• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Maher Blames "The Democrats" For Trayvon Martin Shooting

roughdraft274 said:
So if you don't support the libertarian position (the smaller the government the better) in every instance, you're not really a libertarian?
Click to expand...



He's pro uhc, donated 1 million bucks to Obama, supports gun control, taxing the rich, etc.....

Why is it so imprtant to liberals that we take the liar at his word that he's a libertarian?

Dood is a liberal who wants to end the drug war. Thats about it, his suggestion that he's a libertarian is just a ploy so he can act like a rebel.
 
roughdraft274 said:
So if you don't support the libertarian position (the smaller the government the better) in every instance, you're not really a libertarian?
Click to expand...

Why would a libertarian be so aligned with the party of big government? (I know, this is the part where you tell me that the Reps have expanded government as well, but not to the extent that Dems have and want to).
 
Res Cogitans said:
You must not be paying attention. Or you just have selective hearing. But for many people--myself included--the issue with this case has nothing to do with race. And the fact that you are ONLY hearing race might tell you a little bit about these things.

Beyond that, law enforcement IS the last powerful bastion of racism in the united states, so it should be no surprise that it is in these kinds of cases, this is where the concern comes up. The fact that Sanford county's PD has had some weird racial issues in the past doesn't help anything, but I STILL don't think that that is the MOST important factor here.

The most important factor is that it is obvious, to many of us, that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman--an adult--hadn't initated a confrontation with Martin--a minor.

And the idea that an adult can start a confrontation with a teenager, start losing a fight with him, and shoot the kid in self-defense seems pretty crazy to most of us.

I honestly can't imagine people defending Zimmerman so vehemently in these circumstances if the other political factors weren't involved.

Since when do people RUSH to the defense of a killer? people ALWAYS rush to convict KNOWN killers. There is nothing abnormal about that.

There is something strange about RUSHING to the defense of a known killer, and RUSHING to defend his claim to self-defense. especially when all of the facts haven't come out.
Click to expand...

What I've seen is not so much a defense of Zimmerman, but more people saying "we weren't there, let's look at all the facts objectively" and if I have "defended" Zimmerman, it's from claims that he should just be shot on sight. It's funny that after the Ft. Hood shooting we were exhorted by Obama (among others) not to "rush to judgment," but, in this case, where there actually is a potential for a legit self defense claim, the very same people (including Obama) do not say anything about "violent rhetoric" (as they did right after the Giffords shooting) when someone has actually put a bounty on Zimmeman's head. Why do you suppose that is?
 
X Factor said:
What I've seen is not so much a defense of Zimmerman, but more people saying "we weren't there, let's look at all the facts objectively" and if I have "defended" Zimmerman, it's from claims that he should just be shot on sight. It's funny that after the Ft. Hood shooting we were exhorted by Obama (among others) not to "rush to judgment," but, in this case, where there actually is a potential for a legit self defense claim, the very same people (including Obama) do not say anything about "violent rhetoric" (as they did right after the Giffords shooting) when someone has actually put a bounty on Zimmeman's head. Why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

Because a rush to judgement only works one way and not the other? Sorry for the obvious answer X I just needed to type it out.... the frothy emotional outrage on the Treyvon issue in general is amazing. Multiple murders have taken place near the same time as this equally or more heinious and tragic. Yet the only one we're now talking about for a month is the one which curiously, Obama has weighed in on.

A 9 month old baby was shot and killed in Detroit. A national issue? Obama comment on this one? NBPP offering a reward for the killer? No on all counts.

Bill Mahr - is he interjecting his commentary on the tragic 9 month old being shot by a walk by shooter with a rifle? Not a chance. Commenting on the Detroit story helps Mahr zero - no one cares except those intimately involved sad to say. Mahr must address the big issues of the day so he can do whatever he can, throw anyone he can under the bus, and make more outrageous statements to increase his viewers, thereby increase his personal wealth and relevance. Mahr cares about Mahr and no one else.... if Mahr could find a way to make a few bucks off of Treyvon's death he'll do it. Ultimately he's a far left liberal opportunist who tries to convince others he's something else. He's the studio version of the street shell game.
 
X Factor said:
What I've seen is not so much a defense of Zimmerman, but more people saying "we weren't there, let's look at all the facts objectively" and if I have "defended" Zimmerman, it's from claims that he should just be shot on sight. It's funny that after the Ft. Hood shooting we were exhorted by Obama (among others) not to "rush to judgment," but, in this case, where there actually is a potential for a legit self defense claim, the very same people (including Obama) do not say anything about "violent rhetoric" (as they did right after the Giffords shooting) when someone has actually put a bounty on Zimmeman's head. Why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

These are all very good points, and I think you are right--those folks who have put a bounty on Zimmerman's head should face legal action, if you ask me (Is it legal for private citizens to put bounties on one another?).

But generally speaking, I also think that folks should at least try to be sympathetic to the race-angle, even if they ultimatly judge it to be materially irrelevant (as I do). From the perspective of African Americans in Sanford county, they are seeing--for the second time in the last few years--that young black men can be killed with impunity, so long as the shooter claims self-defense.

Now, the Martin/Zimmerman case is not looking quite as clear as the Travares Mcgill case, where a black teenage boy was shot in the back by a police officer's son who claimed self defense--that case ended up being thrown out of court.

I'm not saying that any of this warrants calling for Zimmerman's head, or assuming his guilt, or anything like this.

I'm just saying that if you can't see how a community gets so emotional when they have probable reason to assume that they are not being protected by the laws (rightly or wrongly), then you are not thinking hard about the various perspectives that there are in this case.
 
Fubar said:
U think the media circus over this has no goal?and yes,I was all ready an adult,been to the towers before and after the event.many times.
Click to expand...


Good for you, but you really think this shooting, is as big as 911?


That's just silly.... You are being dramatic, right?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Good for you, but you really think this shooting, is as big as 911?


That's just silly.... You are being dramatic, right?
Click to expand...

Can't you see where 3000 people murdered by terrorists is the same as one man killed while he was assaulting another?
 
American said:
Can't you see where 3000 people murdered by terrorists is the same as one man killed while he was assaulting another?
Click to expand...

...Truthers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom