick up something different.

“But individuals who critique your use of THUG which is primarily an urban black idiomatic expression for individuals who live an urban gangster lifestyle, in my opinion have some validity.”

I think a review of the dictionary definition of the word, “thug” is appropriate, because it reveals that the use of the term is scarcely racist OR an urban idiomatic. The American Heritage Dictionary tells us that “thug” means, “a cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum”. The term originated from the “Thugs,” who were assassin petitioners of the goddess Kali in India.

Someone who coldly murders four people in a courthouse, then holds another human being hostage for twenty-four hours is scarcely an upstanding individual: the term “thug”, in my opinion, may be applied accurately to Brian Nichols.

Moreover, the fact that Nichols responded to the proceedings attempting to prove his guilt or uphold his (legally presumed) innocence by murdering the judge and three others could lead people to think that perhaps he really is guilty of the original charge.

Facts are facts. Moral equivalency is a weak argument, especially when there are so many witnesses to the reality of his actions: he committed murder. He’s a thug by definition.

Some people (regardless of politcal persuasion) take commenting and or blogging WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY to seriously. If you find that you want to physically harm someone (or just wished you could…LOL) behind a comment on a blog, then you need to back away from the computer for a while.