• 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.

Report: George Zimmerman's wife says he threatened her[W:152]

You can deny it all you want, you were hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim because you had no other source you could rely on.

Further, here you are again quoting Beaudreaux and not a news source (i.e., hiding behind Beaudreaux) ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-12.html#post1062295404

And again ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-10.html#post1062295323

And again ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...fe-says-he-threatened-her.html#post1062295282

And again ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...-says-he-threatened-her-2.html#post1062295572
Wrong!
As previously proven.
 
I asked him "really" and provided what Beaudreaux said. (already having looked up the information.)

Zimmerman's wife won't press charges despite call
Sure you looked it up. :roll: That must explain why the site you source is timestamped 7:29EST even though he had said that hours ago.
 
Wrong!
As previously proven.

You've proven nothing other than you were hiding behind someone else's post even as you projected that upon someone else.
 
ding ding ding
its beyond illogical that he thinks it has anything to do with me
i stated nothign about a gun anywhere, hell i dindt even say the story was factual and i believe it all lol
Wrong. As usual.
I said what you provided said it.



translation: you are still factually wrong and have been proven to be wrong and that remains i didnt post anything wrong, not one thing
not personal your post made ZERO sense and was illogical
facts destroy your meaningless post again
Translation. You were wrong and shown to be wrong in what followed and can't admit to it.

What you provided is in question.
Period.
You don't get to hide behind because they said it. That is dishonesty. You provided it.

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

Funny thing here is, that when I asked "really", and provided what Beaudreaux said, all you had to do was say that maybe the the other reports were wrong. But noooooooo, you apparently took it personally and seem to want to to fight about it for some inexplicable reason. :lamo
 
You've proven nothing other than you were hiding behind someone else's post even as you projected that upon someone else.

Wrong! There was no hiding. That is nothing other than your spin.
 
Sure you looked it up. :roll: That must explain why the site you source is timestamped 7:29EST even though he had said that hours ago.
:doh

I see you failed to read thoroughly again.
The first comment to the article was made over four (4) hours ago.
Pay attention.
 
Wrong. As usual.
I said what you provided said it.



Translation. You were wrong and shown to be wrong in what followed and can't admit to it.


nope thats why we are laughing at your failed post and the lie you posted.
"I" wasnt factually wrong about anything

if you disagree by all means use FACTS and prove otherwise now, we'd love to read them
post what "I" was wrong about in your next post

facts destroy your failed post again
 
Wrong! There was no hiding. That is nothing other than your spin.
Your denial changes nothing. You even tried to claim that you weren't hiding because you asked, if it were true ... yet I found several posts where you hadn't. So even by your idiotic definition (as though hiding behind the veil of a question provides you cover for making your claim), you were still hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim since you didn't pose it as an inquiry.
 
Your denial changes nothing. You even tried to claim that you weren't hiding because you asked, if it were true ... yet I found several posts where you hadn't. So even by your idiotic definition (as though hiding behind the veil of a question provides you cover for making your claim), you were still hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim since you didn't pose it as an inquiry.

my favorite part is after i destroyed his post he tried to go back and edit post #7 to take out where he said "Obviously the part where you are wrong."

to bad i already quoted him and his original response is in my post #8
he changed it to "What was it you don't get about the reports being wrong?" in a desperation move basically exposing himself as factually being wrong

so busted, so funny
 
So the usual suspects jumped on a false report about Zimmerman with glee again.

And when called on it they are full of denial and obfuscation.

Same old same old.
 
So the usual suspects jumped on a false report about Zimmerman with glee again.

And when called on it they are full of denial and obfuscation.

Same old same old.

Do we actually know what is true and what is false yet?
 
Do we actually know what is true and what is false yet?

There is a report in the NY Times that appears to have the facts.

1. It's true that police were called by Z's wife, who said he'd threatened her with a gun.

2. It's not true that Z was arrested.

3. It's true that Z and his wife had a verbal fight about their divorce.

4. Z's wife later admitted he had not threatened her with a gun.

5. Police could find no gun, Z didn't have one.

So Z haters were correct about early reports, except the ones who said he'd been arrested, but shame on them for all the ugly piling on they did before all the facts came out.

Reminds me of the time Z helped people who'd had a motor vehicle accident, and the Z haters were saying the whole scene had been staged. Shameful, ridiculous, puerile, and sorry.

The ignorance and stupidity of Z haters through the whole affair has been astonishing. They don't know the facts, they don't know or don't respect the law, they are ready to throw their own right to self defense away because they don't like the verdict in this one case.
 
crickets.jpeg
wonder which one he is?
 
There is a report in the NY Times that appears to have the facts.

1. It's true that police were called by Z's wife, who said he'd threatened her with a gun.

2. It's not true that Z was arrested.

3. It's true that Z and his wife had a verbal fight about their divorce.

4. Z's wife later admitted he had not threatened her with a gun.

5. Police could find no gun, Z didn't have one.

So Z haters were correct about early reports, except the ones who said he'd been arrested, but shame on them for all the ugly piling on they did before all the facts came out.

Reminds me of the time Z helped people who'd had a motor vehicle accident, and the Z haters were saying the whole scene had been staged. Shameful, ridiculous, puerile, and sorry.

The ignorance and stupidity of Z haters through the whole affair has been astonishing. They don't know the facts, they don't know or don't respect the law, they are ready to throw their own right to self defense away because they don't like the verdict in this one case.

I am curious - would it be wrong for her to assume he had one?

I am not taking sides, just asking.
 
I am curious - would it be wrong for her to assume he had one?

I am not taking sides, just asking.

If she did indeed say that he had threatened her with a gun it strongly implies he had one that he had out pointing at her or some such, but there's not enough in the reports to be definite about that.

Ah, to be young again and feel love's keen sting.;)
 
Seems like George has a problem with anger and Shelly has a problem with honesty. What a pair.
 
nope thats why we are laughing at your failed post and the lie you posted.
"I" wasnt factually wrong about anything

if you disagree by all means use FACTS and prove otherwise now, we'd love to read them
post what "I" was wrong about in your next post

facts destroy your failed post again
:naughty
Wrong!

The facts are in my favor.
That is why I am laughing at your postings and your attempt to be dishonest.
You keep saying "I" like it means something. It doesn't.

What you provided was wrong. Get over it.



my favorite part is after i destroyed his post he tried to go back and edit post #7 to take out where he said "Obviously the part where you are wrong."

to bad i already quoted him and his original response is in my post #8
he changed it to "What was it you don't get about the reports being wrong?" in a desperation move basically exposing himself as factually being wrong

so busted, so funny
What is funny, is that I edited before your reply. What is funny, is that you didn't pay attention to it.
What is funny, is that we are arguing what you quoted anyways because of your failure to admit that you were wrong by virtue of what you provided, and you apparently don't realize it. Do'h!

What is funny, is that you already know I had clarified my posting, yet went with the unedited version anyways.

What is hilarious, is you getting all undone over someone asking you "really"?


Bottom line is, what you provided was wrong because Shelli lied. She never saw a firearm.
Get over it.


Maybe next time when you are asked "really", you will understand that means that there is other information out there that you should make yourself aware of, instead of deflecting with all your absurdities.





Your denial changes nothing.
:doh
Your allegations were false, so of course my denial means something.
But since you want to falsely suggest otherwise, lets go over them.


You can deny it all you want, you were hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim because you had no other source you could rely on.

Further, here you are again quoting Beaudreaux and not a news source (i.e., hiding behind Beaudreaux) ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-12.html#post1062295404

And again ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-10.html#post1062295323

And again ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...fe-says-he-threatened-her.html#post1062295282

And again ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...-says-he-threatened-her-2.html#post1062295572

1.) Already showed that was was wrong, and where you failed because you didn't pay attention to the times when the comments to the article were provided.

The rest you only provided links and not quotes. I wonder why that is?
I figure it is because you know you are making false allegations. Because I did ask questions in the first three, and the last was just a continuation of the conversation here, which came after the "If statement. Which of course would be already understood as carrying forward by anybody capable of following along. Duh!



You even tried to claim that you weren't hiding because you asked, if it were true ... yet I found several posts where you hadn't.
Two separate arguments dude! Neither bare on the other. I wasn't hiding.
Nor could I be hiding as I already knew his statement was true. Which apparently you don't understand.



So even by your idiotic definition (as though hiding behind the veil of a question provides you cover for making your claim), you were still hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim since you didn't pose it as an inquiry.
You are failing on several fronts here.
I did post it as an inquiry. That is what the questions marks were for. Or don't you know that?

Secondly I tell the person that what they provided was wrong, and they are trying to hide behind it by saying they didn't say it, and that it was the article that said it.
That doesn't fly.
That is hiding behind something.

Then, you on the other hand, are trying to say I am hiding behind a statement which I quoted to ask questions, a statement I already knew had been reported as being true. That isn't hiding behind anything.


Seems the only thing here is your confusion as to what "hiding behind something" actually is.
 
I am curious - would it be wrong for her to assume he had one?

I am not taking sides, just asking.
If she didn't know?
No it wouldn't be wrong.
But that is how she should have stated it to 911.
 
Seems like George has a problem with anger and Shelly has a problem with honesty. What a pair.

Again, thank God no kids.:shock:
 
If she did indeed say that he had threatened her with a gun it strongly implies he had one that he had out pointing at her or some such, but there's not enough in the reports to be definite about that.

Ah, to be young again and feel love's keen sting.;)

Did you even listen to the 911 call? :roll:

She said he kept putting his hand on his gun. Not that he was pointing it at anyone.
 
Last edited:
George Zimmerman just lost his PR position. Basically everyone will now drop him like a hot potato.

Shooting someone in self defense and then him used as a political tool is one thing. Going over to his wife who has filed for divorce and her father and acting like an asshole is another. Curiously, no charges are filed against him, but this is the incident that will destroy his reputation to everyone.
 
:naughty
Wrong!

The facts are in my favor.
That is why I am laughing at your postings and your attempt to be dishonest.
You keep saying "I" like it means something. It doesn't.

What you provided was wrong. Get over it.



What is funny, is that I edited before your reply. What is funny, is that you didn't pay attention to it.
What is funny, is that we are arguing what you quoted anyways because of your failure to admit that you were wrong by virtue of what you provided, and you apparently don't realize it. Do'h!

What is funny, is that you already know I had clarified my posting, yet went with the unedited version anyways.

What is hilarious, is you getting all undone over someone asking you "really"?


Bottom line is, what you provided was wrong because Shelli lied. She never saw a firearm.
Get over it.


Maybe next time when you are asked "really", you will understand that means that there is other information out there that you should make yourself aware of, instead of deflecting with all your absurdities.





:doh
Your allegations were false, so of course my denial means something.
But since you want to falsely suggest otherwise, lets go over them.



1.) Already showed that was was wrong, and where you failed because you didn't pay attention to the times when the comments to the article were provided.

The rest you only provided links and not quotes. I wonder why that is?
I figure it is because you know you are making false allegations. Because I did ask questions in the first three, and the last was just a continuation of the conversation here, which came after the "If statement. Which of course would be already understood as carrying forward by anybody capable of following along. Duh!



Two separate arguments dude! Neither bare on the other. I wasn't hiding.
Nor could I be hiding as I already knew his statement was true. Which apparently you don't understand.



You are failing on several fronts here.
I did post it as an inquiry. That is what the questions marks were for. Or don't you know that?

Secondly I tell the person that what they provided was wrong, and they are trying to hide behind it by saying they didn't say it, and that it was the article that said it.
That doesn't fly.
That is hiding behind something.

Then, you on the other hand, are trying to say I am hiding behind a statement which I quoted to ask questions, a statement I already knew had been reported as being true. That isn't hiding behind anything.


Seems the only thing here is your confusion as to what "hiding behind something" actually is.
That's a lot of wind just to deny you were hiding behind someone else's post. :roll:
 
:naughty
Wrong!

The facts are in my favor.
That is why I am laughing at your postings and your attempt to be dishonest.
You keep saying "I" like it means something. It doesn't.

What you provided was wrong. Get over it.



What is funny, is that I edited before your reply. What is funny, is that you didn't pay attention to it.
What is funny, is that we are arguing what you quoted anyways because of your failure to admit that you were wrong by virtue of what you provided, and you apparently don't realize it. Do'h!

What is funny, is that you already know I had clarified my posting, yet went with the unedited version anyways.

What is hilarious, is you getting all undone over someone asking you "really"?


Bottom line is, what you provided was wrong because Shelli lied. She never saw a firearm.
Get over it.


Maybe next time when you are asked "really", you will understand that means that there is other information out there that you should make yourself aware of, instead of deflecting with all your absurdities.

why do you continue to lie?

this was your statment
"Obviously the part where you are wrong."

you were 100% wrong and posting lies about doesnt change anythign thatw why your post got destroryed by me and others

it is also a lie to say you edited before i posted, if that was true then your original words would not be in my quote.

you lose to facts again, nice try bit its another fail for you LMAO you are so busted

if you disagree by all means use FACTS and prove otherwise now, we'd love to read them
man up , stop dodging the question and post what "I" was wrong about in your next post

how much does anybody want to bet his next post is another dodge?
 
That's a lot of wind just to deny you were hiding behind someone else's post. :roll:

did you see his new posted lie?
he said he edited his post before my reply, ive never seen such dishonesty posted in an attempt to save face
 
Back
Top Bottom