Black man screams racist? It's ok to say it, white man screams racist all the time, we live in a racist world still even though many things have happend for people's view points to change; not much has changed in the surface of things.
And I do feel bad for the guy but not necessarily support his actions, he should go to jail and probably will.
As of this day forward Romeo shall be banished....lol
Originally posted by inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!
Mars corp? Wasn't aware there was ac corporation that used the name associated with men.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur XReally?
Mars corp? Wasn't aware there was ac corporation that used the name associated with men.
Apparantly there's more to this story than the intitial "liberal backlash".
Liberals think following someone is a crimeLiberals think asking someone a question is a crime
Liberals think assault is the proper response if you are a victim of following or question-asking
Liberals think preemptive attacks are perfectly fine as long as a black person does it
Liberals think defending one's self from assault is a crime
Liberals think an overweight asthmatic has a clear advantage in a fight over a tall teenage athlete
Liberals think 911 telephone operators have the authority to issue legally binding orders to the general public
Liberals think that being a drug dealer isn't a negative character element
Liberals think calling a drug dealer a drug dealer is a character assassination
Liberals think the validity of facts is dependent on whether or not the facts fit their personal narrative
Liberals think disagreeing with the narrative makes you a racist and automatically invalidates your opinion
Liberals think it's more likely for a group of cops and paramedics to lie on reports than it is for a black person to be aggressive
Liberals think the above is true even when the black perÂ_son in question has a history of illegal acts
Liberals think that stealing property and selling drugs is perfectly normal teenage behavior
Liberals think "It's not mine, a friend gave it to me" is a reasonable explanation for why a male has female jewelry in his backpack
Liberals think "Stormf*g" is a good rebuttal to any argument
Liberals think that if someone doesn't look like bloody ground beef in a grainy video, they obviouslyweren't attacked
Liberals think that said grainy video outweighs testimony and reports of police and medicalprofessionals
Liberals think they can make better medical determinations from said grainy video than first responders could make at the scene
Liberals think justice is best determined by knee-jerk emotional reactions instead of careful investigation
Liberals believe hearing Trayvon screaming is so horrible, until they realize it was Zimmerman screaming
Liberals have no problem with the use of young innocent pictures of Trayvon Martin being used and an old mugshot of George Zimmerman being used as the standard unbiased pictures in this situation
When put in that perspective, yeah, it doesn't seem as bad (I did not read that entire list, btw).
Also, the dude may have been telling the truth about getting beat down by the young man because the back of his head was busted so his story is adding up from at least one angle.
Is this case an example of liberal frenzy? Meaning, it is a case where people THINK something really bad went down but nothing bad actually went down but the initial backlash changed everything including the general idea of what happened?
Originally posted by dadudemon
When put in that perspective, yeah, it doesn't seem as bad (I did not read that entire list, btw).
If you really think that list puts things into "perspective" you're exactly the kind of utterly deluded Libertarian I advocate gunning down on the streets.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the dude may have been telling the truth about getting beat down by the young man because the back of his head was busted so his story is adding up from at least one angle.
And if Zimmerman's defense holds up then Tayvor was acting 100% within his rights by bashing him on the head and that would mean Zimmerman is still a criminal, since he killed a person who was defending himself. The stand-your-ground defense turns this whole situation into a complete black hole.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!
No I beg to differ, think its the umbrella corporation thats behind all this, I think we should stop buying umbrellas...
Originally posted by focus4chumps
someone else calling out the idiocy of liberals for forcing opinions based on hearsay by calling attention to several problems with their liberal arguments. Way to provide an alternate perspective on an obviously one-sided and unclear problem.
Corrected for accuracy and less knee-jerking.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really think that list puts things into "perspective" you're exactly the kind of utterly deluded Libertarian I advocate gunning down on the streets.
You advocate gunning me down?
Should I report this post to the FBI, firstly, and then to the moderators?
1. I am not a libertarian. I am extreme center with very littler leanings. Just because I have stated I have libertarian leanings does not mean I am libertarian.
2. Being a libertarian has nothing to do with the quote (I hope you read that...it's a quote, not my words) I posted as it came from a democrat.
3. It does put things into perspective. It advocates reasoning, evidence, and a clam approach to the situation and calls out allof the liberal bullshit that has happened because of this. It must scare you to think someone would advocate reason and evidence based judgements rather than knee-jerk reactions.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And if Zimmerman's defense holds up then Tayvor was not acting within his rights by bashing him on the head. Zimmerman's defense would become "Stand your ground" and Tayvor's becomes a charge of aggravated battery that resulted in his death. That would mean Zimmerman did not commit a crime, since he killed someone in self-defense against a person that was beating the shit out of him. The stand-your-ground defense turns this whole situation completely around from the knee-jerking we saw from the media and people.
*le sigh*
Corrected for accuracy.
http://personalliberty.com/2012/04/02/new-video-reveals-zimmermans-head-wounds/
I see similar stories but different conclusions.
Another website shows a convincing shot of Zimmerman's nose being swollen. What I wouldlike to see is the black eyes that would have resulted from the broken nose. Where are the screenshots or pictures of that? Hmm?
Oh, and for you knee-jerkers, I have not decided which side to choose. I only provided the arguments against the knee-jerking: hell, I didn't even read them all.
If Zimmerman's camp provides some photos that occurred after this event that shows him having black eyes, I will then change my mind. Until then, neither side is convincing despite how strong the "liberal" side came on with this from the beginning.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. I am not a libertarian.
No, you just buy into every single element of their sick ideology and suck at the rotting cocks of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It advocates reasoning
Lets have a look at that quote. Line one:
"Liberals think following someone is a crime."
Yep that's clearly the phrasing of a person who wants there to be a reasoned debate. I mean it clearly isn't a strawman or a total invention. As we all know so long as as sentence supports a Libertarian agenda no one is allowed to question it in anyway.
Okay so that was pretty good. Line two:
"Liberals think asking someone a question is a crime."
Again very much in to pro-reasoned debate arena. Not a single strawman argument there, no attempt to appeal to rehtoric. State the facts and move on. Well thought out and in no way intended as a form of trolling.
But seriously the person who wrote that clearly feels pretty much the same way about Liberals that I do about Libertarians.
Originally posted by dadudemon
*le sigh*
If Zimmerman can prove that Trayvon attacked him first then he has a defense. Too bad someone killed Trayvon so we can never hear his defense. It's almost like the stand-your-ground laws have a terrible loophole in them.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If Zimmerman's camp provides some photos that occurred after this event that shows him having black eyes, I will then change my mind.
The fact that he was injured does not prove his innocence at all. Whether you get punched before or after pulling out a gun does not change what the injuries look like.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Another website shows a convincing shot of Zimmerman's nose being swollen. What I wouldlike to see is the black eyes that would have resulted from the broken nose. Where are the screenshots or pictures of that? Hmm?
Sure.
Would you like to see the corpse of an unarmed 17 year old? Give me your mailing address, I think Ron Paul has a few grandkids I can go defend myself against.
Originally posted by dadudemon
How is that possible?Or are you referring to a grand jury indictment? That's not finding someone guilty. That just finds that there's enough evidence or reason to proceed with the case.
Im referring to the article I read online today.. where he said that. But I can't seem to find my own reference again.. ill keep looking for it.
I don't really see most of that list as being bullshit, honestly. Coming from the viewpoint of a San Francisco, CA denizen, and looking at facebook, a looooot of people really do think like the way that list asserts they do.
I wrote that poorly because I'm tired, but you get my point. That list is definitely one of those "stereotypes: they always seem to play themselves out" types of lists.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, you just buy into every single element of their sick ideology and suck at the rotting cocks of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.
I expect you to back up your claims with actual evidence from my posts.
Otherwise, it is libel, as you perceive it (meaning, you are intentionally libeling me).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lets have a look at that quote. Line one:"Liberals think following someone is a crime."
Keep in mind that the quote came from a democrat (US), not from me.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yep that's clearly the phrasing of a person who wants there to be a reasoned debate.
Despite the sarcastic implications of your words, you are correct at face value: there is no crime in following someone in generally public areas. If it were illegal, there would be no such thing as a real private investigator: we'd just call them data miners.
But, if we are to take your words as you intended them - sarcastically - it is quite clear that you are definitely not interested in reasoned debate. I know you know the law well enough to realize that implications of your sarcasm are plain wrong.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I mean it clearly isn't a strawman or a total invention. As we all know so long as as sentence supports a Libertarian agenda no one is allowed to question it in anyway.
I'd be careful throwing around the word "libertarian" with such ignorance.
And you're correct: it isn't strawman at all (I am ignoring the sarcasm, still). People have accused Zimmerman of illegally tailing Trayvon.
Control + F this article to see commentors discussing such a case (all I had to do was google search to see that some people think what he was doing was illegal)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay so that was pretty good.
Well, considering I destroyed your snarky sarcasm for what is was, yeah, it was pretty good. It wasn't very hard to do so, either. I am not as familiar with this case as you are (well, as much as I thought you were).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Liberals think asking someone a question is a crime."
Yeah, you'll probably take that out of context. I'll read on to see if you do...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Again very much in to pro-reasoned debate arena. Not a single strawman argument there, no attempt to appeal to rehtoric. State the facts and move on. Well thought out and in no way intended as a form of trolling.
Yeah, figured: you took it out of context. By liberals, this person is not including every last liberal, ever: else he include himself. He was referring to the idiot kneejerking liberals addressing this "case".
Now that that strawman of yours is out of the way...
That dude's entire quote is tongue-in-cheek, borderline humor. So when you call it rhetoric, I call it a light-hearted call to reason. But despite your sarcasm, your face-value reading is still more correct than the intended sarcastic one: many idiots (read: libtards) have said that him questioning Trayvon was illegal as he had no authority to do so.
To me, it seems as if you're not aware of the arguments going back and forth on this case. I mean...have you run into that particular argument, yet, on the interwebz?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But seriously the person who wrote that clearly feels pretty much the same way about Liberals that I do about Libertarians.
You think he's a self-loathing liberal? I thought of him more like a liberal that is tired of idiot libtards making liberals look bad, personally. Kind of how I feel about kneejerking Christians. I mean, sure...I can be lumped into the same camp as them but I do grow tired of the idiocy and kneejerking from many different Christians about lots of things science related. It gets irritating. So I think I can understand where this guy his coming from.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If Zimmerman can prove that Trayvon attacked him first then he has a defense. Too bad someone killed Trayvon so we can never hear his defense. It's almost like the stand-your-ground laws have a terrible loophole in them.
I agree. That's probably been a point brought up over and over when these arguments start to rage on between both sides.
It is also part of why I am still undecided.
BUT....the good news: some people may have seen what went down. Some of the response personnel are backing up Zimmerman's claim (that Zimmerman get his ass kicked).
If anything, this should be a good reason for liberals to bring up why we need better gun control (or no guns). Where are those arguments? I have not run across them.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that he was injured does not prove his innocence at all. Whether you get punched before or after pulling out a gun does not change what the injuries look like.
You do not have to prove innocence in a court of law: you have to prove reasonable doubt. You are found "not guilty". Not "innocent". Being acquitted just means you are not longer charged with the offense because there is not enough "evidence" to convict you.
This has been part of my problem with the case from the beginning: we will probably never know if Zimmerman did the following:
1. Thought that Trayvon was a drug dealer doing stupid shit in the neighborhood.
2. Followed him to catch him in the act.
3. Verbally confronted Trayvon.
4. Trayvon then beat the shit out of him.
5. Zimmerman pulled his gun out and shot Trayvon in the chest.
That's pretty much Zimmerman's side of the story. Only RECENTLY have we seen anything that corroborates with Zimmerman's side of the story: a swollen nose and some lacerations on the back of his head.
But everyone had already convicted Zimmerman. They instantly found him guilty. This is what that other dude was raging about when he referred to the "liberals".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure.Would you like to see the corpse of an unarmed 17 year old? Give me your mailing address, I think Ron Paul has a few grandkids I can go defend myself against.
I am unsure how this post even remotely addressed what I have stated.
You do know that I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT??!?!?!?!?!?!? Please tell me you understand that and were just making a joke. 🙁
And now, you have made an indirect threat to life against the grandchildren of Ron Paul. *shudders* You ain't right, man.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't really see most of that list as being bullshit, honestly. Coming from the viewpoint of a San Francisco, CA denizen, and looking at facebook, a looooot of people really do think like the way that list asserts they do.
Indeed. That list was just a backlash from a democrat (read: liberal) who had had enough of the bullshit and unreasonable claims from fellow liberals.