http://www.wfla.com/story/27119461/offen...pbell-home

Must be a charming family. Disgusting...

Maybe it is epic stupidity... Some of the sites I've seen quote or paraphrase them as saying they did not know it would be offensive...

Let's quit making excuses. That's racism. Nobody is that f-ing stupid.

But as we know, being an overt racist is not socially acceptable, which is why people have to go about it covertly, as we see in this case.

Edit: as an aside, I don't know their intent.

(10-29-2014 06:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody is that f-ing stupid.

There's a singular quotation by Henry Louis Mencken which addresses that point…

Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

This is pretty morbid and in bad taste no matter what way you slice it.

(10-29-2014 06:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's quit making excuses. That's racism. Nobody is that f-ing stupid.

While I am inclined to believe it's racist without evidence to the contrary, I did see some things in searching on my phone last night that led me to give the benefit of the doubt.

Here's another article I found this morning along with a google image search of the movie "Sinister"... which leads me to conclude that there really are some people that are that f-ing stupid

Halloween ‘lynching’ display removed from on-base home at Fort Campbell

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/hallo...-campbell/ Wrote:Authorities at the base said the occupant, who was not identified, told military officials the display was not intended to be offensive and agreed to take it down.
...

The right-wing Modern American Revolution group denied the display was racially motivated, claiming in a Facebook post that the Public Affairs department confirmed it depicted a scene from the 2012 horror movie, “Sinister.”

“In it, a WHITE family had been killed by their possessed child,” the group posted. “So, anyone who tries to say this is racist is wrong. Since the gentleman is an active duty soldier living on a federal military installation, he has no 1st Amendment rights. Living on post is VERY different than living off post. …End of story!”

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

The woman is way too thin for that to be the first family.

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

Reaching.

(10-30-2014 03:25 PM)WhyIsTheRumGone Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

Reaching.

Right...Obama hasn't ever been the subject of something like this...ever.

But yes, it looks like I was wrong.

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

Whose first family? I've never seen Moochelle in jeans and a t-shirt, but do continue to look stupid.

(10-30-2014 02:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

The woman is way too thin for that to be the first family.

I mean Two Adults and two kids isn't indicative of the typical family in America or anything.

(10-30-2014 04:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?

And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.

I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

The woman is way too thin for that to be the first family.

I mean Two Adults and two kids isn't indicative of the typical family in America or anything.

Lol, my thoughts exactly.

(10-30-2014 04:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 02:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does the 'victim' in red appear to have boobs...meaning it's a girl of course?
And the older male 'victim' is wearing a white business type shirt. And they have two kids...clearly a few years a part in age.
I'm sure these are all just innocent coincidences to our first family.

The woman is way too thin for that to be the first family.

I mean Two Adults and two kids isn't indicative of the typical family in America or anything.

Of course not. The typical American family has 1.86 kids, not 2.

(10-30-2014 02:00 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 06:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's quit making excuses. That's racism. Nobody is that f-ing stupid.

While I am inclined to believe it's racist without evidence to the contrary, I did see some things in searching on my phone last night that led me to give the benefit of the doubt.

Here's another article I found this morning along with a google image search of the movie "Sinister"... which leads me to conclude that there really are some people that are that f-ing stupid


Yeah well that's still racist, just like the word niggardly (hey, someone had to play the race card).
Halloween ‘lynching’ display removed from on-base home at Fort Campbell

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/hallo...-campbell/ Wrote:Authorities at the base said the occupant, who was not identified, told military officials the display was not intended to be offensive and agreed to take it down.
...

The right-wing Modern American Revolution group denied the display was racially motivated, claiming in a Facebook post that the Public Affairs department confirmed it depicted a scene from the 2012 horror movie, “Sinister.”

“In it, a WHITE family had been killed by their possessed child,” the group posted. “So, anyone who tries to say this is racist is wrong. Since the gentleman is an active duty soldier living on a federal military installation, he has no 1st Amendment rights. Living on post is VERY different than living off post. …End of story!”

^

There must be some kind of auto-remover in the software of this site. I was being trying to be humorous but didn't know the word nig gardly (the space isn't actually there) was banned. And no, it's not a bad word (though I may pretend like it just to give people a hard time).

(10-30-2014 06:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  ^

There must be some kind of auto-remover in the software of this site. I was being trying to be humorous but didn't know the word nig gardly (the space isn't actually there) was banned. And no, it's not a bad word (though I may pretend klike it just to give people a hard time.

It is not an offensive word...but...there are plenty of synonyms that can replace it. I can't imagine ever using it.