Cursed Political Content

  • Thread starter TexRex
  • 6,598 comments
  • 318,785 views
Last edited:
Bit off-topic but that poster's racism-in-America-is-over angle brought to mind this recent AP story:

Is this supposed to be an example of racism?

article
Prosecutors said the remark was a reference to Liggins’ alleged conduct, not his appearance. But the appeals court said a “reasonable observer” could interpret it differently.

Murphy said he lost his composure in 2020 after Liggins repeatedly had switched between wanting to plead guilty and choosing a trial and also failed to get along with his second lawyer. He ended up with four.

“I’m tired of this case. I’m tired of this defendant. I’m tired of getting the runaround. This has been going on since February 6, 2018,” Murphy said in court.

“This guy looks like a criminal to me. This is what criminals do,” Murphy said. “This isn’t what innocent people who want a fair trial do. He’s indicted in Kentucky. He’s indicted here. He’s alleged to be dealing heroin, which addicts, hurts and kills people, and he’s playing games with the court.”

At trial in 2021, Murphy, a judge for 15 years, apologized and said he could be fair to Liggins.

“I lost my head,” he said.

This case looks like "optics".
 
Last edited:
This is one of those times where a filter would help a judge not end up getting himself dismissed, if it is actually true.
I'm not sure what makes you think it isn't true.
Is this supposed to be an example of racism?
You'd have to ask the appeals court what they mean by a reasonable observer. You could give Murphy the benefit of the doubt. Too bad he didn't seem to be doing the same with Liggins. At least he apologised for how his words could have been taken... eventually. Had he used the words "sounds like a criminal to me" I don't think there would've been the same hoo-ha, but he didn't.
 
Last edited:
You'd have to ask the appeals court what they mean by a reasonable observer. You could give Murphy the benefit of the doubt. Too bad he didn't seem to be doing the same with Liggins. At least he apologised for how his words could have been taken... eventually.

The fact that the court found it to be within the scope of "reasonable" to conclude that this remark may have been based on race does not even mean that the court found it "likely" let alone highly likely. They're simply saying that they don't find that interpretation "unreasonable".

If you read the exchange, you really have to be trying to see racism to see it. Taken in context, it looks absent. It doesn't look like a solid example of racism to me, at least not based on that exchange. It's not really a "benefit of the doubt" so much as it is just what it looks like on its face.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the court found it to be within the scope of "reasonable" to conclude that this remark may have been based on race does not even mean that the court found it "likely" let alone highly likely. They're simply saying that they don't find that interpretation "unreasonable".

If you read the exchange, you really have to be trying to see racism to see it. Taken in context, it looks absent. It doesn't look like a solid example of racism to me, at least not based on that exchange. It's not really a "benefit of the doubt" so much as it is just what it looks like on its face.
It sounds to me like these two paragraphs don't agree with each other. Do you disagree with the appeals court and think it'd be an unreasonable observation to make?
 
It sounds to me like these two paragraphs don't agree with each other. Do you disagree with the appeals court and think it'd be an unreasonable observation to make?

I see no disagreement. You're interpreting "reasonable" a little differently than the appeals court (and me) I think. Reasonable is a fairly low threshold.

The most reasonable interpretation, in my view, is that the statement is not racist on its face. I'm not willing to say that it is "unreasonable" to be looking for racism, trying to see it, in the words of a judge. But that's what you have to do to find it.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives: "If you don't like it, leave."

Also conservatives:


greatguy.jpg

"Post-modernism" now there's a word I haven't heard in a long time.
Nice, huh?
 
I don't expect I'll ever forget the quoted post--indeed it popped into my head the other night while talking with friends about possibly the best worst movie ever made, Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins--but I'd forgotten about this unhinged response.

Screenshot-20230804-072743-Samsung-Internet.jpg


Maybe it shouldn't, but it still amazes me how Trumpers stumble over themselves and one another to fellate the soft bitch.
I don't see the link between homophobia and racism but anyway.
 
Searching for reason in a connie bitchfit is a fool's errand.

It's still fundamentally, if a particularly unhinged example thereof, that unique privilege that is predicting the outcome of hypothetical events unburdened by observable evidence to the contrary.

Trumpers' eagerness to fellate the bitch is...distasteful.
 
Millennials are in their mid to late 30s/early 40s. We were alive when the Soviet Union existed and were pointing nuclear weapons at us.

Also, that reads like it was written by an AI that was forced to watch Fox News for 100 hours straight.
 
lul.jpg

Greta Gerwig’s Barbie grossed another $53 million at the domestic box office as it hit $459.4 million in North America and crossed $1 billion globally in a huge win for the filmmakers, Warner Bros. and Mattel. The global number includes an impressive $572.1 million from the foreign box office for a worldwide cume through Sunday of $1.03 billion. It is the second film of the year to cross $1 billion after Universal and Illumination’s family pic The Super Mario Bros ($1.35 billion).

Barbie Movie Love GIF by Warner Bros. Deutschland
 
Shapiro is more obsessed with Barbies than my neighbor's daughter...and she's a spoiled 7-year-old brat who only wears pink.
 
So he's admitting he wants Trump to take America back to the 1960s? Cutting edge satire... :indiff:
He has to be trolling at this point lmao

I cant take him serious his posts are a gold mine of cursed content.
 
Last edited:
For an account many claim is satire/trolling/whatever, it’s not even good at that.

Meanwhile, some MAGA folks really are that brainwashed and dumb.
 
The Cadillac CT4 starts at $34,395. Using an inflation calculator, a $5,000 vehicle in 1960 equates to $51,538, so under Biden, a Cadillac sedan is $17,143 less when accounting for inflation.

My dude can't even troll properly.
He also wants to go back to Ike (or to JFK). Either way, it is better to assume he's a braindead troll.
 
The bad one has blue uniforms, and the good one has grey ones, right?
 

Latest Posts

Back