• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Whats the deal!

KJUN said:
All joking aside, John Lynch was NOT hanging black guys. He was hanging white guys. So, if it is racial, susan was referencing his white parent and not his black parent, right?

Let me guess, Lynch was hanging black Tories and anyone who says differently is just practicing intentional revisionism. (I put it in bold, too, so it looks more truthful.) LOL
Click to expand...

All joking aside, even "Wikicrapia" states the etymology of the term is inconclusive - of the possible names listed for attribution of the term, none of them lists a person named John Lynch.

That's all beside the point. We don't live in the context of the Oxford English Dictionary, and the meanings assigned to words evolves over time.

To claim that "lynching", in the context of 20th and 21st Century in the USA, is not racially tinged, would be akin to my talking about a holocaust in 1930s/1940s Germany, and claiming that I'm just talking about a bonfire.

It's disingenuous, and no amount of backpedaling will cover one's ass about it.


Dale
 
jazzgeek said:
All joking aside, even "Wikicrapia" states the etymology of the term is inconclusive - of the possible names listed for attribution of the term, none of them lists a person named John Lynch.

That's all beside the point. We don't live in the context of the Oxford English Dictionary, and the meanings assigned to words evolves over time.

To claim that "lynching", in the context of 20th and 21st Century in the USA, is not racially tinged, would be akin to my talking about a holocaust in 1930s/1940s Germany, and claiming that I'm just talking about a bonfire.

It's disingenuous, and no amount of backpedaling will cover one's ass about it.


Dale
Click to expand...
THANK YOU !!!

NOTE : crawfishing = backpedaling .....(just FYI)
 
CALM DOWN??? That g** d*** bruno makes me so ******* angry I could spit. We have now place for that kind here.
 
Ho ho, copulating animals...nope not enough of a distraction.
Maybe it's seen as ok by some members for Susan to refer to lynching the president and finding his race a bonus for the lynching. And then to claim that God is on her side in her head. I personally find such statements offensive and quite frankly a little odd. Until Susan herself chooses to explain her statements I cannot help but believe she was inciting racial hatred.
 
diamondlil said:
Ho ho, copulating animals...nope not enough of a distraction.
Click to expand...

how about pandas?
pandasex2.jpg
 
ForkedTung said:
Your irritated that I pointed out there's a pink elephant sitting on this thread that you're conveniently trying to convince me isn't there.
Click to expand...


I am not talking about anything else other than how one can take the term lynch and that you can lynch a guy regardless of race. It does NOT necessarily mean the user wouldn't lynch a white, yellow, OR black guy. I don't care what Susan said afterwards. If that was said before, I might have agreed that she meant it that way. All I'm saying is the word LYNCH doesn't mean "hang a black guy."

I don't care about your pink elephant attempts to change the subject. Comments to TELL someone else what they are thinking are usually just asinine and idiotic. That would be about the equivalent of someone trying to road cruise with a car door open.
 
diamondlil said:
By Napoleonic Code, if was he was 1/16th....he's black.
Click to expand...

Onlyone state still uses that system (right?), and neither Susan or Obama is from there. Not that Obama is from ANY state, but.....

...and I thought it was 1/32. Soooo, doesn't some later federal amendmens equalize things so he wouldn't be also WHITE if he was a certain percentage of white?

...and then again, WHO CARES? He's not white or black. He's a RED!
 
Personally I think its brilliant you lot got a black president...
I dont think the goverment will like whats been said on this forum though :eek:)
 
If there were absolutely NO risk of banning, and given ALL the photos just posted, I would LOVE to conduct a little social experiment.

Dig, if you will, two pictures:

One is of a mob of angry whites surrounding a lynched black man, circa 1910-1920 in rural America. They're all smiling around the "strange fruit"; justice has been served.

The second photo is of any random porn starlet; for argument's sake, let's go with Jenna Jameson, even though she's "out of the industry", and personally, I'm more of a Christy Canyon and/or Buffy Davis kind of guy. Said starlet is on her back, legs akimbo, inviting you to partake of her carnal delights.

Of the two photographs, which would be the more offensive?

Just askin'.

Dale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top