We've all been manipulated by the media

Status
Not open for further replies.
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford,_Florida#Jackie_Robinson_in_1946


Jackie Robinson in 1946

On October 23, 1945, the Brooklyn Dodgers announced that they had signed Jackie Robinson assigning him to their International League team, the Montreal Royals.

Branch Rickey, Brooklyn Dodgers General Manager believing he "knew" Florida, thought his team could train there ruffling as few feathers as possible. Robinson and his wife were instructed by Rickey not to try to stay at any Sanford hotels. He and his wife didn’t eat out at any restaurants not deemed “Negro restaurants." He didn't even dress in the same locker room as his teammates.

As soon as the citizenry became aware of Robinson's presence, the mayor of Sanford was confronted by a "large group of white residents" who "demanded that Robinson...be run out of town."

On March 5, 1946, the Royals were informed that they would not be permitted to take the field as an integrated group. Rickey was concerned for Robinson’s life and sent him to stay in Daytona Beach. His daughter, Sharon Robinson, remembered being told, "The Robinsons were run out of Sanford, Florida, with threats of violence."

In his 1993 book, "A Hard Road to Glory: A History Of The African American Athlete: Baseball" tennis great Arthur Ashe wrote in response, Rickey "moved the entire Dodger pre-season camp from Sanford, Florida, to Daytona Beach due to the oppressive conditions of Sanford."
Click to expand...



facts


the real history
 
Thing1 said:
From the very 1st day, where they edited the 911 tape to make it sound like GZ was singling out African Americans.

In fact, I'd wager that if GZ didn't have that 25% of white, we wouldn't have heard much about this story.

They love to jack up stories with racial elements; to fire up the country's emotions & divisions. They want a Rodney King type reaction & even a riot. And we all play right into their hands.

On a separate but related note, why in the hell do they televise these things? It is completely unfair to the witnesses. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your privacy simply because you saw or heard something. I hate that there are debates about the witnesses in these events - about their credibility, how they talk or what they look like.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should have secret accusations, like in the time of witchcraft.
 
Another racist speaks up...just for you desh....

CHARLES BARKLEY: Well, I agreed with the verdict. I feel sorry that young kid got killed. But they didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Something clearly went wrong that night. Clearly something went wrong. I feel bad for anybody who loses a kid, but if you looked at the case and you don't make it -- there was some racial profiling, no question about it. But something happened that changed the dynamic of that night, and I know -- that's probably not a popular opinion among most people but just looking at the evidence I agreed with the verdict.
 
Panda Hugger said:
Yes, we should have secret accusations, like in the time of witchcraft.
Click to expand...

Please. Reporting on trials is fine.

Do you think it's cool to have a teenager on cable networks almost 24x7, getting shredded & picked apart in a million different ways, all because she happened to hear something?

I don't know; I just think there is something wrong with that. In the internet age, someone shouldn't have to be put in the public eye in such a big way so that they can be scrutinized like they are - all because they heard or saw something important to a trial.
 
evince said:
then maybe you should ask the black people of florida.

will you discount their testimony to on the same basis
Click to expand...
That's completely an assumption on your part. How do you know that witness testimony was discounted? Cuase the verdict didn't come out the way you wanted? Aren't you just guilty of bias? Aren't you the one lacking in objectivity and not the jurors?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's completely an assumption on your part. How do you know that witness testimony was discounted? Cuase the verdict didn't come out the way you wanted? Aren't you just guilty of bias? Aren't you the one lacking in objectivity and not the jurors?
Click to expand...


because the posters who I claimed discounted said they did
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's completely an assumption on your part. How do you know that witness testimony was discounted? Cuase the verdict didn't come out the way you wanted? Aren't you just guilty of bias? Aren't you the one lacking in objectivity and not the jurors?
Click to expand...


mott I know thingy is your friend and your defending a friend.

that is commendable in some ways.


I will never deny seeing racism


I will point it out when I see it.


I think its a service to everyone.


its subtle at times but unless you force yourself over its hurdles and recognize it fully you are its slave.


No more quater
 
evince said:
because the posters who I claimed discounted said they did
Click to expand...

No desh... they did not. They said over and over and over and over again, that they do not discount her testimony. What they DID say was that her testimony contradicted not only her previous affidavit, but also testimony of OTHER witnesses. YOU are the only one that discounts part of her testimony.
 
evince said:
he will show wiether he is or not with his words.
Click to expand...
What about my objectivity? What about my respect for facts and my critical thinking skill in being able to determine what are facts and what are not?

Just because Zimmerman was a stupid moron who used racial profiling to target Trayvon Martin does not preclude the fact that by the Law of Florida reasonable doubt existed in this case.

In other words you can question me as a racist but I'd have to question your objectivity.
 
Superfreak said:
No desh... they did not. They said over and over and over and over again, that they do not discount her testimony. What they DID say was that her testimony contradicted not only her previous affidavit, but also testimony of OTHER witnesses. YOU are the only one that discounts part of her testimony.
Click to expand...


go get a link to the actual converstions and we will discuss them with the evidence right in front of everyone
 
evince said:
go get a link to the actual converstions and we will discuss them with the evidence right in front of everyone
Click to expand...

I don't mean this in any kind of insulting way, but I think there is definitely something wrong with your brain.

I'm not sure if it's something you can fix - but you should look into it. Life is better with a fully functioning, well-reasoning brain.
 
evince said:
can you give the point by point reasoning behind why her testimony was unrealible.
Click to expand...
Because she wasn't physically present to observe first hand what had occured. She heard, from a remote location and was not present to observe what had occurred during the entire time that it was occuring. That is why her testimony is not completely reliable. It has nothing to do with her as a person.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because she wasn't physically present to observe first hand what had occured. She heard, from a remote location and was not present to observe what had occurred during the entire time that it was occuring. That is why her testimony is not completely reliable. It has nothing to do with her as a person.
Click to expand...


so when you hear a murder it means nothing.

yet the 911 tapes are what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top