• 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.

The George Zimmerman Trial Has Officially Begun

iLOL
:doh
You are again speaking about what you know not.
ilOL
:doh
That's why I didn't state it, I asked. And I note you didn't answer.

Yes your denial is noted again. As usual.

Your being wrong is your denial. :doh Not someone else's. Duh!
<squawk/>


Yes you are assuming as they were mutual restraining ordered issued by a Civil Court.
Not only are you assuming, you are showing bias, by choosing a side.
They were not exactly mutual. She took a restraining order out against him for domestic violence and then he responded by taking out one against her.
 
I don't have to. I heard the dead silence after he told his joke. Dead silence as in no one laughed. No one found his joke funny. No one. No one in the jury, not the judge, not one person in that room.
Look at you assuming again. Your continued and usual denial was expected. What a shame.

You do not know any such thing. You were not there and are assuming.
Nor do you know if the mics are set up to catch sounds from the jurors, which they likely are not.
You don't even know if some just smiled or softly chuckled.

And of those who didn't laugh, or even smile at it, do you know if they didn't do so because they didn't find it funny, or because they were unsure of laughing in Court?
The truth ism, you do not know and are assuming.
No one is saying that it isn't a good assumption, but you are assuming. If you can't admit that, then there is something severely wrong.
 
That's why I didn't state it, I asked.
:doh
:lamo
Your question mark doesn't change your insinuation.
So stop with the dishonesty.


<squawk/>
Look at that. Yerbuti squawking again. As usual.


They were not exactly mutual. She took a restraining order out against him for domestic violence and then he responded by taking out one against her.
:doh
Get back with us when you get the dates.
 
Look at you assuming again. Your continued and usual denial was expected. What a shame.

You do not know any such thing. You were not there and are assuming.
Nor do you know if the mics are set up to catch sounds from the jurors, which they likely are not.
You don't even know if some just smiled or softly chuckled.

And of those who didn't laugh, or even smile at it, do you know if they didn't do so because they didn't find it funny, or because they were unsure of laughing in Court?
The truth ism, you do not know and are assuming.
No one is saying that it isn't a good assumption, but you are assuming. If you can't admit that, then there is something severely wrong.

Your rationalizations are amazing.

He announced he was telling a joke. How much more permission do you need to laugh in court??????If it was funny or appropriate, they would have laughed.

He seemed to get more of a response out of "Nothing?"
 
Your rationalizations are amazing.

He announced he was telling a joke. How much more permission do you need to laugh in court??????If it was funny or appropriate, they would have laughed.

He seemed to get more of a response out of "Nothing?"

Apparently, you don't know, the real motive behind, the joke

Once again....think out of the box
 
He announced he was telling a joke. How much more permission do you need to laugh in court??????If it was funny or appropriate, they would have laughed.
Your amazing rationalization. :doh
His preface is all that would be needed to be unsure.
Regardless. Yerbuti was still assuming.

He seemed to get more of a response out of "Nothing?"
Did I say he didn't?
 
Your rationalizations are amazing.

He announced he was telling a joke. How much more permission do you need to laugh in court??????If it was funny or appropriate, they would have laughed.

He seemed to get more of a response out of "Nothing?"

West's response indicated his joke died as it deserved to and his apology is yet further indication that he knew it, despite the abject denials flying here by Jorge sycophants.

"Nothin'??"

That means there was no positive reaction to his ill-fated joke. Which he knew was risky to tell, yet put it out there anyway.
 
West's response indicated his joke died
iLOL
No one said it didn't die. What was said is that you are assuming that no one laughed. You do not know as you were not there.
So stop assuming.

As stated:
You do not know any such thing. You were not there and are assuming.
Nor do you know if the mics are set up to catch sounds from the jurors, which they likely are not.
You don't even know if some just smiled or softly chuckled.

And of those who didn't laugh, or even smile at it, do you know if they didn't do so because they didn't find it funny, or because they were unsure of laughing in Court?
The truth is, you do not know and are assuming.
No one is saying that it isn't a good assumption, but you are assuming. If you can't admit that, then there is something severely wrong.
 
Last edited:
iLOL
No one said it didn't die. What was said is that you are assuming that no one laughed. You do not know as you were not there.
So stop assuming.
Not assuming ... taking Wests' word for it ...

"Nothin'?? that's funny!"

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Not assuming ... taking Wests' word for it ...

"Nothin'?? that's funny!"
Nope, assuming again.
You are assuming his comment means no one laughed.

Again.
No one is saying that it isn't a good assumption, but you are assuming. If you can't admit that, then there is something severely wrong.
 
West's response indicated his joke died as it deserved to and his apology is yet further indication that he knew it, despite the abject denials flying here by Jorge sycophants.

"Nothin'??"

That means there was no positive reaction to his ill-fated joke. Which he knew was risky to tell, yet put it out there anyway.

Certainly shows your one-dimensional thinking

Take a pause and once again...think out of the box
 
West's response indicated his joke died as it deserved to and his apology is yet further indication that he knew it, despite the abject denials flying here by Jorge sycophants.

"Nothin'??"

That means there was no positive reaction to his ill-fated joke. Which he knew was risky to tell, yet put it out there anyway.

iLOL
No one said it didn't die.

Holy ****! :doh

Ya can't make this **** up, I tell ya!

No one said his joke didn't die, huh??


His joke didn't die either, he got the laughs.

YOU said it!

rolling on the floor laughing.gif
rolling on the floor laughing.gif
rolling on the floor laughing.gif
 
Last edited:
Certainly shows your one-dimensional thinking

Take a pause and once again...think out of the box

"..... alright, good, you're on the jury ........................ <dead silence> ............."

"Nothin'??"

Deal with it.
 
Ya can't make this **** up, I tell ya!

No one said his joke didn't die, huh??

YOU said it!
Holy ****! :doh
It is like holding a third graders hand.
People laugh at jokes that have died.
It would be no different for West's.
Or didn't you know that?
Duh!


........................ <dead silence> .............
The lack of microphones to pick every little noise does not mean there was silence.
You are again assuming, and just can't admit it! Which is really sad.

I am sure that if we get Reich to listen to what you call silence, he will surely hear someone laughing hysterically and probably someone holding prayer services as well.
 
Last edited:
Holy ****! :doh
It is like holding a third graders hand.
People laugh at jokes that have died.
It would be no different for West's.
Or didn't you know that?
Duh!

Sheik Yerbuti: "West's response indicated his joke died"

Excon: "No one said it didn't die."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Holy ****! :doh ...... YOU said it!"

His joke didn't die either...

Just admit you're wrong and move on.
 
The lack of microphones to pick every little noise does not mean there was silence.
Who needs microphones when we have the man standing just feet in front of them describing their laughter ....

"nothin'"

You think their laughter was so muted without a microphone (which you are assuming they don't have :lamo) that even the man telling the joke just feet away could only hear, "nothin'??"


rolling on the floor laughing.gif
rolling on the floor laughing.gif
rolling on the floor laughing.gif
 
Sheik Yerbuti: "West's response indicated his joke died"

Excon: "No one said it didn't die."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Holy ****! ...... YOU said it!"

Just admit you're wrong and move on.
Yay! Yerbuti finally got something right.
Let me get the balloons and we can have a party.
:2party: :2party: :2party:
Hooray for Yerbuti! Yay!
I said it didn't die earlier in a conversation which had obviously progressed passed that point, and remained focused on you being wrong about your assumptions.
And 40+ posts later, you use it deflect from your being wrong about your assumptions. Yay!


Move on? :naughty
Nope, you are still assuming.


Like I said.
Holy ****! :doh
It is like holding a third graders hand.
People laugh at jokes that have died.
It would be no different for West's.
Or didn't you know that?
Duh!
 
Last edited:
Who needs microphones when we have the man standing just feet in front of them describing their laughter ....

"nothin'"

You think their laughter was so muted without a microphone (which you are assuming they don't have ) that even the man telling the joke just feet away could only hear, "nothin'??"
Still assuming I see.

And what you point to was already stated as an assumption. Or have you not been paying attention?

"Nor do you know if the mics are set up to catch sounds from the jurors, which they likely are not."

And if anybody thinks they place mics to pic up the juries voices, they clearly are deluding themselves, as well as assuming.

As I said; No one is saying that it isn't a good assumption, but you are assuming. If you can't admit that, then there is something severely wrong.

And instead of having integrity and admitting you are assuming like I have done, you continue on with absurdities.
It is really quite pathetic.

And then you make absurd insinuations like "You think their laughter was so muted", really takes it to grasping.
Who is this "they" you speak of?
I said you are assuming and do not know if some one did. Which of course you don't as you were not there.

And until you get each and every juror to say they didn't laugh or think it was funny, you have nothing but assumption.
 
Last edited:
Yay! Yerbuti finally got something right.
Let me get the balloons and we can have a party.

Hooray for Yerbuti! Yay!
I said it didn't die earlier in a conversation that had progressed passed that point to you being wrong about your assumptions.
It was obvious that it had.
And 40+ posts later, you use it deflect from your being wrong about your assumptions. Yay!


Move on? :naughty
Nope, you are still assuming.


Like I said.
Holy ****! :doh
It is like holding a third graders hand.
People laugh at jokes that have died.
It would be no different for West's.
Or didn't you know that?
Duh!
Cries the poster who is assuming the jury doen't have a microphone. :roll:

Ya just can't make this **** up, I tell ya. :lamo

And again, I'm not assuming the jury didn't laugh. You're wrong about that too. I'm taking Wests' word for it. He described their reaction ....


nothing.jpg

rolling on the floor laughing.gif
 
Cries the poster who is assuming the jury doen't have a microphone.

Ya just can't make this **** up, I tell ya.

And again, I'm not assuming the jury didn't laugh. You're wrong about that too. I'm taking Wests' word for it. He described their reaction ....
Cries the poster saying they didn't assume when they did and still are.

Which makes you wrong, as usual.

So again.
Until you get each and every juror to say they didn't laugh or think it was funny, you have nothing but assumption.
 
Last edited:
Still assuming I see.

And what you point to was already stated as an assumption. Or have you not been paying attention?

"Nor do you know if the mics are set up to catch sounds from the jurors, which they likely are not."

And if anybody thinks they place mics to pic up the juries voices, they clearly are deluding themselves, as well as assuming.

As I said; No one is saying that it isn't a good assumption, but you are assuming. If you can't admit that, then there is something severely wrong.

And instead of having integrity and admitting you are assuming like I have done, you continue on with absurdities.
It is really quite pathetic.

And then you make absurd insinuations like "You think their laughter was so muted", really takes it to grasping.
Who is this "they" you speak of?
I said you are assuming and do not know if some one did. Which of course you don't as you were not there.

And until you get each and every juror to say they didn't laugh or think it was funny, you have nothing but assumption.

He bombed... no one in the court thought the joke was funny... Its an old lawyer to lawyer inside joke.. only an idiot would tell it in court.

 
Cries the poster saying they didn't assume when they did and still are.

Which makes you wrong, as usual.

So again.
Until you get each and every juror to say they didn't laugh or think it was funny, you have nothing but assumption.

You can keep lying by saying I'm assuming, but that will never make it so. Again, I'm not assuming.

Even the news is reporting that no one laughed ...


Following Guy's statement, defense attorney Don West came forward to woo the jury. As he began, he told a knock-knock joke. But it failed to win a laugh. "Knock knock. Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Good, you're on the jury," he said. Later, West apologized. "No more bad jokes, I promise that," he told jurors. "I was convinced it was the delivery."

Opening statements begin Zimmerman trial - CNN.com
 
You can keep lying by saying I'm assuming, but that will never make it so. Again, I'm not assuming.

Even the news is reporting that no one laughed ...

Following Guy's statement, defense attorney Don West came forward to woo the jury. As he began, he told a knock-knock joke. But it failed to win a laugh. "Knock knock. Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Good, you're on the jury," he said. Later, West apologized. "No more bad jokes, I promise that," he told jurors. "I was convinced it was the delivery."

Opening statements begin Zimmerman trial - CNN.com
Oh Gawd! :doh
Yes you are assuming.

You can keep denying it and wont change a damn thing. You are assuming.

Until you get each and every juror to say they didn't laugh or think it was funny, you have nothing but assumption.
 
I just heard the Knock, Knock joke. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
 
I just heard the Knock, Knock joke. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

That dates back to the O.J. days - does it not? Mocking the jury is not the best way to introduce yourself to them. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom