CBS reporter raped and beaten by Muslim men.

[Big Don]

would you say the same thing about a guy? Like Daniel Pearl...

Was he brave to be doing the job he was, where he was? Certainly. Does that automatically make him a hero? I don't think so.

 

[granfire]

Was he brave to be doing the job he was, where he was? Certainly. Does that automatically make him a hero? I don't think so.

Didn't say he was a hero. I was referring to Ms Logan being called selfish for being the in the place she was.

Like I said, a champion for the profession, maybe, hero, I don't know. (I do agree, Hero-dom is too quickly assigned these days)
However, while it is easy for us to get news from all the corners of the world with a mere click of the mouse, there is still somebody who has to make it available.

And if you look at it closely, you will have to agree that news, access to quality news is essential for the democratic process.
I think some people have realized that. Some of those try to stifle it to cement their position, others try to spread the events of the world. Naturally that does put them in the cross hairs of the former.

It has been mentioned that journalists have in recent decades become targets themselves, contrary to their predecessors who could follow the troops into combat without increased risk to their lives.(that is not my opinion, it came up during the Daniel Pearl incident)

 

[granfire]

You may not have called her a hero directly, but Flea did, and you were tossing the Hero term in association with her as well in your comment.

If you didn't put your comments in the quote box quoting you would be easier....

So you do call Mr Pearl selfish, too?

So I am guilty of not expressing myself clearly in terms of what a hero is.

However, I don't do cute in a context like this. I think it is insulting to lump the attackers and rescuers together as 'their own people' That is lumping decent folk together with thugs. In any country this is not ok.

 

[Empty Hands]

She left her family, her kids to do a story and put herself in harms way unnecessarily..
She was not the only one who could do this job, and she selfishly chose her job over her family and her obligations to her kids. Thats not heroic thats selfish.

Then every soldier, every policeman and every fireman with a family is "selfish".

Or is it only women that get this special judgment and opprobrium when they have a job that involves potential danger and leaving the home?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Then every soldier, every policeman and every fireman with a family is "selfish".

Or is it only women that get this special judgment and opprobrium when they have a job that involves potential danger and leaving the home?

It has nothing to do with sex, damn you people sure want to try to vilify anyone who messes with your precious little thoughts on the world don't you?

I put children first period. When I make a statement about kids it appleis equaly to both parents, not a man, or a woman individually... I mean really can you never argue the points without trying to paint your opponent as a sexist, or racist, or some other Ist?
ridiculous

As to the comment about Soldier, Policemen, Firemen etc... there is a bit of a difference, and in certain circumstances yes they can be selfish based on their choices.

It would be a case by case scenario to discuss them all and I think that it is un necessary to do so at this time, because if you cant look at a situation and realize it then your not going to be worth arguing it with in the first place.

The major difference is this reporter had a choice.
Soldiers do not have choices for the most part.
Policemen and Firemen enter into a field that is inherently with a certain degree of danger.
This reporter chose to per herself in harmsway unnessecarily, and if it effected just her that would be one thing, but this effects her kids. That to me was completely avoidable, and she went out of her way to put herself in harms way. Unacceptable in my opinion.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

If you didn't put your comments in the quote box quoting you would be easier....

So you do call Mr Pearl selfish, too?

So I am guilty of not expressing myself clearly in terms of what a hero is.

However, I don't do cute in a context like this. I think it is insulting to lump the attackers and rescuers together as 'their own people' That is lumping decent folk together with thugs. In any country this is not ok.

I don't know, or at least remember enough about Mr. Pearls situation to even comment..
at this point I only remember vague details. a horrible situation for sure, but I cant comment beyond that without reviewing it.

all this talk from me about her being selfish, and then others bringing soldiers, policemen, and firemen into the mix... trying to get me to make a mistep and contradict myself..
I will say this. I have curtailed certain action that would put me at unnecessary risk for the sake of my kids. I also find myself drawn to certain activities that I enjoy that put me at unnecessary risk and constantly fight between doing what I want, and what I should do for the sake of those that depend on me.
Its a hard line to keep tabs on for onesself. It doesnt mean it doesnt exist. But it still is a fact.

 

[Empty Hands]

It has nothing to do with sex, damn you people sure want to try to vilify anyone who messes with your precious little thoughts on the world don't you?

I asked you to justify your conclusion, because your logic applies to people I was pretty certain you would not thus apply it to. One potential difference was sex, particularly with your wording, hence the question. Your answer to that question would determine whether or not you were sexist here.

The major difference is this reporter had a choice.
Soldiers do not have choices for the most part.
Policemen and Firemen enter into a field that is inherently with a certain degree of danger.
This reporter chose to per herself in harmsway unnessecarily, and if it effected just her that would be one thing, but this effects her kids. That to me was completely avoidable, and she went out of her way to put herself in harms way. Unacceptable in my opinion.

Again, soldiers in America are volunteer, thus all 3 professions are entered into by choice. They all will affect their children if they are harmed, and harm is an inevitable possibility of their choice. So are they all selfish?

 

[granfire]

I don't know, or at least remember enough about Mr. Pearls situation to even comment..
at this point I only remember vague details. a horrible situation for sure, but I cant comment beyond that without reviewing it.

all this talk from me about her being selfish, and then others bringing soldiers, policemen, and firemen into the mix... trying to get me to make a mistep and contradict myself..
I will say this. I have curtailed certain action that would put me at unnecessary risk for the sake of my kids. I also find myself drawn to certain activities that I enjoy that put me at unnecessary risk and constantly fight between doing what I want, and what I should do for the sake of those that depend on me.
Its a hard line to keep tabs on for onesself. It doesnt mean it doesnt exist. But it still is a fact.

Fair enough.

however, some people do believe that the mission of their occupation is important enough to everybody, including their children.
That includes Police and Firefighters who strife to make their neighborhood safer, Soldiers who defend the freedom of their country (hopefully) and sometimes a measly civilian journalist, because they believe that without truth you don't have liberty.

I did not follow the situation (I do question the wisdom in sending females into this particular area to cover almost exclusively male events) and don't know how reasonably they had to consider being in harms way during this assignment. (Yeah, I know, there is no wood working without flying chips, no revolution really without some excess...)

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I asked you to justify your conclusion, because your logic applies to people I was pretty certain you would not thus apply it to. One potential difference was sex, particularly with your wording, hence the question. Your answer to that question would determine whether or not you were sexist here.



Again, soldiers in America are volunteer, thus all 3 professions are entered into by choice. They all will affect their children if they are harmed, and harm is an inevitable possibility of their choice. So are they all selfish?

Once again if your not smart enough to make the distinctions then your not worth discussing it with.
You are the one on a witchhunt, not me. I tell you what though give me a specific example and I will answer you on what I think, right after you say whether you think they are being selfish or selfless. Be specific so there can be no misunderstanding the situation too. OR is that too much to ask of you?
I stand by my statements, and like I said if your smart enough you will be more then able enough to come up with situations in all three professions, and in the reporting profession where people make selfish decisions, and where people make selfless sacrafices.

 

[Empty Hands]

Once again if your not smart enough to make the distinctions then your not worth discussing it with.

What distinctions? You have made none! You've avoided discussing it beyond saying "it depends", without bothering to say what it depends on! It comes across like avoiding the issue because you don't like how your words make you look.

Explain yourself! That's all I'm asking you to do.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

What distinctions? You have made none! You've avoided discussing it beyond saying "it depends", without bothering to say what it depends on! It comes across like avoiding the issue because you don't like how your words make you look.

Explain yourself! That's all I'm asking you to do.

um no I don't have to explain myself. I already told you to feel free to give me whatever specific examples you want and Ill address them.
If you cant handle that then tough luck.
I have dealt with smart asses like yourself more then often enough to understand how you operate. So once again its in your court, give an example and ill address it, if not then move on and realize you have no ability to force me into a corner.
like I said it depends.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Yes, I know, I've heard it all before; the US is a place of great evil and therefore we cannot call any religion that uses terror to further it's agenda on it's ********. Let me ask you a few questions mate;When was the last time a man was executed is the US for being gay?When was the last time a woman was stoned to death for being an adulterer in the US?When was the last time that someone was sentenced to death for witchcraft in the US?When was the last time an author was publically marked for death by the powers that be in the US?When was the last time the US President publically expressed his desire to destory another race or country?By the way, in your rant, you failed to list nut jobs like Bill Ayers, a good friend of our president, whose mandate was death to all who disagreed with his rhetoric in the 60s and 70s. The rampant racism of organisations tike the new Black panthers who tried to intimidate votrs in polling stations in the last election. You fail to mention the attorney general, who gave these racists a pass, even though there was more than enough evidence to prosecute. You fail to mention organisations, funded by the taxpayer to the tune of 2 thirds of a billion dollars, who are pleased to offer pimps advise on how to take care of their underage sex worker's unwanted pregnancies.Just a few more examples for you to ad to your diatribe. You seem to have missed them.

Well...

...firstly I neither was ranting nor was I unleashing a diatribe.I'm pointing out that wrong is wrong no matter who does it.I don't see anywhere in any of my posts in MY LIFE that I have opined that the US is a place of great evil.I am pretty sure that YOU posted that,and--all on your own--reached the conclusion that I was saying what in actuality you literally posted.Lol.Furthermore,I can tell that you either have a very limited grasp of history in certain areas and that you're certainly more Right of Center than perhaps the average U.S. citizen is.So I will speedily reply to your comments with actual historical fact (an issue that I have a great deal of facility with,since it's one of my main focuses of study at my university and I will receive a Ph.d. in a branch of said study in 5-7 years,God willing):

1.

Yes, I know, I've heard it all before; the US is a place of great evil and therefore we cannot call any religion that uses terror to further it's agenda on it's ********.

Answer: Anybody using "terror" in the general sense that most civilians understand and dread its meaning needs to be not only called on it but rigorously and vigorously opposed,imho.HOWEVER...you're conflating two different issues."Religion" is NOT "government".Even "religious governments" are not entirely "religious" or entirely "governmental" in function.The government of the USA is likely very nearly as religious as any fundamentalist Islamic government...it's just that the USA is more tolerant and expansive in its views.NOT LESS RELIGIOUS.This massive but subtle mistake by you and people espousing similar viewpoints leads to the other horrendous logical mistakes that forever torpedo the extreme positions and generally inaccurate stances that you are taking in this conversation. So before you continue to press this conversation? Actually learn what the definition of RELIGION is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion and then we can continue.

With the Hayes-Tilden Compromise,the Federal Government of the United States sanctioned the second Civil War in the USA which ended Reconstruction.The reason that this "second civil war" is overlooked by most historians is because this wasn't a civil war fought by Whites v other Whites,it was literally the Southern racist Whites (with the collusion of the Northern government) which waged war,campaigns of terror--including religious terror,as it was thought that God ordained the White race to rule the earth and that Black people were an accursed people derived from a Biblical course laid down upon the son of one of God's prophets,with even more egregious "biblical" reasons justifying wholesale slavery of Black people as being the divine will of God--and every form of barbarism against the Blacks of the South,who were enjoying the peace of democracy and who--with likeminded Whites--brought unheard of social,educational,and political parity to the South along with the return of a burgeouning and more powerful economy than ever.All of this was halted by the government santioned wholesale slaughter and terrorism of every sort.You and anyone else may dispute this point if you wish,but you will be in a position significantly more perilous than a man who argues against the practical existence of the force that we refer to as Gravity...every available FACT is against you,and arguing the point prove your ignorance rather conclusively."It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool,than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."--Abraham Lincoln.


Furthermore,do you not recall that European slavery used religion as the fuel for its primary social,military,political and economic thrusts,and the slavers' deliberate twisting of Scriptural truth--with the full collusion and support of every major European religious establishment--lead to 400 years of terror and horror known as THE SLAVE TRADE? Despite the fact that the Friar who hit upon the importation of Africans to various islands...a man named las Casas,IIRC...was actually trying to save the lives of the indigenous populations that were kind enough to share with him their island? The rapacious Powers That Be manipulated the sensibilities of the average European and invested them with a comprehensive sense of superiority toward people of color which they were told was divinely given to them;and White Supremacy was born.This sense of entitlement led to the most atrocious excesses in human history,such as the Slave Trade,and--excepting the brief,shining,magnificent but consistent examples of people like the French workers and their Revolution,and the dazzling revolutions of Jean Jacque Francois Touissaint L'Ouverture,and before him people like Zumbi dos Palmares and Boukman and the mightiest of all,the indomitable Queen Nzinga--government,religion and race joined together to feast upon literally hundreds of millions of people until the '50s wherein the official U.S. government position was repudiated de jure but not de facto (legally but not in practice) and the 70's wherein the predations of Western governments were dramatically decreased but still not ended.Insofar as slavery is concerned? It continued past the 14th Amendment,continued past the end of Reconstruction (in fact,freedom from Northern intervention into Southern political affairs so that the South could return to slavery and in return the North would receive the president that they wanted was THE HEART of The Hayes-Tilden Compromise) and then another hundred years before slavery (called "sharecropping" for awhile) ended effectively with the World War but "apartheid" called Jim Crow and 2nd class citizenship rose in its place throughout the USA.Apartheid/Jim Crow was officially assaulted in the 50's (Brown v Board of Topeka Kansas I and II) but still is not functionally destroyed to this very day. Have a care as to the extremity of your claims,and be aware of your history before you make claims as extremely unfactual as yours.

2.

By the way, in your rant, you failed to list nut jobs like Bill Ayers, a good friend of our president, whose mandate was death to all who disagreed with his rhetoric in the 60s and 70s.quote]

Answer: You are amazingly and entirely incorrect in this area as well.

Back in 2008,when McCain and the national press were focused on this matter,it was comprehensively proven that the shrill untruths that you spout are exactly that...massively,completely,totally and absolutely untrue.Of course,there are the Rush Limbaugh's and the Fox (anything but true) News reports that spew inaccuracies and stupidities with the blitheness of Michelle Bachmann,and there are gajillions of reputable media outlets that have totally annihilated any scintilla of truth behind your claims via exhaustive investigative reporting...but I'll just cite one legitimate,nonpartisan source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/politics/main4605430.shtml

3.

The rampant racism of organisations tike the new Black panthers who tried to intimidate votrs in polling stations in the last election.

Answer:Massively and comprehensively blown out of proportion,AND untrue.

The truth is that this alleged "new Black Panthers" party is really basically 3 men,and these men allegedly made threats to White AND Black voters.Notice again how I use politically nuetral but pretty skilled investigative reporters who'll excoriate both Left AND Right for excesses as a source: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-maddow-says-fox-news-said-new-black-panther/ That's the "blown out of proportion" part.The UNTRUE part is this: the REAL "New Black Panther Party" WASN'T EVEN THERE. This is a brief synopsis of their history. The men named are NOWHERE in this ACTUAL "New Black Panther Party". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Panther_Vanguard_Movement

4.

When was the last time a man was executed is the US for being gay.

Answer: all the way up to this present year.

The amount of GLBT deaths in the USA specifically targeted for murder because they're gay has INCREASED up to 2008 http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/campaigns-politics/us-lgbt-hate-crime-deaths-up-28/ and there is still pending Census Bureau data as to the exact numbers of hate related gay murders.

I have other matters to attend to at the moment,but I will address all the rest of the concerns you raised in your post too.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

4.

Answer: all the way up to this present year.

The amount of GLBT deaths in the USA specifically targeted for murder because they're gay has INCREASED up to 2008 http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/campaigns-politics/us-lgbt-hate-crime-deaths-up-28/ and there is still pending Census Bureau data as to the exact numbers of hate related gay murders.

I have other matters to attend to at the moment,but I will address all the rest of the concerns you raised in your post too.

I don't have anything to add or detract from the other arguments, but in regards to this, I think what he meant was a gay person being killed for being gay and not having any charges brought against him/her for doing it.
maybe I am wrong.
But I seem to remember stories of accused homosexuals being killed under the systems there without issues..
and while people here in the States do all matters of disgusting and horrifying acts, the last I checked its still illegal to kill a person based on their sexuality no matter what, and you will be charged if they can catch you.

 

[Archangel M]

Let's stick to what is happening NOW eh? It get's old when every argument devolves into "oh yeah?!?! well...well...well YOUR religion/country/etc. did so and so 400 years ago!!!" None of us were alive then and the current gvt/religions no longer stone raped women...well MOST religions/gvts.


And "executed" (as I read it) meant killed by a governmental/religious institution a la how gays are killed as a matter of "law" by some middle eastern gvts.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Let's stick to what is happening NOW eh? It get's old when every argument devolves into "oh yeah?!?! well...well...well YOUR religion/country/etc. did so and so 400 years ago!!!" None of us were alive then and the current gvt/religions no longer stone raped women...well MOST religions/gvts.


And "executed" (as I read it) meant killed by a governmental/religious institution a la how gays are killed as a matter of "law" by some middle eastern gvts.

I trailed the actions and issues in question literally to the moment that I am writing this post and beyond,so we're not talking about an isolated incident from 400 years ago that has no modern day vibrant reality.Today,as I returned home,I--all 5'7" 158 lbs. of me--terrified a White woman (about 5'9" 180lbs) so badly by merely saying:"HELLO" that she clutched her person,shrank back in fear from me...and bounced off of the vending machine behind her.

We were in the University lunch room.Hundreds of people there.Within twenty paces was a L.A. Sheriff.She watched me walk over to the vending machine next to her and get my bottled water without saying a word to me.I looked up and said:"Hello." with a smile.Look at my videos.I'm not exactly The Predator.Shriek in terror,grab purse and shrink away from me,she did (said that last sentence in my Yoda voice).The systemic inequalities and persecutions that still exist are merely the intractable core of the imperialism racism sexism elitism and few other "-isms" that gave rise to slavery and the Holocaust in the first place.Therefore,I am speaking of the here and now...and tomorrow and next year and my lifetime and my kids' lifetime too,until a systemic change is enacted for the betterment of all of us.That systemic change can't be effected if we ignore the root and the many branches of the problem...so,although I'm sure you mean well,you're committing a gigantic fallacy by not acknowledging as essential the legacy of slavery to the second by second actions of today.That'd be like trying to disassociate the successful Revolutionary War from the workings of our government and nation on a daily basis.


But I take your point and will address them accordingly,as long as you see the vibrant and immediate second-by-second connection in mine.

 

[Sukerkin]

Whilst I applaud and agree with your point on the necessity of historical perspective to properly understand 'today's' world, I think what Angel was trying to head off was yet another drive down the blind alley of mutual recriminations that often spawns from such beginnings.

 

[yorkshirelad]

...firstly I neither was ranting nor was I unleashing a diatribe.

So now it begins


Furthermore,do you not recall that European slavery used religion as the fuel for its primary social,military,political and economic thrusts,and the slavers' deliberate twisting of Scriptural truth--with the full collusion and support of every major European religious establishment--lead to 400 years of terror and horror known as THE SLAVE TRADE? Despite the fact that the Friar who hit upon the importation of Africans to various islands...a man named las Casas,IIRC...was actually trying to save the lives of the indigenous populations that were kind enough to share with him their island? The rapacious Powers That Be manipulated the sensibilities of the average European and invested them with a comprehensive sense of superiority toward people of color which they were told was divinely given to them;and White Supremacy was born.This sense of entitlement led to the most atrocious excesses in human history,such as the Slave Trade,and--excepting the brief,shining,magnificent but consistent examples of people like the French workers and their Revolution,and the dazzling revolutions of Jean Jacque Francois Touissaint L'Ouverture,and before him people like Zumbi dos Palmares and Boukman and the mightiest of all,the indomitable Queen Nzinga--government,religion and race joined together to feast upon literally hundreds of millions of people until the '50s wherein the official U.S. government position was repudiated de jure but not de facto (legally but not in practice) and the 70's wherein the predations of Western governments were dramatically decreased but still not ended.Insofar as slavery is concerned? It continued past the 14th Amendment,continued past the end of Reconstruction (in fact,freedom from Northern intervention into Southern political affairs so that the South could return to slavery and in return the North would receive the president that they wanted was THE HEART of The Hayes-Tilden Compromise) and then another hundred years before slavery (called "sharecropping" for awhile) ended effectively with the World War but "apartheid" called Jim Crow and 2nd class citizenship rose in its place throughout the USA.Apartheid/Jim Crow was officially assaulted in the 50's (Brown v Board of Topeka Kansas I and II) but still is not functionally destroyed to this very day. Have a care as to the extremity of your claims,and be aware of your history before you make claims as extremely unfactual as yours.

Do you recall the origins of the European slave trade? It seems that in certain parts of the African continent it is still a booming industry.We Europeans learned many things about buying and selling people. Fortunatley enough, we stopped the practise. If only that was the case in Africa.

Answer: You are amazingly and entirely incorrect in this area as well.

Back in 2008,when McCain and the national press were focused on this matter,it was comprehensively proven that the shrill untruths that you spout are exactly that...massively,completely,totally and absolutely untrue.Of course,there are the Rush Limbaugh's and the Fox (anything but true) News reports that spew inaccuracies and stupidities with the blitheness of Michelle Bachmann,and there are gajillions of reputable media outlets that have totally annihilated any scintilla of truth behind your claims via exhaustive investigative reporting...but I'll just cite one legitimate,nonpartisan source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/politics/main4605430.shtml

So Fox is inaccurate because they don't tow the line with your agenda...I see

Answer:Massively and comprehensively blown out of proportion,AND untrue.

The truth is that this alleged "new Black Panthers" party is really basically 3 men,and these men allegedly made threats to White AND Black voters.Notice again how I use politically nuetral but pretty skilled investigative reporters who'll excoriate both Left AND Right for excesses as a source: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-maddow-says-fox-news-said-new-black-panther/ That's the "blown out of proportion" part.The UNTRUE part is this: the REAL "New Black Panther Party" WASN'T EVEN THERE. This is a brief synopsis of their history. The men named are NOWHERE in this ACTUAL "New Black Panther Party". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Panther_Vanguard_Movement

And two of the three were outside a polling station with clubs, reminicient of Brown shirts. If skin heads were outside a polling station attacking white and black people, would you believe them to be racist? Btw, Rachel Maddox, nothing bias or ideological as her!!

 

[ATACX GYM]

Whilst I applaud and agree with your point on the necessity of historical perspective to properly understand 'today's' world, I think what Angel was trying to head off was yet another drive down the blind alley of mutual recriminations that often spawns from such beginnings.

That's understandable and I do agree such a detour isn't benefitting anyone.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Do you recall the origins of the European slave trade? It seems that in certain parts of the African continent it is still a booming industry.We Europeans learned many things about buying and selling people. Fortunatley enough, we stopped the practise. If only that was the case in Africa

As a man pursuing his Ph.d. in African Studies,who has family in the areas afflicted by the current slave trade and other areas of Africa,and as a man who will be visiting the Motherland in (their) summer of 2012,I am thoroughly aware of the origins of the European and current slave trades,and the attendant politicking therewith.Are you? I'd like to know.I even provided you with the name of the Friar...Las Casas...who,in conjunction with the King of Spain,unleashed what would be known as the Slave Trade upon the world.The good Friar had no idea of and no intention to unleash such profound horrors upon the world,but this is one of the greatest examples of "good intentions" and "slippery slopes". I can easily get into the (documented by Europeans) minutae which impelled the imperialists of the time to sieze the opportunity to enslave virtually an entire segment (and the oldest segment,the segment which gave birth to all other branches of humanity) of Humankind,should you wish.

The current slave trade is being initiated by White Arabs and roundly defied and brilliantly combatted by heroic Africans and their sympathizers the world over.It is a fallacy of the first order to infer or assume that Black Africans are enslaving Black Africans.I am not saying that you stated that Black Africans are enslaving Black Africans,but I must make that clear.

So Fox is inaccurate because they don't tow the line with your agenda...I see!!

What agenda do I have,Mr.yorkshirelad? Maybe you can enlighten me.I don't recall coming to this thread,agenda in hand or head,consutling it,and going:"Hmmmm..." before posting.Maybe you can enlighten me on my own thoughts and actions.

And two of the three were outside a polling station with clubs, reminicient of Brown shirts. If skin heads were outside a polling station attacking white and black people, would you believe them to be racist? Btw, Rachel Maddox, nothing bias or ideological as her!!

A few crucial points here: The Skinheads like the KKK are a group that was formed with avowed racist philosophy as part of their core.That racist philosophy is known as White Supremacy.The (actual) Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was designed to protect the Black and Latin underpriviledged in Oakland and branched out to many areas that had ghettos and intense persecution of Black and Latin people purely do to our race and culture.The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense had numerous affiliations with other White groups AND NEVER ONCE preached the absurbity of racism in any form.NATIONALISM? A few members may have,but not the organization.MILITANT SELF-DEFENSE? Yes,almost all of the BPPSD did,to a man and/or woman.The Black Panthers have never been racist by either social or dictionary definition,and never will be.So your comparing them to the Skinheads merely reflects your own inaccurate information and similarly inaccurate conclusions.

Second,as previously stated,those 3 idiots weren't Panther members.They were just stupid people doing stupid things.The fact that they threatened whomever regardless of race tends to repudiate the idea that they were racist...just stupid and perhaps violent.

Third...I DID NOT QUOTE RACHEL MADDOW,I QUOTED THE CENTRIST AND POLITICALLY NUETRAL POLITIFACT.I even specifically stated that I use a centrist and respected source of information that would excoriate Left AND Right for their excesses.Did you not read this statement? Did you not note the HUGE "POLITIFACT" banner at the top of the linked article that I left reflecting the facts that I acquired? As stated earlier,I am neither a member of the Left or the Right,but I'd be closer to a Centrist...like most U.S. citizens are.Please have accurate facts to garland your comments with when you are attempting to engage in discussion with me.

Rachel MadDOW,not MadDUX,is indeed a champion of the Left but she got there by being a reporter of very high standard and generally extremely accurate fact-finding and reporting.She is indeed biased toward her perspectives,as most of us are,but her journalistic integrity prevents her from making the stupidly racist fulminating excesses typical of national Right wing figures like Rush Limbaugh and others.

 

[ATACX GYM]

But back to the purpose of this thread...whoever did this to the CBS reporter or whoever would do this to anyone? Firing squad.Same day.