desertrain10 · ✭✭✭✭✭


Last Active
  • Re: She tweeted against the Mexican Cartels, they tweeted her murder.

    Shizlansky wrote: »
    And these crackers worrying about ISIS but a border country gives no fucks about nothing.

    Cratels =USA

    Them niggas working hand and hand.


    people are suffering right in our back yard so much so they sending their children here alone to escape the violence but the only thing the government is willing to do is build a fence

    and they expect the american public to believe their endeavors in the middle east are of a noble intent


    obviously its about the money

    the war on drugs has become too profitable for too many people:

    mexican drug cartels

    corrupt mexican elected officials

    american police unions

    american banks
    (interesting read:

    american congressmen who are paid to keep drugs like weed illegal by big pharmaceutical corporations

    shit is a joke

  • Re: Potty Mouth Princess


    was the video offensive? Sure, for more than one reason. It felt dirty. And exploitative. But that was the point

    the video wasn't suppose to be an informative ...and most the info relayed in the message is already common knowledge unless you live under a rock

    the video was designed to stir up controversy and draw attention to the company.

    and hopefully enough of its viewers, particularly those who are predisposed to the message, will be inspired to buy one of their tshirts and/or donate their time to the cause of ending gender inequality

    sure its producers expected the backlash

    the offensive nature of the video is the only reason why the video will reach so many people

    The IconoclastCunt_LyfeMsSouthernLPastThePayPalPimp.dwade206Bazz-B
  • Re: Police gun down 17 year old unarmed black teen. (Update) Grand Jury Now Being Investigated

    Copper wrote: »

    who is she?
    and how is there not enough...all those fucking witnesses with the same story
    DarcSkies wrote: »

    WASHINGTON — The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

    The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

    The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

    This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times. It contradicts some witness accounts, and it will not calm those who have been demanding to know why an unarmed man was shot a total of six times. Mr. Brown’s death continues to fuel anger and sometimes-violent protests.

    In September, Officer Wilson appeared for four hours before a St. Louis County grand jury, which was convened to determine whether there is probable cause that he committed a crime. Legal experts have said that his decision to testify was surprising, given that it was not required by law. But the struggle in the car may prove to be a more influential piece of information for the grand jury, one that speaks to Officer Wilson’s state of mind, his feeling of vulnerability and his sense of heightened alert when he killed Mr. Brown.

    Police officers typically have wide latitude to use lethal force if they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger.

    The officials said that while the federal investigation was continuing, the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson. To press charges, the Justice Department would need to clear a high bar, proving that Officer Wilson willfully violated Mr. Brown’s civil rights when he shot him.

    The account of Officer Wilson’s version of events did not come from the Ferguson Police Department or from officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry.

    In the many accounts of Mr. Brown’s death, the most potent imagery has come from his final moments, when he and Officer Wilson faced each other on Canfield Drive. Some witnesses have said that he appeared to be surrendering with his hands in the air as he was hit with the fatal gunshots. Others have said that Mr. Brown was moving toward Officer Wilson when he was killed.

    Few witnesses had perfect vantage points for the fight in the car, which occurred just after noon on Aug. 9. Mr. Brown was walking down the middle of the street with a friend, Dorian Johnson, when Officer Wilson stopped his S.U.V., a Chevy Tahoe, to order them to the sidewalk.

    Within seconds, the encounter turned into a physical struggle, as the officer and Mr. Brown became entangled through the open driver’s-side window.

    Why did the police shoot an unarmed black teenager in a St. Louis suburb, and what has unfolded since then? Here’s what you need to know about the situation in Missouri.
    OPEN Graphic

    One witness, Piaget Crenshaw, said later that while she could not see clearly, it appeared Mr. Brown was “trying to flee.” Another witness, Tiffany Mitchell, said that she had watched with alarm from a close distance and that as the two briefly struggled, “Michael was pulling off and the cop was trying to pull him in.”

    Michael T. Brady, who lives nearby, said that the altercation was “something strange,” but that he could not tell exactly what was happening. “I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever,” Mr. Brady said. “But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right.”

    However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.

    Mr. Johnson has said that Officer Wilson was the aggressor, backing up his vehicle and opening the door, which hit Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown and then bounced back.

    “He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,” Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. “He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.”

    The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.

    Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department has said in interviews that Officer Wilson was “pushed back into the car” by Mr. Brown and “physically assaulted.” The department is conducting the local investigation into Mr. Brown’s death.

    Spokesmen for the F.B.I. and the Justice Department declined to comment.

    In an interview, Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the Brown family, dismissed Officer Wilson’s account of what happened in the S.U.V. that day.

    “What the police say is not to be taken as gospel,” Mr. Crump said, adding that Officer Wilson should be indicted by the grand jury and his case sent to trial. “He can say what he wants to say in front of a jury. They can listen to all the evidence and the people can have it transparent so they know that the system works for everybody.”

    He added: “The officer’s going to say whatever he’s going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid. Right now, they have this secret proceeding where nobody knows what’s happening and nobody knows what’s going on. No matter what happened in the car, Michael Brown ran away from him.”

    The grand jury has been meeting in Clayton, Mo., since Aug. 20. Robert P. McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, has said that he expects a decision on probable cause by mid-November.


    Bitch you already sitting down how you PINNED down?

    Right lol...

    And if Wilson is to believed that means he continued to fire at an obviously unarmed person who he just shot in the arm and was now surrendering. How was he even a serious threat to you or anyone at that point?
    nex gin
  • Re: The GOP Releases Ad Already Being Dubbed the Most Racist Ad since the Infamous ‘Willie Horton’ Ad...

    S2J wrote: »
    It is a racist ad for obvious reason. But not suprised. Im sure thousands benefited from the good time law an re offended whites included. But they pick the hooded black person possible as a scare tactic. To get people to be tough on crime. Which its already proven longer sentencing doesn't deter re offending.

    See this is just as toxic as any racism imo

    Them crackas got your head so fuked up u willing to sell yourself out along with any moral compass you have, just to side with a murderer and criminal. You dont realize that harms us more than anything. Nikko fukin Jenkins does not represent black people, and i dont look at us as black people as all being like niko johnson, so i didnt flinch watchin that video. Nggas who aint sure about themselves? Or the 'good' white people who 'on our side' but still look at us as less than them? Yea they feelin a way

    The ad is not racist


    Calling the ad racist and siding with the likes of Nikko Jenkins are not one and the same lol

    With that said, I necessarily don't feel the ad is racist ....but what it does do is exploit racism

    or in other words the ad is dog whistle politics at work ...from the imagery to the repeated use of the name "Nikko Jenkins"

    The makers of the ad were exploiting the public's fear of crime and even more so exploiting white irrational fears about Blacks

    Would even argue the ad could serve to perpetuate these fears

    GOP to White voters: Vote for a candidate who is going to protect you from these blac...I mean a candidate who is tough on crime

    Shit is a farse

    Not to mention the ad fails to mention the good time rule was initially widely supported by Nebraska Republican officials even the GOP candidate who is running against Brad Ashford and even a Republican governor signed the good time rule into law

    jonoThe Iconoclast
  • Re: The GOP Releases Ad Already Being Dubbed the Most Racist Ad since the Infamous ‘Willie Horton’ Ad...

    S2J wrote: »
    To b clear... The ad is meant to incite racists. A minor distinction, but it's important.

    Nooo, im pretty sure the ad is mewnt to make him look weak on crime

    And it seems to me to the ad is doing more to troll black folk into stubbing our own toe and creating a sense of boy who cried wolf...thats that long hustle. That REAL counterproductive shyt

    Because if u black and align with inmates and this mfer---as if opposition to crime = opposition to black folk ---you fuck us all over

    As if me bein black im not supposed to be able to think 'uhhh, yea, how'd you let THIS mfer out'. Cmon man. Every inmate aint gotdamn Malcolm X, and every black person does not need to rep fukin inmates


    you can acknowledge the racialized imagery of the ad and still be in opposition of policy such as the good time rule

    The release of one man is not an fair indictment of the law

    The democratic candidate subject of the attack had little to do with the release of Nikko Jenkins or with the signing the bill into law

    So not only is the ad exploiting racism, it serves to perpetuate the narrative that the Democratic Party is the party of welfare queens, thugs, and illegals i.e. colored people