Re: George Zimmerman Verdict
posted at 7/17/2013 2:48 PM EDT
In response to russgriswold's comment:
In response to RallyC's comment:
Russ, this post is outrageous, nonsensical, and simply inflamatory. Come on man, don't let folks push you off the deep end like this. Yo don't need anymore negative PR, Dude.
How is it inflammatory? I'll be honest with you...My dad is a raging right winger and it's become embarrassing. He also thinks most blacks are up to no good, criminals, etc.
There is a clear tone by some here on this thread that would indicate they're bigots as well, and I just don't think that is a good way to lead your life.
Look at Babe. Many here are old man white Republican types who are very likely bigots as well and don't admit it or play off like they aren't. It's the truth. Behind his comments is a bigoted old, VERY CONSERVTIVE grumpy man.
I will say on the flipside, the black people who are marching and protesting wouldn't be out there if Martin was Asian, White, or Hispanic. So, their racial intentions aren't innocent either here. This isn't necessarily about race, but the racists want it to be. That's my issue with some of the comments I am reading here.
It should be about fact, reality and principle. The fact is, this tool (Zimmerman) thought he was a cop and has the right to approach a kid, asking questions and deciding himselfly how to handle a situation. THAT in itself should be flat out ILLEGAL to do in our society. Period. No debate. The fact Zimmertool did that and is not held accountable tells any tool with a gun he can do the same thing in this country, and that's wrong. Flat out wrong and not defensible.
The reason people keep babbling about Chicago (that city has been top 3 in murder rate for like 80 years) is because Obama is from there and Obama is black. Gee, let's blame Obama for 80+ years of South Side violence in Chicago during the Great Recession not created by Obama! Yay!
Otherwise, why do people keep mentioning CHicago when murder and crime come up in a discussion?
I live in a city, where per capita, no lie, it has to be top 5 in the country with crime and murder with the segregrated part of this city. Great little city to live in, but it has its dark side, which all cities pretty much do. Do people reference this city (Durham, NC) as a high crime city? Nope. It's always Chicago or Detroit. What about New Orleans? LA? Dallas? You can't even go dowtown in Dallas, it's so limited due to safety issues.
Finally, it's also HIGHLY comical to me, that Babe has called you Rusty here for months and he's now trying to align with you, acknowledging you are in fact a different person. lol
So, be careful who you aling with here. He's a cuckoo bird.
Russ, Babe has obviously been around for some time. He has a legit perspective on these issues. Just because he and others including myself are looking from the perspective of what the Court system has been forced to do and adjudicate, and agree with the decision that was made BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, FACTS AVAILABLE shouldn't make you and others upset. You said in your above post:
"It should be about fact, reality and principle. The fact is, this tool (Zimmerman) thought he was a cop and has the right to approach a kid, asking questions and deciding himselfly how to handle a situation. THAT in itself should be flat out ILLEGAL to do in our society. Period. No debate. The fact Zimmertool did that and is not held accountable tells any tool with a gun he can do the same thing in this country, and that's wrong. Flat out wrong and not defensible."
Here's where your argument is criticall flawed:
Fact, reality and principle cannot be lumped together and simultaneously used to interpret information when addressing this issue. FACT AND REALITY are what is physically proven and are unchangeable constants, while PRINCIPLE is SUBJECTIVE to an individual person's preferences, judgments, and experiences in life. PRINCIPLES vary from one neighborhood and culture to the next. You imply that "fact is, this tool (Zimmerman) thought he was a cop". How can you say what you think GZ was thinking and on tip of it insist it is a fact? None of us can read minds. What you mean is what you think GZ was thinking. You imply that GZ does not have the right to approach a kid, asking questions and deciding himselfly how to handle a situation. FACT IS GZ does have the right to ask questions under recent circumstances and there is NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that GZ tried did anything illegal in handling the suituiation. The entire paragraph is BS but it is waht your arguemnt has been from the beginning. I have seen you argue points in the past without using such crap and weak rhetoric. The FACTS PROVED THAT GZ IS STILL INNOCENT. YOU CAN DEBATE IT, BUT THEJURY AND THE DECISIN SPEAKS THE TRUTH AS WE KNOW THE FACTS. It really is that simple. Eveyone is going to speculate and I don't like what GZ did. Too bad for me too.........................