- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Why do you hate the Jews?
Look dammit, learn how to spell joos.
Why do you hate the Jews?
Why do you hate the Jews?
Thats what it looks like to me too.Like the parents found the most innocent looking photos they can.
I think the results would be a lot different if these were the photos of the alleged murderer and victim the media was showing
View attachment 67124916
And then they filed applications to trademark his name.
Mother Seeks Trayvon Martin Trademarks | The Smoking Gun
It's telling that when you read the caption here, it basically says "See, we can be biased too!"
The 911 call is all one needs to think Zimmerman was a racist dickhead. In fact, until this thread I never even saw a picture of the peice of **** but I certainly thought he was a piece of ****.
Pictures don't mean **** when you have already clear evidence that the guy is a murdering piece of ****.
Problem is, it's not against the law to be a racist dickhead. It's also not against the law to follow and even confront someone else by asking questions or even following them unless it can be construed as stalking as per the statute. Nor is it against the law to be a douche either. Tucker is exactly incorrect. Seems impassioned instead of factual and that leads usually, to the wrong conclusions and the wrong answer.
It may be relevant only as it applied to the character of the person involved. However, being a dickhead even after he ended up killing a kid is still not a crime.It's not against the law to be a racist dickhead, I agree.... until you end up killing a kid of a different race who had nothing but a bag of skittles and some tea on him... then you know... I'm pretty sure it's relevant to the situation.
Because someone's a dickhead doesn't mean they are guilty, or that they did something wrong. It simply means they're a dickhead. Keep facts and emotion separate and you'll be better off.Unless you're saying we shouldn't take a person's character into consideration when dealing with a murder?
It may be relevant only as it applied to the character of the person involved. However, being a dickhead even after he ended up killing a kid is still not a crime.
Because someone's a dickhead doesn't mean they are guilty, or that they did something wrong. It simply means they're a dickhead. Keep facts and emotion separate and you'll be better off.
It's not against the law to be a racist dickhead, I agree.... until you end up killing a kid of a different race who had nothing but a bag of skittles and some tea on him... then you know... I'm pretty sure it's relevant to the situation. Unless you're saying we shouldn't take a person's character into consideration when dealing with a murder?
We were talking about dickheads, not racists.So then we're in agreement that being a racist is relevant if you kill people of another race. Correct?
Who would you like me to apply it to? Facts so far identify Martin as the aggressor... until those facts change, no amount of bull**** emotional race baiting nonsense is going to change that. Nor is the veiled claims of hypocrisy...Funny. I don't see you applying this little rule to Zimmerman's defenders. :shrug:
no one has proven his racism.
in fact evidence suggests otherwise.
George Zimmerman remains "distraught" over Trayvon Martin shooting, says friend - NYPOST.com
Some residents of his gated townhouse community declared that Zimmerman was known for being strict and that he went door to door asking them to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders", while others regarded him as normal, helpful and passionate about neighborhood security, having supposedly thwarted a previous burglary attempt.[31] The community reportedly experienced numerous instances of burglary, theft, and one shooting during the previous year, with 402 calls made to the police."[31] According to the Miami Herald, Zimmerman had placed 46 of those calls since the beginning of 2011, "to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents; nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious".[31] The Herald described Zimmerman as "mild-mannered", but "fixated on crime and focused on young, black males."[31]
It sounds more like ****ing pooped or ****ing poofed instead of ****ing coon.
It seems that since you and many others are trying to paint the man as a racist you are trying to claim a practically inaudible word is something racist.
It looks more like he was following someone he thought was up to no good , not seeking a confrontation.
Yes he ignored the 911 dispatcher's advice.
There is no evidence who started the altercation.
Following someone does not justify starting a fight.
Problem is, it's not against the law to be a racist dickhead. It's also not against the law to follow and even confront someone else by asking questions or even following them unless it can be construed as stalking as per the statute. Nor is it against the law to be a douche either. Tucker is exactly incorrect. Seems impassioned instead of factual and that leads usually, to the wrong conclusions and the wrong answer.
All of that is correct. It's not against the law to be a racist dickhead douche and no matter what anyone believes of events, it doesn not call within the legal definition of stalking nor may a person violently assault someone who is a stalker.
Lol..."Clear evidence, racist dickhead", etc...and once again you devolve to tool status.
You paint Zimmerman with a broad brush, regardless, and you look fwd to these situations to enhance your bias.
I've...(as well as you) have seen cases publicized as complete miscarriages of justice that weren't, when someone bothered to do the background on the cases.
Everything published in the paper was slanted, so as not to offend this "respected individual"
So, when you went by what made the media
and then compared that to what was actually in the court's records?
Looked like two different cases, entirely.
Anything you hear or see in the news or from second-hand sources needs careful evaluation for bias
A tragic incident no doubt, and the facts will come out.
So here's my point. Forget the law, forget the facts, forget common sense.
Unless you know all of the specifics of a particular case, including the venue, the judge, the attorneys and their relationships, etc., you can't make a reasonable determination if it was a good, fair result, or if it stinks to high heaven.
You're dismissed, dude
SYG allows you to defend yourself against a stalker, if he gets in your face.
Problem is, it's not against the law to be a racist dickhead. It's also not against the law to follow and even confront someone else by asking questions or even following them unless it can be construed as stalking as per the statute. Nor is it against the law to be a douche either.
Tucker is exactly incorrect.
Seems impassioned instead of factual and that leads usually, to the wrong conclusions and the wrong answer.
What you said is emotionally charged nonsense. Perhaps if you dealt in facts instead of innuendo and emotion, the issues may become more clear.And if I had been making a comment about what was or was not against the law instead of about the person who is George Zimmerman, this imaginary problem you have invented would would be relevant to what I said.
And that's the problem, because this is or could be a legal matter. The question is, why AREN'T you saying jack **** about the law? Or about facts... Only you can answer that.but I didn't say jack **** about the law.
Actually you're incorrect. I cannot rebut something that has no basis in fact, nor can I rebut an emotional rant. What I'm trying to do is steer you out of the mire of emotional fallacy and rants to something a little more solid. Obviously if you want to stay mired, you will and nothing I can do will change that.That's just some pointless drivel you made up and pretended was a rebuttal to my position.
To be honest, you're posts in this thread don't have much worth to review. Granted, this doesn't seem to fit murder to me either and while I'm still stumped as to why the States DA didn't arrest Zimmerman and take their chances with the Grand Jury - given that their foresight on this matter was myopic to say the least...You can look through my posts and at no point do I make any claims about the law. the closest thing is my improper use of the word "murder", which I will agree was incorrect since it is not known if the killing really was unlawful.
Immoral using what moral basis? What would have been a "moral" way to kill the kid?I should have simply stated that he killed the kid in an immoral fashion.
I make claims because your posts were rambling. The purpose and intent of my post was to point that out because you generally are not an emotional ranting person in my experience.Before you make claims like this, you really should have a clue what I am actually saying since nothing you wrote as a response actually contradicted anything that I said.
I'll continue to show you the error of your ways. You already know I already take my own advice, so the hyperbole aside... you're welcome.Good advice. Try taking it yourself before you make this same mistake again in the future.
What you said is emotionally charged nonsense.
Perhaps if you dealt in facts instead of innuendo and emotion, the issues may become more clear.
And that's the problem, because this is or could be a legal matter.
The question is, why AREN'T you saying jack **** about the law?
Or about facts... Only you can answer that.
Actually you're incorrect.
I cannot rebut something that has no basis in fact, nor can I rebut an emotional rant.
What I'm trying to do is steer you out of the mire of emotional fallacy and rants to something a little more solid.
Obviously if you want to stay mired, you will and nothing I can do will change that.
To be honest, you're posts in this thread don't have much worth to review.
Granted, this doesn't seem to fit murder to me either and while I'm still stumped as to why the States DA didn't arrest Zimmerman and take their chances with the Grand Jury - given that their foresight on this matter was myopic to say the least...
Immoral using what moral basis?
What would have been a "moral" way to kill the kid?
I make claims because your posts were rambling.
The purpose and intent of my post was to point that out because you generally are not an emotional ranting person in my experience.
I'll continue to show you the error of your ways.
You already know I already take my own advice....
I have no way of knowing if you actually do or not. All I really do know that you jumped to erroneous conclusions about my use of emotion in my posts as well as what I was arguing. I find it hard to believe that this erroneous conclusion was based on the available facts rather than your emotional reaction to my use of emotion, to be honest, but as I said, I have no way of knowing for sure.
Not going to address anything else... I'll just be repeating myself. The conclusion I arrived at was the logical one. You were not arguing you were ranting emotionally. There's nothing erroneous about the conclusion. I'm sure it was an honest one - just not a practical one.
Carry on... you were going to continue about the fat douche bag...