Zimmerman/Martin Jury

[franklin]

Blindly throwing money at education is not a serious attemp to fix it.

O'reilly makes a good point about stopping the glorification of that life style. I am fine with trying something like the business subsidy you are talking about.

I get what he's saying because he doesn't understand cultural dynamics. It's a sideshow that distracts from discussing the issue in any meaningful way. Counterproductive traits are glorified in poor areas all across the world. Get some jobs, get rid of poor, get rid of glorifying bad traits. Affluence has a nice way of stamping out some of these things.

O'Reilly and the self-righteous right want to work in reverse hacking at leaves instead of roots.

 

[Stoked]

I get what he's saying because he doesn't understand cultural dynamics. It's a sideshow that distracts from discussing the issue in any meaningful way. Counterproductive traits are glorified in poor areas all across the world. Get some jobs, get rid of poor, get rid of glorifying bad traits. Affluence has a nice way of stamping out some of these things.

O'Reilly and the self-righteous right want to work in reverse hacking at leaves instead of roots.

You do that by being qualified to have those better jobs

And that is fine. But again, I see it as starting a long, long overdue debate in an attempt to shed light on the problem. What I want to see from the left is not an attack on O'Reilly or the "religious right". Rather a counter arguement of where the true problem, in their eyes, is and how to fix it. But that is not what I have seen. All I have seen is attacks on O'Reilly for saying anything.

Pathetic.

 

[franklin]

You do that by being qualified to have those better jobs

And that is fine. But again, I see it as starting a long, long overdue debate in an attempt to shed light on the problem. What I want to see from the left is not an attack on O'Reilly or the "religious right". Rather a counter arguement of where the true problem, in their eyes, is and how to fix it. But that is not what I have seen. All I have seen is attacks on O'Reilly for saying anything.

Pathetic.

Protecting self righteousness that's making the problem worse is odd.

 

[MoreFeasts]

There are many many people who have a concealed carry permit and who carry at all times. It's not some weird thing Zimmerman did. Had he not there is a possibility he would have been severely injured or killed, assuming you believe his side of the story of course. The jury did.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

[Gameface]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Yawn

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

There are many many people who have a concealed carry permit and who carry at all times. It's not some weird thing Zimmerman did. Had he not there is a possibility he would have been severely injured or killed, assuming you believe his side of the story of course. The jury did.

He could have easily just strolled up to the kid in his car, or just not even go there. There is always less of a possibility of death when guns aren't involved. Not trying to advocate banning of concealed laws or anything, or more control. Just advocating people to stop being idiots.

The jury couldn't convict because of lack of evidence. We don't know if Zimmerman didn't pull his gun out of form the get-go, causing the kid to panic.

 

[Gameface]

He could have easily just strolled up to the kid in his car, or just not even go there. There is always less of a possibility of death when guns aren't involved. Not trying to advocate banning of concealed laws or anything, or more control. Just advocating people to stop being idiots.

The jury couldn't convict because of lack of evidence. We don't know if Zimmerman didn't pull his gun out of form the get-go, causing the kid to panic.

I know I've been overactive in the Zimmerman threads, but I've laid out a pretty strong (in my opinion, lol) argument against armed neighborhood watch volunteers. I've also suggested the rules for those carrying a concealed weapon should be revised to include "rules of engagement" that I think should be printed on a card and carried at all times that a person carries a concealed weapon. I think "stand your ground" is fine, but I think there should be rules forbidding a person with a concealed carry weapon from ever pursuing someone, or initiating any sort of physical confrontation while carrying a weapon. A concealed carry weapon provides certain options in extreme situations that an unarmed person would not have, but I also feel that it should limit a person to some extent as well.

All that said, Zimmerman was keeping an eye on someone he deemed as suspicious. He was on the phone with the police for the majority of the time that he was watching Trayvon. According to his story and consistent with the evidence Trayvon had essentially gotten away from Zimmerman but doubled back, laid in wait and attacked Zimmerman. While I think the law should have been different, making any claim of self defense while being armed and pursuing someone he himself deemed as dangerous invalid, that wasn't the law at the time. Zimmerman was obeying the law, carrying according to the law, in a place he had a legal right to be...and he was attacked. He had a right at that moment to not be attacked. He had a right to self defense. He had the means to defend himself. He fired a single round into his attacker's chest which stopped the attack and Zimmerman took no further actions to harm Trayvon.

 

[Stoked]

Protecting self righteousness that's making the problem worse is odd.

In this case that is worlds better than the accusations of his opponents. If they want to attack his self righteousness than that is more than fine. Just do it in a way that has substance. Provide real critique and actual ideas. Not crap about how O'Reilly isn't black so he cannot comment on it. That is lunacy. By attacking those that bring the problem up they are only ensuring that the problem will never be fixed.

 

[LogGrad98]

And I understand the whole having a gun thing to protect you and your home, but who the **** takes it out and patrols their neighborhood like some kind of wanna-be cop? That is why [edit: Trayvon] died. Worst case if he doesn't have a gun on him is that one of them gets their *** beat. If you want to patrol your neighborhood and ask the sketchy looking black what he is doing, do it from your car like a smart person who is scared of black people.

The whole thing that annoys me about this thing is that black people are crying about injustice like Zimmerman should get the death penalty, and white people are crying like Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Zimmerman is a monster tard for even being in that situation. Impossible to know all the details that caused the confrontation when you only have two people there and one of them is dead. I would have given Zimmerman some years in jail just for being a dumbass.

If Zimmerman was correct, and the acquital means that there is at least some possibility that his version of the story is correct, then Zimmerman may have been the one that died that night, and it may have been Trayvon on the stand instead, if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun to protect himself. But that wouldn't be sensational enough to even make regional media, so we wouldn't be discussing that here most likely.

Oh just saw this one, must have missed it. This is right on.

There are many many people who have a concealed carry permit and who carry at all times. It's not some weird thing Zimmerman did. Had he not there is a possibility he would have been severely injured or killed, assuming you believe his side of the story of course. The jury did.

 

[franklin]

In this case that is worlds better than the accusations of his opponents. If they want to attack his self righteousness than that is more than fine. Just do it in a way that has substance. Provide real critique and actual ideas. Not crap about how O'Reilly isn't black so he cannot comment on it. That is lunacy. By attacking those that bring the problem up they are only ensuring that the problem will never be fixed.

I don't care to get drawn into a debate framed in this left v right paradigm that you're hitting on. I don't care what O'Reilly's "opponents" have to say anymore than I care what he's blathering on about. You're being naïve too if you think he's sparking important discussion instead of destroying it; the debate has been vibrant for decades and O'Reilly is an ideologue. He's biased by his own definition, thus incapable of adding anything to the discussion.

There's plenty of scholarly literature on inner city poverty. What does it tell you when O'Reilly refuses to read it and instead sidetracks the discussion with his inflammatory talking points? His job is to stir people up to anger, which is one reason I call his ilk self-righteous Christians. The only difference between our political hack trolls and the Oh-Really's is that the latter is good enough to make millions off of working people up over their own stupidity.

 

[Stoked]

I don't care to get drawn into a debate framed in this left v right paradigm that you're hitting on. I don't care what O'Reilly's "opponents" have to say anymore than I care what he's blathering on about. You're being naïve too if you think he's sparking important discussion instead of destroying it; the debate has been vibrant for decades and O'Reilly is an ideologue. He's biased by his own definition, thus incapable of adding anything to the discussion.

There's plenty of scholarly literature on inner city poverty. What does it tell you when O'Reilly refuses to read it and instead sidetracks the discussion with his inflammatory talking points? His job is to stir people up to anger, which is one reason I call his ilk self-righteous Christians. The only difference between our political hack trolls and the Oh-Really's is that the latter is good enough to make millions off of working people up over their own stupidity.

He still provides a stage for real debate.

 

[franklin]

He still provides a stage for real debate.

Cute.

 

[Stoked]

Cute.

Cute my ***. He provides a chance for real debate. Even if he is off his points. If people don't take that chance than that's one thing but the chance is there.

It was a great opportunity for sharpton, mk3, Jackson...to bust out their thoughts on what the problems are and how to address them.

If any real debate is started it'll happen with people like oreilly, hannity, sharpton and Jackson. As pathetic as that is. That's the power of a national stage.

 

[franklin]

Are you being forreal? "Real" debate happens between intellects, not the equivalent of hostile bar drunks or green vs northeast. Contestant screening aside..

 

[Stoked]

Are you being forreal? "Real" debate happens between intellects, not the equivalent of hostile bar drunks or green vs northeast. Contestant screening aside..

I'm talking debate on a national level. Not two college professors sitting at a table. Such a high profile "debate" would get people thinking. At least some people.

 

[Scat]

Are you being forreal? "Real" debate happens between intellects, not the equivalent of hostile bar drunks or green vs northeast. Contestant screening aside..

You forgot Mission Accomplished.