• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman can do no wrong/has done no wrong? [W:191]

whysoserious said:
Man you need to go back to school. I'll use whatever ****ing word I want to use when a ****ing dictionary agrees with me. Excon disagrees with me. Dictionary agrees with me.

I'll choose the ****ing dictionary and you can keep whining about it. I don't give a ****.

Dictionary > Excon. It's math.
Click to expand...

we have provided MANY definitions, that totally vindidate our claims.

its that simple. nothing can change that. folks can deny this all they like, but its useless & a red-herring.
 
whysoserious said:
Man you need to go back to school. I'll use whatever ****ing word I want to use when a ****ing dictionary agrees with me. Excon disagrees with me. Dictionary agrees with me.

I'll choose the ****ing dictionary and you can keep whining about it. I don't give a ****.

Dictionary > Excon. It's math.
Click to expand...
That is the point. The dictionary doesn't agree with you.
 
Thunder said:
we have provided MANY definitions, that totally vindidate our claims.

its that simple. nothing can change that. folks can deny this all they like, but its useless & a red-herring.
Click to expand...
No you don't.
 
Thunder said:
it does agree with him, and we have pointed this out time & time again.

you can keep denying this, but its really not helping your argument.
Click to expand...
No it does not, and it was pointed out long ago.
 
Excon said:
No it does not, and it was pointed out long ago.
Click to expand...

I see this red-herring, as evidence that totally vindicates the OP.

for some folks, Zimmerman can simply do no wrong, and no amount of energy will be neglected to argue such an idea.
 
Thunder said:
I see this red-herring, as evidence that totally vindicates the OP.

for some folks, Zimmerman can simply do no wrong, and no amount of energy will be neglected to argue such an idea.
Click to expand...
The red herring is your use of definitions that do not apply.

Pointing that out is not a red herring. lol
:doh
 
Excon said:
The red herring is your use of definitions that do not apply....
Click to expand...

that's not what a red-herring means.

your almost 24-hour focus on the use of the term "stalking", is a red herring.

as is your new focus on refering to TM as "Martin" rather than "Trayvon".
 
Thunder said:
that's not what a red-herring means.

your almost 24-hour focus on the use of the term "stalking", is a red herring.

as is your new focus on refering to TM as "Martin" rather than "Trayvon".
Click to expand...
Wrong!

You are intentionally misleading with information that has no baring to the issue being discussed.
That is a red-herring.



Those definitions do not fit Zimmerman's actions and are therefore misleading and therefore a red-herring.

Yes you are engaged ion presenting a red-herring.


Secondly, the name thing was brought up long ago.
And I would at least like to see that everyone is on the same page of respect for the deceased, by using their first name. Not his last, or an abbreviation.
 
Excon said:
...Secondly, the name thing was brought up long ago.
And I would at least like to see that everyone is on the same page of respect for the deceased, by using their first name. Not his last, or an abbreviation.
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with whether or not GZ is guilty of Murder/Manslaughter?
 
Thunder said:
what does this have to do with whether or not GZ is guilty of Murder/Manslaughter?
Click to expand...
Yay! He finally gets it.
Absolutely ****en nothing. Just like all the **** you, sharon and SheWolf keep bringing up.
Absolutely ****en nothing.

But it also serves a point of showing that this fictitious outrage that you all say you have towards Zimmerman is bs, especially when you can not even show respect for the deceased by using his first name.
It really isn't about Trayvon for you.
 
Excon said:
...But it also serves a point of showing that this fictitious outrage that you all say you have towards Zimmerman is bs, especially when you can not even show respect for the deceased by using his first name...
Click to expand...

what does this red-herring have to do with whether or not GZ is guilty of Murder/Manslaughter?
 
Thunder said:
what does this red-herring have to do with whether or not GZ is guilty of Murder/Manslaughter?
Click to expand...

I already answered your question.
 
Thunder said:
indeed, it has nothing to do with this case, and is simply a failed attempt to divert from your failed argument.
Click to expand...
No dear.

It was showing what you engage in. Duh!
 
Excon said:
Yay! He finally gets it.
Absolutely ****en nothing. Just like all the **** you, sharon and SheWolf keep bringing up.
Absolutely ****en nothing.

But it also serves a point of showing that this fictitious outrage that you all say you have towards Zimmerman is bs, especially when you can not even show respect for the deceased by using his first name.
It really isn't about Trayvon for you.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Why is it that many of the defenders of George Zimmerman simply refuse to acknowledge ANY possible wrong-doing, missteps, or poor choices by him?

They won't acknowledge that hey may have started the final confrontation, that he was angry while on the phone with the cops, that he unfairly judged Martin, that he called Martin an "asshole" and a "****ing punk", that he has a history of violence, that he harrassed a co-worker with racial taunts, that he violated NW protocol, etc etc.

Why is this? Do they think he was some sort of angel, or is this just a debate tactic to give the opposition nothing?
Click to expand...


I haven't read anyone denying of those you listed other than a "history of violence" and "harassed a co-worker with racial taunts." Those latter have been alleged but not proven nor documented other than the word of the person who doesn't like Zimmerman making the claim.

Someone calling you a racist posting racist remarks wouldn't make it true.

The real response, though, is that matters are irrelevant to the events of that evening.

Why do you believe that if you explore the entire life of Zimmerman to find imperfect it in any way shows him to be a murder? That is ludicrous in my opinion.

Both Zimmerman and Martin made many poor decisions as both lacked the skill, knowledge and frame of mind for the course both put themselves on. But that also is not relevant to the issued of guilt. You seem to believe that lack of perfection in hindsight of that night and Zimmerman's entirely life converted to being a criminal guilty of any crime he is accused of.
 
joko104 said:
...You seem to believe that lack of perfection in hindsight of that night and Zimmerman's entirely life converted to being a criminal guilty of any crime he is accused of.
Click to expand...

no more than Martin's mistakes during his life makes his killing justified & good for society.
 
Thunder said:
the ones that you guys keep accusing him of, without any evidence.
Click to expand...

Why was there no 911 call from Martin.. He had a cell... Why didn't he call his daddy/ mommy or any family member?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom