• 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.

George Zimmerman's Brother's Bizarre Interview

The brain capacity is lacking. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

Serino asked George why he felt Trayvon was suspicious .... but what George described was the Burgess event. So my belief is he may have thought TM was him. He also confused Serino.

But, Burgess was still in jail and is shorter and much heavier.

George also refers to seeing a black man standing outside his house smoking as "suspicious".. In fact George frequently deflected a direct answer by referring to some earlier instance.

Maybe George is too dumb to know that many people don't smoke in their homes... or that teens walk.. They walk to the bus stop, to friend's homes etc.

I have dumped my spell check.. I can't figure out what I did or how to get it back.
 
Last edited:
Your games are childish...

I simply didn't see his post.. and I was off lin for nearly three days.

You have been kaputed
 
Are you saying she is seeing and hearing things too?

I don't know. In typical Sharon fashion she makes a claim (Zimmerman's entire family are trashing Trayvon's family), I ask for proof of this, she says look at the evidence, watch the piers morgan interview, I do both and still find nothing. I guess the only conclusion is she does in fact see and hear things.
 
I was definitely off the 27- 28-29

So is the claim now that you couldn't see Eco's response to you on the 31st because you were offline on the 27th, 28th and 29th? That's rather unusual.
 
I was definitely off the 27- 28-29
Really sharon? :doh

You posted twice on the 29th.
03-29-13, 01:26 PM
03-29-13, 12:43 PM
Was that about the time a three day suspension ended?

Try the 26-27-28.
It is pretty sad when you don't even know, and then try and use it to say you didn't know about something else, especially since the reason you proffered was an untruth.
 
I was definitely off the 27- 28-29

You should be ashamed of yourself for your lack of truthfulness in these log/quote system proceedings

My advice to you is to keep quiet.....Any kaput reply you post can and will be used against you
 
Really sharon? :doh

You posted twice on the 29th.
03-29-13, 01:26 PM
03-29-13, 12:43 PM
Was that about the time a three day suspension ended?

Try the 26-27-28.
It is pretty sad when you don't even know, and then try and use it to say you didn't know about something else, especially since the reason you proffered was an untruth.

I wasn't suspended.. just off line.. and I am just not sure which three days it was.
 
I wasn't suspended.. just off line.. and I am just not sure which three days it was.
Really sharon?
It says right there in what you quoted it was the 26-27-28.
Do you not bother to read what you quote?
Never mind. I forgot it was you to whom I was speaking.

And secondly; My Gawd, you really must be board to drag this back up after ten days.
 
You should be ashamed of yourself for your lack of truthfulness in these log/quote system proceedings

My advice to you is to keep quiet.....Any kaput reply you post can and will be used against you
Trust me. Send me a 'PM' and I'll give you the best day you've ever had attempting to carry on a debate with some one who habitually seems to be only looking for some one.....any one to argue with. Once in an Internet forum life time. If I say anything else here I'll be banned but it's no problem forum members 'PMing' each other.
 
Really sharon?
It says right there in what you quoted it was the 26-27-28.
Do you not bother to read what you quote?
Never mind. I forgot it was you to whom I was speaking.

And secondly; My Gawd, you really must be board to drag this back up after ten days.
New here. How do I send recieve 'PM'? Have I got a surprise for you all!
 
Trust me. Send me a 'PM' and I'll give you the best day you've ever had attempting to carry on a debate with some one who habitually seems to be only looking for some one.....any one to argue with. Once in an Internet forum life time. If I say anything else here I'll be banned but it's no problem forum members 'PMing' each other.

Very nice:lol:
 
Very nice:lol:
Well dear "sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you". I know who's lunch I'll be eating here. If they don't 'do-a-bunk' which is likely.
 
New here. How do I send recieve 'PM'? Have I got a surprise for you all!
Unless you have an unknown piece of evidence, you have no surprise for us, so I seriously doubt anybody cares what you have to say.


Nor do the rules prevent you from openly saying what you "think" as long as it is in accordance with the rules.
 
Unless you have an unknown piece of evidence, you have no surprise for us, so I seriously doubt anybody cares what you have to say.


Nor do the rules prevent you from openly saying what you "think" as long as it is in accordance with the rules.


Why are you always rude to new posters? Makes you look defensive and insecure. How about welcoming people to the forum? That would be a nice change.
 
Why are you always rude to new posters? Makes you look defensive and insecure. How about welcoming people to the forum? That would be a nice change.
Don't care what you think.
Nor is what you think accurate.
Next.
 
Did, everybody saw it.
What a pathetic response to the crap you post.
I am sure everybody sees you for being disruptive as you are.
 
Another personal attack. called it.
You called nothing.
And you obviously do not know what a personal attack is for you to call that a persona attack.
:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom