Replies

This goon was trying to get people's eye of the ball and you fell for it.

There is no evidence that the hangings in effigy were "racially motivated" Yet this idiot says, by decree it was "racially insensitive" and says blacks were "racially offended" by it. (Funny I never heard of any blacks in the "community" saying what the Carrs did was "offensive" did they? Yet they have the nerve to poke their racist little heads out now and yell "we're the real victims here")

And did this sh*^hole journalist ever bother talking to whites who think that what the Carrs did was "racially insensitive". Hell no. once again by decree this turd said it wasn't. Did he talk to or cite whites who were "racially offended" by what the Carrs did? Hell no. They're all white supremacists, don't you know? Who cares what they think?

So here we have it the gaping double standard. Where celebrating torturing murderers being brought to justice is "racist". But blacks hunting down, murdering, and torturing whites couldn't possibly be.

As another Freeper might say-- This is yet another unpaid political commercial for liberalism where--

Everything is racism...

...Except hating whitey

And you fell for it.

And you fell for it. Not actually seeing the effigy display myself, I can't say for sure. I'm just saying that seeing an effigy of a black man handing in someone's yard could be taken wrong. That's all. Frankly, I'd have a problem with a display like that of anyone from any race. But I can see that it could have more of a dual meaning for a black person.

In NO WAY do I think murder is worse when it is white on black versus black on white.

I had not read the Eagle yet today so I didn't realize that this is an "Our View." In other words, Randy is writing the view of the entire editorial board.

To me, the issue is, what price are these guys going to pay for there horrible crime. I am also offended that the media thinks crimes like this that are white-on-black are somehow worse just because before we were all born blacks were once slaves in this country.

It is not important to my life to have effigies of criminals--any race--hanging in my neighbor's yard.

Frankly, I was more bugged at their editorial telling Bush to "govern from the middle, not the right." Excuse me but who gets to define "middle?" He should govern justly and honestly. He should keep the commitments he campaigned on because that represents the people's choice. The "middle" is found through the votes of the people's representatives, not through the intimidation of a few in positions of power intent on obstruction (read: Daschle and Leahy) or disinformation (read: most of the media). Bush has done exactly that, respecting the wishes of the people's representatives, even when it cost conservatives, when it was clearly unconstitutional (CFR), and when he really should have used his constitutional right to veto legislation.

The Eagle is preaching to the wrong team.

The media defines "middle" as "abortion until birth." That's never has been the middle, guys. If you want the middle, let's make it abortion until 20 weeks. The media would call that "far right." They clearly failed at math. The lefties are shaking in their lesbian boots, fearing Congress will pass a partial birth abortion ban again, and this time we have a Prez. who will sign it. Give me a break.

handing = hanging. (grr)

Furthermore, when Clinton received only 49% of the vote, I don't remember everyone calling on him to govern from the middle. Why? They saw him as middle. Back then 49% equaled a mandate.

Besides abortion, it's the left trying to make sweeping "progressive" changes. The right has been fighting for status quo - just don't make things worse, and fix what the left messed up - for a long time. So it's the left we should be scared of.