Is MSNBC Ramping Up Racial Tensions To Tag LGBT Agenda Onto New "Civil Rights Fury"?

[Skylar]

MSNBC has that kind of influence?
That's strange because the rest of the board insists nobody watches it.

Which way you wanna play this?

Uh, I've never said people don't watch MSNBC? And even if it was just ten people in Missouri who watched MSNBC, that's enough to incite a riot there. Ever see a gasoline fire take off? It starts slowly in one corner and then inches along until it finds a big pool of it and WHAM! the whole thing flares up sky high in an instant.

That is what MSNBC needs to knock off. Report the news, don't create it..

You claim I'm walking lockstep with some political ideology. I'm not. Your ilk are the ones insisting on "uniformity of thought", not me. If you look far enough back in my posts you will find me chewing out Fox News years back when Beck and Palin were stirring up and inciting riotous conditions in the public towards Obama (2008 campaign) and since.

Oh, quite the contrary. You can believe whatever you want and make up whatever silly nonsense and pseudo-legal gibberish you'd like. And likewise, I can punch theory killing holes in your claims and demonstrate the absurdity of your imaginary legal standards.

See, freedom of thought! Though please remember that freedom of thought doesn't mean that all thoughts are equally well crafted.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh, I've never said people don't watch MSNBC? And even if it was just ten people in Missouri who watched MSNBC, that's enough to incite a riot there. Ever see a gasoline fire take off? It starts slowly in one corner and then inches along until it finds a big pool of it and WHAM! the whole thing flares up sky high in an instant.

That is what MSNBC needs to knock off. Report the news, don't create it..

You claim I'm walking lockstep with some political ideology. I'm not. Your ilk are the ones insisting on "uniformity of thought", not me. If you look far enough back in my posts you will find me chewing out Fox News years back when Beck and Palin were stirring up and inciting riotous conditions in the public towards Obama (2008 campaign) and since.

Oh, quite the contrary. You can believe whatever you want and make up whatever silly nonsense and pseudo-legal gibberish you'd like. And likewise, I can punch theory killing holes in your claims and demonstrate the absurdity of your imaginary legal standards.

See, freedom of thought! Though please remember that freedom of thought doesn't mean that all thoughts are equally well crafted.

You have yet to do that. Let me know when you get around to it. Meanwhile I'll keep make the compelling points with links to sources and quotes, that you say you can "punch holes in"..and I'll be waiting...waiting...waiting....waiting for you to finally get around to some type of substantive rebuttal instead of petty verbal abuse diversions...

 

[Skylar]

You have yet to do that.

Uh-huh. And what was the legal question being asked in Windsor v. US? Why don't I quote the imaginary bullshit you made up. And then I'll quote the actual question submitted to the USSC by Edith Windsor in her petition for cert.. And you tell us if I still have 'yet to do that'.

And tell us again how Kennedy granting Utah a stay meant that Kennedy opposed gay marriage and the court was ready to rule against it. Or was that just your story right up until Kennedy lifted the stay and preserved the lower court ruling that made gay marriage legal in Utah and a dozen other states. You abandoned that too?

Tell us again how the stay granted Utah meant that prop 8 was still in force and gay marriage wasn't legal in California. No?

Quote for us Maddow's statement in the episode you whined about at the opening of thread where she 'equating Christians (all of them presumably?) with white supremicists' movement'. Again, nothing?

You're not very good at this Silo. And you'd be shocked at how little effort it takes to dismantle your silly, pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

You sound a little pissy Skylar. The fat lady has not sung yet on gay marriage. Don't be so sure y'all "have it in the bag". You may, but you will have to go state by state and sell your new lifestyle. I may be wrong "all the time" according to you, but I'm still going to put my money on the fed not forcing a new lifestyle into states' discreet defintion and structure of marriage for the best formative environment for kids...especially when that structure is fundamentally no different from a single parent home...missing one of the complimentary genders as a vital role model 100% of the time. That gender may be a child's own.

Then there is "marriage equalty" and polysexuals too....why not grant the tens of millions of kids caught up in monosexual (single parent homes) lifestyles the benefits of marriage too?

Sell it state by state, but do NOT require the Justices to force your kinky lifestyles down the states' throats with a myopic piping bag.....to the detriment of 100s of millions of untold children into the unforseeable future..

And since this thread is about news..agencies, all of them, shouldn't create news in order to forward certain...manic hosts who are shall we sall a wee bit too zealous about their pet religion..or wish to be "the Next Martin Luther King"...or whatever the dual "civil rights" payoff is..

Report the news, don't create it.

 

[Skylar]

You sound a little pissy Skylar.

Smiling.....you're projecting. And notice you don't actually disagree on any point I've raised, or any example of your being gloriously inaccurate.

Which speaks volumes.

The fat lady has not sung yet on gay marriage. Don't be so sure y'all "have it in the bag".

I've given my odds on the matter. 90 - 10 in favor of gay marriage if the court grants cert on the 6th circuit ruling. And 70 - 30 in favor of gay marriage if they don't.

I don't consider it 'in the bag'. But I consider it likely, based on the evidence. And I've explained why. As almost every federal court decision on the matter demonstrates, my assessment is far from alone.

You may, but you will have to go state by state and sell your new lifestyle.

My new lifestyle? And what, pray tell, is that? I need no more be gay to support marriage equality than I need be black to support interracial marriage. I simply need to prioritize rights over powers.

I may be wrong "all the time" according to you, but I'm still going to put my money on the fed not forcing a new lifestyle into states' discreet defintion and structure of marriage for the best formative environment for kids...especially when that structure is fundamentally no different from a single parent home...missing one of the complimentary genders as a vital role model 100% of the time. That gender may be a child's own.

Oh, that you have an opinion is not in doubt. That your opinion has any predictive value whatsoever is very much in question. As your record of accuracy in interpreting current rulings to predict future ones is essentially worse than guessing.

Then there is "marriage equalty" and polysexuals too....why not grant the tens of millions of kids caught up in monosexual (single parent homes) lifestyles the benefits of marriage too?

Monosexual means someone attracted to only one gender. You've reimagined the definition. And you making up definitions has no relevance to any legal outcome.

Sell it state by state, but do NOT require the Justices to force your kinky lifestyles down the states' throats with a myopic piping bag..

The justices will protect what they conclude are rights. As they should. The issue is whether or not gay marriage bans are a violation of rights.

And most federal court rulings indicate they are.

 

[Silhouette]

Try to confine the topic of this thread to media inciting riots for their agenda. Journalists should report the news, not create it for their own purposes...

 

[Skylar]

Try to confine the topic of this thread to media inciting riots for their agenda. Journalists should report the news, not create it for their own purposes...

If you don't want to discuss 'formative environments for children', 'polysexuals' and 'my new lifestyle', then don't bring them up.

You only start to whine about my replies to your topic changes.....when you've lost the argument.

Remember that.

 

[Silhouette]

If you don't want to discuss 'formative environments for children', 'polysexuals' and 'my new lifestyle', then don't bring them up.

You only start to whine about my replies to your topic changes.....when you've lost the argument.

Remember that.

There are plenty of threads where I'm discussing that. The topic here is MSNBC's participation in fanning the flames of racial tensions on purpose.

 

[Skylar]

If you don't want to discuss 'formative environments for children', 'polysexuals' and 'my new lifestyle', then don't bring them up.

You only start to whine about my replies to your topic changes.....when you've lost the argument.

Remember that.

There are plenty of threads where I'm discussing that. The topic here is MSNBC's participation in fanning the flames of racial tensions on purpose.

Including this one. Again, I'm replying to your posts about every one of your 'off topic' claims. Its only when I handed you your ass that you started to complain about how your OWN posts were off topic.

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to show us where Maddow compared Christians to white supremacists in the episode you claim you saw.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't think you handed me my ass..

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

NBC is a communist terror organization.

 

[Silhouette]

March 12, 2015
FERGUSON, Mo. (WZZM/KSDK) -- Two police officers have been shot during protests in the city of Ferguson, according to reports.
A tweet from our Gannett sister station, KDSK, cites one of its photographers, who reports two officers were shot outside the Ferguson Police Department early Thursday morning.
Ambulances took the injured officers to Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis for treatment. There's no word yet on their condition.
The incident happened as protesters celebrated the resignation of Chief Tom Jackson of the Ferguson Police Department.

Fanning the flames of racial tensions for political reasons has consequences. My condolences to the families of the officers. There was a problem for sure in MO with racial issues. One wonders how this would've played out differently if a media sensation didn't whip up sentiments on either side? We will never know.

 

[Mac1958]

Fanning the flames of racial tensions for political reasons has consequences.

Yep.

They have created and cultivated an environment, a culture, of division and anger for political advantage and this will continue to happen.

It doesn't seem to be slowing them down, so we can probably assume they consider this collateral damage.

.

 

[Silhouette]

They have created and cultivated an environment, a culture, of division and anger for political advantage and this will continue to happen.

It doesn't seem to be slowing them down, so we can probably assume they consider this collateral damage.

.

Yes, collateral damage...

Just like when Gabby Giffords was shot after Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin were inciting the public to unrest at that time.. Beck and eventually Palin were "eased away" from Fox. Let's see what happens with this one..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

MSNBC is the racist channel. All 22 viewers can now receive their daily racist fix.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't think it's appropriate for you to call Rachael Maddow that.

What, dumb ****? But she is a dumb ****...

 

[Silhouette]

I don't think it's appropriate for you to call Rachael Maddow that.

What, dumb ****? But she is a dumb ****...

"Reckless" is more the word I would choose.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They have created and cultivated an environment, a culture, of division and anger for political advantage and this will continue to happen.

It doesn't seem to be slowing them down, so we can probably assume they consider this collateral damage.

.

Yes, collateral damage...

Just like when Gabby Giffords was shot after Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin were inciting the public to unrest at that time.. Beck and eventually Palin were "eased away" from Fox. Let's see what happens with this one..

She was shot by a leftwing, Mein Kampf reading loony tune... PERIOD. Nobody was inciting anybody to anything. You leftists are fucking absolutely retarded.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They have created and cultivated an environment, a culture, of division and anger for political advantage and this will continue to happen.

It doesn't seem to be slowing them down, so we can probably assume they consider this collateral damage.

.

Yes, collateral damage...

Just like when Gabby Giffords was shot after Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin were inciting the public to unrest at that time.. Beck and eventually Palin were "eased away" from Fox. Let's see what happens with this one..

A crazy leftist shot giffords.

 

[Silhouette]

A crazy leftist shot giffords.

Yes and crazy people tend to get crazier no matter who it is shouting the manufactured grievances from a megaphone atop their stump..
This isn't a right vs left conversation. It's a right vs wrong conversation..