Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:32 pm

All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ohioboy » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:41 pm

D Comeaux wrote:Very interesting.....FACTS......


http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689


Liked it
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:05 pm

D Comeaux wrote:
assateague wrote:Facts don't even phase race-baiting liberals. Never have, never will.



The truth... Blinders ^^^

220px-Horses_2[1].jpg

Yep. I do my best to avoid looking at auto accidents, husband and wife fights, and conservatives. Always made me feel less queasy in the first instance, less uncomfortable in the second, and less hopeless in the third! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:22 pm

Sticking ur head in the sand doesn't change the truth of the world.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6704
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:21 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Sticking ur head in the sand doesn't change the truth of the world.

When the view is either grotesque, embarrassing for someone, or just witness to lunacy it can be the best choice at the moment! :lol3: Just watch for sand crabs and horseneck clams....they are reputedly, though not yet fully ascertained, to be Newt and Arnold trying a new angle!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:40 pm

How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.
Last edited by High Sierras on Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby cartervj » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:45 pm

Glenn Beck confronted society’s morality on his television program Thursday evening, shocked and disgusted at the events of recent weeks.

He primarily focused on the horrific report of a 13-year-old girl who was allegedly gang raped by up to ten men in Austin, TX, before being sexually assaulted by another man after being dropped off with “nowhere to go.” Doctors said their findings were consistent with the allegations.

“Where is the outrage? Where’s Al Sharpton?” Beck said, pausing briefly with emotion. “Where’s Barack Obama? Shouldn’t the president give a speech saying something like, ‘This girl could have been my daughter, after all my daughter is just turning 14?’ …How about speeches on the dangers of letting illegals live in the shadows? How about the speeches of let’s just be good to each other? Where are the marches?”

President Barack Obama spoke several times about 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot by George Zimmerman in what a jury recently ruled was self defense. The president said Martin could’ve been his son, or even could’ve been him 35 years ago. The issue aroused sustained national fury over the death of the 17-year-old.

But Beck said the 13-year-old girl should expect no such support.

“See, nobody really actually cares about people anymore,” Beck said. “It’s really only about politics. It’s not about Trayvon Martin. They had to make him look like a little 13-year-old-boy…Why? Because it would help them get elected, or re-elected, or get them to cause trouble or get more trouble. But see this little 13-year-old-girl, you don’t have to doctor a picture of her…she is 13.”

He continued: “We are witnessing a society that is completely detached, and we are detached because we have an agenda. Why didn’t we tell the story of the 13-year-old-girl? Because of an agenda. The second rapist was black, the others were illegal immigrants, so we don’t tell that story. That’s not a good story, that doesn’t help us with our agenda…”
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7359
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:56 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Sticking ur head in the sand doesn't change the truth of the world.

When the view is either grotesque, embarrassing for someone, or just witness to lunacy it can be the best choice at the moment! :lol3: Just watch for sand crabs and horseneck clams....they are reputedly, though not yet fully ascertained, to be Newt and Arnold trying a new angle!

Nah... that pic you got on your cell phone wasn't sand crabs and a horseneck clam...














it was another closeup of Athony's Wiener. :lol3:


Just envision what a creep Humma-Humma has to live with everyday... It's like a horrific blending of 'internet genius' of Algore and the alley cat morals of Bill. Hope the DNC throws her a bone for the embarrasment she's having to endure. She should get to be the senator of NY for that.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby cartervj » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:42 pm

The U.K.'s Daily Mail has finally removed an article proven false by an exclusive interview with Breitbart News from their website, although no statement was provided to readers to inform them that the story had been based on a falsehood.

The Daily Mail had continued to run a debunked story claiming a George Zimmerman supporter was carrying a sign saying "We're Racist & Proud!" during a Houston counter-protest, despite being informed three days previously via email that the source for the article, a New York Daily News report, had been retracted. There was also a substantial outcry over the inaccuracy of the story from social media, the blogosphere, and U.S. media sources.

The hoax came after after the New Black Panther Party held a march for Trayvon Martin on July 21, 2013 that resulted in a counter-demonstration. A woman on the pro-Trayvon side of the clearly separated and distinguishable protests held a sign that read: “We're Racist & Proud!”

The Houston Chronicle then reported on a picture of her holding the sign in an unclear manner, which the New York Daily News' Philip Caulfield then distorted the ambiguous Houston Chronicle piece and turned the woman with the sign into “a Zimmerman supporter.” The New York Daily News immediately retracted their claim once they were made aware that Breitbart News had video evidence that the woman was actually a left-of-center Trayvon Martin supporter.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail took the false segment of the New York Daily News report and then based an entire article off of the narrative of the “racist” sign. While the incorrect information in New York Daily News article represented a small section of their larger article on the protest, the Daily Mail based an entire article and its headline on the fallacy.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7359
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:47 pm

High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.


Your fantasies are boring.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:19 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Sticking ur head in the sand doesn't change the truth of the world.

When the view is either grotesque, embarrassing for someone, or just witness to lunacy it can be the best choice at the moment! :lol3: Just watch for sand crabs and horseneck clams....they are reputedly, though not yet fully ascertained, to be Newt and Arnold trying a new angle!

Nah... that pic you got on your cell phone wasn't sand crabs and a horseneck clam...














it was another closeup of Athony's Wiener. :lol3:


Just envision what a creep Humma-Humma has to live with everyday... It's like a horrific blending of 'internet genius' of Algore and the alley cat morals of Bill. Hope the DNC throws her a bone for the embarrasment she's having to endure. She should get to be the senator of NY for that.

Ya know buddy, not really any argument on that one from me! :beer:

I've tried posting pictures of my little Elvis before.....but all I get back in response is "Where are the shrimp?" :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:11 am

High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.

It's frankly fascinating to me HS that you are handed an example of a juror, one as a member of a minority group debating the merits of a racially divided trial, that you go out of your way to make an issue of a minority member that follows the law as dictated, as opposed to what I fervently believe are your skeleton issues and desires to see minorities acting in such a manner as to consider them as "the takers" nd the instigators. Your post reflecting your position on the MSM, is not directed towards the MSM, regardless of how you would like to self-righteously portray it. You are amazed a person of minority position in this country did not follow the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton perspective and you are trying desperately to place the profligation of an improving attitude towards a capitulation in the MSM. Sorry buddy, but at times things ARE as they seem.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:56 am

I love how the idiots are going to pick what the want from this woman and treat it like the Gospel and disregard the rest of what she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.


If she speaks the truth what does this say about all those claiming it was about race? :huh:

Oh that doesn't agree with their opinion, so she doesn't know what she is talking about. Typical depth of their "intellect."

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

According to her there is NO PROOF, but she declares him a murderer. :no:

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

She also complete condemns the prosecution and all that pushed for it.

Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton said in a statement that it was "devastating for my family to hear the comments from juror B29, comments which we already knew in our hearts to be true. That George Zimmerman literally got away with murder."

They didn't listen to what she said. She felt this, but there was NO PROOF. Just think if there would have been 6 like her on the jury. Zimmerman would have been convicted despite there being no proof according to this juror.

Emotions over logic and reason clearly on display for those that don't just want to pick the one statement that they want to believe and disregarding everything else that they don't want to hear.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:21 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.


It's frankly fascinating to me HS that you are handed an example of a juror, one as a member of a minority group debating the merits of a racially divided trial, that you go out of your way to make an issue of a minority member that follows the law as dictated, as opposed to what I fervently believe are your skeleton issues and desires to see minorities acting in such a manner as to consider them as "the takers" nd the instigators.


But Jim, I didn't... the journalist decided that it was important enough to their audience to define this lady by race, age, parental status, and even her last known address. Who gives a squat where she lived before she moved to FLA? Who gives a squat what her race was? Who gives a squat that she has 8 children? Who cares that she's a nursing assistant? How is that relevant to the story that she 'felt' George was guilty, but the State prosecution could not prove it?

I may have skeleton issues... but it certainly isn't about seeing minorities as 'takers' and 'instigators'. I see lazy people taking from the system, but where I'm from that's way more likely to be white folks than ‘minorities, and the perps in the crime logs up here have way more anglo sounding names than not. If I have a bias, it’s directed more towards the whole druggie culture, not a particular skin color.

And 40+ years after MLK said he hoped for a day when all people would be judged by the content of their character (their actions) and not by the color of their skin, why did the journalist feel compelled to make what... 20%-30% of this article about defining this lady demographically? Perhaps it's more of a comment on what skeleton issues the writer has about how Maddie 'should' have arrived at her verdict. The prosecution's case had nothing to go on except emotions, and yet this lady was able to separate her emotions from the facts presented to her... and came to a unanimous conclusion with 6 other Americans of various backgrounds that did not jive with what the liberal agenda defined as the 'right' verdict. I would hope that anyone, regardless of the color of their skin, would be able to do that for any of their fellow Americans when they’re on trial.

Unfortunately we have become a country of hyphenated Americans, each group looking out for ‘their’ tribe, instead of all of us living peacefully as a nation. And the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are doing everything they can to keep the hyphens there because racial division makes a living for them and keeps them relevant.
Glimmerjim wrote:Your post reflecting your position on the MSM, is not directed towards the MSM, regardless of how you would like to self-righteously portray it. You are amazed a person of minority position in this country did not follow the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton perspective and you are trying desperately to place the profligation of an improving attitude towards a capitulation in the MSM. Sorry buddy, but at times things ARE as they seem.
Jim, you’re wrong. I’m not amazed a person of ‘minority position’ did not follow the race baiter perspective, I’d like to think there are more Americans (of any and all races) that denounce the separatist hate speech of Al and Jesse (and similarly the white pride spokes persons) than the dumb ones who mindlessly believe their crap and are ready to riot and protest as soon as Al and Jesse say 'burn baby burn'.

About the only part of your comment I’d agree with is the last sentence… things ARE as they seem. The journalist in Slow’s link tried to define this lady based on the color of her skin, and tried to juxtapose what that is supposed to mean in the journalist’s leftist, race-baiting culture to her actions (the content of her character) that did not follow the journalists’ apparent philosophy of how she should have behaved (otherwise, there was no story there).



I also thought Slow’s feigned disbelief that Maddie could possibly find George innocent separate from emotion was ironic and funny on several levels.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:42 am

slowshooter wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.


Your fantasies are boring.




Of course they are. I don't use the drugs you do.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:01 pm

http://crosscut.com/2013/07/15/media/115568/john-carlson-trayvon-martin/
One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. His reaction: “Thank God”.

“Thank God.” How many people who do something wrong, lie about it and are told it’s on tape react that way?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby beretta24 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:03 pm

That by itself doesn't mean schit. If Zimmerman was lying, why wouldn't he continue at that point?

It also does nothing to contradict the evidence that proved he wasnt guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6313
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:01 pm

beretta24 wrote:That by itself doesn't mean schit. If Zimmerman was lying, why wouldn't he continue at that point?

It also does nothing to contradict the evidence that proved he wasnt guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So you think he is that clever? The detective that interviewed him sure seemed to think this wasn't a lie as he testified to it under oath. There's just nothing to indicate that everything he said was pretty close to the God's honest truth.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/02/cnr.01.html

DET. CHRISTOPHER SERINO, LEAD INVESTIGATOR: I believe his words were, "Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it."

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The fact that George Zimmerman said to you, "Thank God, I hope somebody did videotape the event," the whole event, what -- his statement, what did that indicate to you?

SERINO: Either he was telling the truth, or he was a complete pathological liar.

O'MARA: Is there anything else in this case where you got the insight that he might be a pathological liar?

SERINO: No.

O'MARA: So if we were to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility just for the purpose of this next question, you think he was telling the truth?

SERINO: Yes.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16325
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:55 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote:That by itself doesn't mean schit. If Zimmerman was lying, why wouldn't he continue at that point?

It also does nothing to contradict the evidence that proved he wasnt guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So you think he is that clever? The detective that interviewed him sure seemed to think this wasn't a lie as he testified to it under oath. There's just nothing to indicate that everything he said was pretty close to the God's honest truth.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/02/cnr.01.html

DET. CHRISTOPHER SERINO, LEAD INVESTIGATOR: I believe his words were, "Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it."

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The fact that George Zimmerman said to you, "Thank God, I hope somebody did videotape the event," the whole event, what -- his statement, what did that indicate to you?

SERINO: Either he was telling the truth, or he was a complete pathological liar.

O'MARA: Is there anything else in this case where you got the insight that he might be a pathological liar?

SERINO: No.

O'MARA: So if we were to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility just for the purpose of this next question, you think he was telling the truth?

SERINO: Yes.

I, also, thought that was a pretty revealing statement that I didn't hear until the trial. I truly believe anyone spinning a fabrication under such potentially personally damaging and life-altering conditions would have to be quite the exceptional individual to give no sign of a "tell" in that response.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:34 pm

All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby beretta24 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:36 pm

No disagreement in regarding the likely implication, but its rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and if thats what it took to sway the jury God help us. And something else help Jim.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6313
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ohioboy » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:47 pm

User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:17 am

beretta24 wrote:No disagreement in regarding the likely implication, but its rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and if thats what it took to sway the jury God help us. And something else help Jim.

You lost me on the last sentence beretta! Is it a comma missing, or a plea for charity for an obviously mentally deranged individual? :lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10870
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:32 am

High Sierras wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.


Your fantasies are boring.


Of course they are. I don't use the drugs you do.


And you should. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:33 am




As the law dictated.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests