Happy Trayvon Martin Day

Darla said:
Diversionary, here is the exchange. In no place did I say what you claim I said. Further, murders in Chicago have nothing to do with this. And to claim that people get outraged about this ignore anything else, is an unfounded claim, and an attempted diversion. I'm done with this. You can have the last word, because answering any further would only make your tactic successful. Try it with someone else. There are plenty of stupid people here who will fall for this.
Click to expand...


I'm directly quoting you and you claim you never said it. Your last sentence is a direct copy paste. It's as verbatim as you can get. It is precisely what you said.

And since my sarcasm wasn't blunt enough last time, please find a new word, there are plenty of other terms to make a point, using the same one over and over again without actually defending it isn't an argument. And if you're "done" with this, stop replying.


You're not making an argument here, you're just saying I'm outrageous, diversionary, that non racial murders have nothing to do with a murder and that my claim is unfounded. Really It's like arguing with STY but at least he has some position other than, "You're wrong" even if it is a totally crazy one.
 
Disillusioned said:
There are even more people who'll get outraged at this but ignore the record number of murders in chicago. How is it one person dead is a horrible failure of justice and 400 dead is just life in the big city?
Click to expand...

Disillusioned said:
I'm directly quoting you and you claim you never said it. Your last sentence is a direct copy paste. It's as verbatim as you can get. It is precisely what you said.

And since my sarcasm wasn't blunt enough last time, please find a new word, there are plenty of other terms to make a point, using the same one over and over again without actually defending it isn't an argument. And if you're "done" with this, stop replying.


You're not making an argument here, you're just saying I'm outrageous, diversionary, that non racial murders have nothing to do with a murder and that my claim is unfounded. Really It's like arguing with STY but at least he has some position other than, "You're wrong" even if it is a totally crazy one.
Click to expand...

Now you are lying. This was your post: "Please explain to me how racially motivated violence is somehow more holy than regular violence? The corpse is still just as dead. "

I told you if you could show where I ever said that racially motivated violence is somehow more holy than regular violence, I would give you a cookie. You have been unable to show that because I never said that. So now you are lying about your original claim. Only because you called me a liar am I responding again.

This is over.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Aoxomoxoa

Looks like she has fallen out with her BBF Grind.
Click to expand...
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Darla

There really is something wrong with you. You sit here every day, like a spider, tracking who says what to whom. Yesterday you were on SF like a duck on a junebug because he laughed at something I said.

"OMG DOES THIS MEAN YOU DON'T HATE HER ANYMORE!!! YOU SAID YOU HATED HER!! WHAT'S GOING ON!!!"

You have a very small mind.

Grind is still my BFF. We have something very special...we can even disagree with each other without either of us swearing vengeance on the other's head! It's called being a normal human being btw! It's not supposed to be that special!
Click to expand...


Somebody is tracking everything someone says, thats plain.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
So striking someone can be done in self defense? You assume Trayvon's guilt but not Zimmerman's. Why?
Click to expand...

Of course striking someone can be done in self defense. No wounds reported on Trayvon that showed he was struck (other than the bullet at the end of the fight of course).

That doesn't necessarily let Zimmerman off the hook for the shooting... as I stated, it appears to me (based solely on what has been released) that it was unwarranted.

That said, I don't see them getting a conviction for 2nd. They would have had a better shot at manslaughter charges... but that is just my opinion.
 
Superfreak said:
Of course striking someone can be done in self defense. No wounds reported on Trayvon that showed he was struck (other than the bullet at the end of the fight of course).

That doesn't necessarily let Zimmerman off the hook for the shooting... as I stated, it appears to me (based solely on what has been released) that it was unwarranted.

That said, I don't see them getting a conviction for 2nd. They would have had a better shot at manslaughter charges... but that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

That does not come close to proving that Trayvon was guilty of the crime of battery. Trayvon had no criminal record and was not engaged in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Meanwhile, Zimmerman had been arrested and charged with battery of a LEO and accused of domestic violence.
 
NOVA said:
You mean,

Lieutenant JG George HW Bush, US Navy fighter pilot

Draft Dodger, Bill Clinton

2nd Lieutenant Ronald Reagan, US Army

1st Lt. George W. Bush, US Air Force fighter pilot
Click to expand...

GHWB, Gulf War 1; GWB, Iraq War; RR, Grenada, Libya; WJC, Kosovo.

Don't even go down this path about military service. Your repug heroes have more blood on their hands than any Dem.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
That does not come close to proving that Trayvon was guilty of the crime of battery.
Click to expand...

No, it does not prove it, but based on what has been revealed thus far, it certainly looks that way.

Trayvon had no criminal record and was not engaged in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.
Click to expand...

Which is completely irrelevant to what I said. His past record or lack thereof doesn't mean diddly squat as to whether or not he instigated the physical confrontation with Zimmerman. Zimmerman was also not doing anything illegal at the time of the encounter.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman had been arrested and charged with battery of a LEO and accused of domestic violence.
Click to expand...

Which again has nothing to do with this case.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it does not prove it, but based on what has been revealed thus far, it certainly looks that way.



Which is completely irrelevant to what I said. His past record or lack thereof doesn't mean diddly squat as to whether or not he instigated the physical confrontation with Zimmerman. Zimmerman was also not doing anything illegal at the time of the encounter.



Which again has nothing to do with this case.
Click to expand...

You are dropping the context.

It's completely relevant to whether it is fair to call Trayvon a criminal. There is no basis for it, but we could call Zimmerman one based on his record.
 
christiefan915 said:
I was thinking because he's semi-liberal and three of the others are sainted conservatives.
Click to expand...

I mentioned Obama because he is the current droner in chief.

Neither Bush was a fiscal conservative nor are they held in high esteem. Clinton was more of a fiscal conservative than either Bush.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
You are dropping the context.

It's completely relevant to whether it is fair to call Trayvon a criminal. There is no basis for it, but we could call Zimmerman one based on his record.
Click to expand...

I am not dropping the context. I am basing my comments on the facts of the case as we know them today. If you want to get your panties twisted over Grind calling him a criminal, take it up with Grind.
 
Superfreak said:
I mentioned Obama because he is the current droner in chief.

Neither Bush was a fiscal conservative nor are they held in high esteem. Clinton was more of a fiscal conservative than either Bush.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about their fiscal policies, just their policies of attacking other nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top