WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
The level of taking shots at Jorr is certainly different. You've never called Jorr a racist Klansman, which is akin to calling someone subhuman now. And you don't troll anyone at the same level by bringing up old threads again and again and picking a single detail and repeating it like it's something so stupid that whoever thought it is inferior.
I can think of a few who would disagree with you. I don't think I ever called you a racist Klansman either. Then again, I learned yesterday that Nazi may not in fact be in reference to Hitler and it instead is simply an authoritarian, so maybe I just meant you were a member of a social club.
By the way, can you quote me where I called you a racist Klansman? I want to have the full picture on it.
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
It's not likely to jog in Timberlands. People usually don't repeatedly stop by construction sites while jogging. He lived nowhere near the area. Those facts in total make me question the official version that he was jogging. And now there is a witness and a police report from an earlier confrontation between those involved in this incident.
The problem is that you are putting the victim, and he was a victim, on trial here but you aren't doing the same thing for Lauer who has a lot of reasons to not believe his story that are far more than an illogical shoe choice.
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
The rarity of white on black violence also makes me question the official story that these were just evil racists who chose to go "hunting". It seems likely they had a history and reason to confront him. Unless you think the data is all made up inter-racial violence is 90 percent black on white. So the media narrative was just ridiculous. Here are the government numbers:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdfYou keep on trying to shift it to this discussion when no one that I saw was doing this. It won't work here either.
So you are going to selectively respond to the post. At this point it's becoming a waste of time. Matt Lauer is not "the victim" here. It's the person saying she was raped. And that story has a lot of holes in it. Just like saying a guy was jogging, and then for no reason at all shot. We can either say this is what the facts show or just roll our eyes and say another case of "injustice".
You have called me David Duke. You have suggested that I was not saying what I really meant in past discussions. As this discussion shows though you don't want to discuss the facts or statistics but rather suggest a bias exists with someone if they disagree with you.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
There's personal vendetta's to carry out from completely unrelated threads and stories! Why BRick gets a pass for following people around the board like this I'll never know. And yes, BRick, your tying together of the stories using "benefit of the doubt" is specious at best.
