DescentBB

So slickster, if then the Civil Rights bill and the Hate Crime ammendment imply you cannot bring charges against white victims, then why is it being used against Zimmerman? He is Hispanic. In turn don't bring up how Zimmerman has white blood because now you exclude 80% of blacks in America as they have white blood also. Just look at Glorious Leaders bloodline.

woodchip wrote:So slickster, if then the Civil Rights bill and the Hate Crime ammendment imply you cannot bring charges against white victims, then why is it being used against Zimmerman? He is Hispanic. In turn don't bring up how Zimmerman has white blood because now you exclude 80% of blacks in America as they have white blood also. Just look at Glorious Leaders bloodline.

it ISN"T being used against Zimmerman(that would presume charges were filed), but given that the victim was black and the state has a history of discriminatory behavior, the investigation is perfectly proper. It isn't about just the ethnicity of victim and perpetrator, the law addresses a white-dominated judicial and State Attorney system in a given state. Once again, you mix fantasy with some sort of Obama-hate to come up with a conclusion that is nothing short of laughably dimwitted. Oh, and looking at anyone's bloodline in this nation comes up with a similar mix....the determination of 'black' is outward color. I have no doubt that most descendants of American slaves would find some white members in the family tree.

Yet slick, that same "white" dominated judicial system did the bidding of both the President (If I had a son he'd look like Travon) and the DOJ who sent dept agitators to stir up racial hatred and did their best to hang a man simple for defending his life. When that failed the DOJ continued to look at the matter and had evidence held back as they do so. Your rather inept assertion that they haven't brought charges is specious at best as just the statement they are looking at the case has all the ramifications of doing so. You know, like saying because Zimmerman followed Martin was justification for Martin to try and beat Zimmerman to a bloody pulp.

Even tho Zimmermans outward color is Hispanic, dolts like you slick still perpetrate a white on black crime. Can't have it both ways.

The President is STILL stirring the pot:

Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he’d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
Obama also said, “Reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. Once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works.”
Obama said he was "bouncing around" ideas with his staff on how to respond to the Zimmerman verdict, adding, "I think it is going to be important for us to do some soul searching." Pushing against Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, Obama stated, "If Trayvon Martin was of his age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?"

To suggest Martin had a right to Stand Your Ground self defense is to suggest Zimmerman posed grave bodily harm to him. Which of course suggests that Zimmerman was the one who initiated a violent assault/threat...that Zimmerman was really guilty of murder.....
That completely contradicts his prior assertion that he believes the verdict was valid and that there was a reasonable doubt!

Finally, Obama went into the racial complexities of the Martin situation: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Yea? Only if you assume Zimmerman's neighborhood hadn't suffered white males burglarizing the homes he was watching and only if you assume a white male would have not caused Zimmemrman to suffer fear of severe physical harm resulting in Zimmerman shooting him.

So does the president know that there were no white thugs breaking into homes there? Does the president have some insight into the mind of black males that leads him to believe they are more likely to lash out violently than white males?

Or is he simply helping to advance the narrative that Zimmerman shot Martin out of racial prejudice in spite of having no evidence to support the claim?

To combat these larger social issues, President Obama offered three broad suggestions:
1. Get the Justice Department involved with training local governments to reduce mistrust in the legal system. (It's worth remembering that this episode started over an outcry that Zimmerman wasn't arrested at all in regards to the incident).

That outcry was organized and funded by his DOJ!!

2. Examine local laws -- such as "Stand Your Ground" -- and see if they encourage "may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case rather than diffuse potential altercations."

Stand Your Ground played NO PART in the Florida case! No one has to claim stand your ground when you are lying on the ground with an assailant pinning you there while he bashes your head in! He is just trying to defeat a law that he was unable to defeat in the legislative process by stirring the pot playing the race card!

3. Think about ways to bolster and reinforce African American boys so they do not get caught up in the legal system (as the statistics indicate they are more likely to be).

I agree but "caught up in the legal system" is a euphemism for 'break the law' and that kind of pandering to excuses and rationalization just perpetuates the core problem.

Will Robinson wrote:To suggest Martin had a right to Stand Your Ground self defense is to suggest Zimmerman posed grave bodily harm to him. Which of course suggests that Zimmerman was the one who initiated a violent assault/threat...

No, technically it only suggests that Zimmerman posed grave bodily harm at some point during the fight, which clearly, he did.

Will Robinson wrote:That completely contradicts his prior assertion that he believes the verdict was valid and that there was a reasonable doubt!

True.

woodchip wrote:Yet slick, that same "white" dominated judicial system did the bidding of both the President (If I had a son he'd look like Travon) and the DOJ who sent dept agitators to stir up racial hatred and did their best to hang a man simple for defending his life.

an absolute and provable lie. They sent observers, nothing more.

When that failed the DOJ continued to look at the matter and had evidence held back as they do so. Your rather inept assertion that they haven't brought charges is specious at best as just the statement they are looking at the case has all the ramifications of doing so. You know, like saying because Zimmerman followed Martin was justification for Martin to try and beat Zimmerman to a bloody pulp.

Even tho Zimmermans outward color is Hispanic, dolts like you slick still perpetrate a white on black crime. Can't have it both ways.

more absolute mistruths. First I said nothing about color, except that I think it played little role in Zimmermans thinking. The goofy crap about DOJ is just a pure fabrication, once again, deliberate misinformation or absolute ignorance on your part. Care to tell me the story about the Low Information Voters again, Daddy?

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:To suggest Martin had a right to Stand Your Ground self defense is to suggest Zimmerman posed grave bodily harm to him. Which of course suggests that Zimmerman was the one who initiated a violent assault/threat...

No, technically it only suggests that Zimmerman posed grave bodily harm at some point during the fight, which clearly, he did.

If Zimmerman wasn't the one who initially posed the threat and only became threat in response to Martins assault then Martin can't claim any kind of stand your ground...you can't start a violent attack and then claim self defense when your victim fights back becoming a threat in his own right.

Thus Obama's contradiction...

callmeslick wrote: an absolute and provable lie. They sent observers, nothing more.

Observing and protecting civil rights is one then. Taking sides is another:

JW (Judicial Watch) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012; 125 pages were received on May 30, 2012. JW administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012, and received 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. According to the documents:

"March 30 - April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL "to provide support for protest deployment in Florida."

"March 30 - April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31."

"April 11 - 12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male."

Sounds like DOJ was doing just a bit more than observing. Once again it seems you respond by parroting what you read from your list of liberal administration loving talking point.

edit: wonder why quote thingy ain't working

You missed the "end quote" slash.

Thanks Spidey.

they weren't planning the march, they were preparing for it, as Justice does in countless cases and has for 60 years or so. Geezus, nowhere there does anything other than that come out. But, of course, if you keep repeating the lie that the DOJ was sending activists or instigators it keeps the old juices flowing in the nuttly wing of US politics, right?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: an absolute and provable lie. They sent observers, nothing more.

Observing and protecting civil rights is one then. Taking sides is another:

JW (Judicial Watch) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012; 125 pages were received on May 30, 2012. JW administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012, and received 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. According to the documents:

"March 30 - April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL "to provide support for protest deployment in Florida."

"March 30 - April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31."

"April 11 - 12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL "to provide technical assistance for the preparation for possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male."

Sounds like DOJ was doing just a bit more than observing. Once again it seems you respond by parroting what you read from your list of liberal administration loving talking point.

edit: wonder why quote thingy ain't working

red parts show no one in the Feds was doing anything except deploying a watch contingent, to, if anything, ward off trouble.
the blue part shows what I think was the proper wording, but Judicial Watch might not want you to know that, because it conflicts with their agenda.

you can read, if you wish, the Blaze's whole expose on this crap from Judicial Watch(who states in their own mission statement by their founders that they are both Conservative and committed to the notion that Obama is anti-America, anti-white and anti-Jew), but this tidbit sums up the depths to which that pack of liars sinks on this one:

"The widely-read Judicial Watch press release says the CRS provided “support for protest deployment,” but the CRS says the documents it provided say “interregional support.” The distinction appears to indicate support for fellow CRS members, instead of support for the protesters."


Once again, what side embraces Low Information Voters?? Or, should I put it Misinformed Voters?

Nice little fine line you’re walking there slick, watch you don’t cut your feet.

what fine line, Spidey? Judicial watch took a report and edited it into fabrication. They are liars, nothing 'fine line' about it. And, as is far too often the case, the right eats up pure fabrication and bases whole debates upon a pile of lies, assumptions and misinformation. Then, they decry 'low information voters' as the reason more liberal candidates get elected.

You mean like the left did in the Zimmerman case?

Slick, he DOJ organized a bunch of college students from Daytona bringing them to Sanford with a police escort where those students blockaded the courthouse in a protest that led to the firing of the Sanford chief of police.

Bringing in protestors from a town 40 miles away is not 'observing'.

Bringing in protestors is a democrat tactic from forever!
Every major tea party rally near election time had democrat union thugs bussed in to protest.
The 'Obama phone lady', remember her? Bussed in with a bunch of her union mates to protest. Bussing in homeless people bribed with cigarettes to get on the bus to go and register to vote in another state....etc etc. Standard operating procedure for team Obama.

How many protests go on every day that he DOJ doesn't send anyone to 'observe'?!?
How many times has DOJ sent people to deal with black on black crime?

You are foolish if you think Holder and company weren't down there stirring the pot.

CUDA wrote:You mean like the left did in the Zimmerman case?

how so....and, really CUDA, the 'they did it too' defense is sort of lame, under any circumstance, don't you think?

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, he DOJ organized a bunch of college students from Daytona bringing them to Sanford with a police escort where those students blockaded the courthouse in a protest that led to the firing of the Sanford chief of police.

Bringing in protestors from a town 40 miles away is not 'observing'.

it wouldn't be, but the DOJ didn't do that. You are buying lies without checking facts.

Bringing in protestors is a democrat tactic from forever!
Every major tea party rally near election time had democrat union thugs bussed in to protest.
The 'Obama phone lady', remember her? Bussed in with a bunch of her union mates to protest. Bussing in homeless people bribed with cigarettes to get on the bus to go and register to vote in another state....etc etc. Standard operating procedure for team Obama.

once again, where do you get your 'facts'? This is a pantload of crap. I worked for the Democrat party for a couple of decades on and off, and NEVER was such a thing done, EVER.

How many protests go on every day that he DOJ doesn't send anyone to 'observe'?!?

of national impact, or potential violent local impact? Very few, you would likely be surprised at how Federal authorities monitor such events. That's been going on since I can remember. There were feds at almost every anti-war rally I attended, and at Gay pride events, OWS events, even in smaller towns, and so on. Common stuff, indeed

How many times has DOJ sent people to deal with black on black crime?

I don't know, but can't see what statute would apply beyond monitoring local protests.

You are foolish if you think Holder and company weren't down there stirring the pot.

sorry, but I feel you are a stone-cold moron to buy the spoon-fed crap you do that makes you think they were.

Once again, I'll repeat, you, Will are a classic 'Low Information Voter'. You form conclusions based on 'facts' which, in fact, are LIES, fed to you by a set of biased sources with clear-cut axes to grind. You don't check these against the readily available sources or original documents, and thus have ZERO valid facts upon which to base your opinion.Yet, I am sure, you march to the polls, loaded to the mental gills with this nonsense and cast your vote. All the while, you have NO CLUE how either political party operates, you have NO CLUE about the workings of your government and what is worse, you don't even pay attention when someone(as I have, here, repeatedly) takes the time to patiently show you how your 'facts' are wrong, and have been twisted, distorted and in many cases simply made up. Sometimes, I wonder if opening the vote past a small elite group of educated landowners was a good idea{being sarcastic here).

As usual every time slick pronounces something NEVER happened you can bet it did...

I grabbed these from a quick search, this is nothing new but the blatant denial from people like slick is a relatively new symptom, born of the result of the media giving your side a pass too often. You tend to lie with impunity when there are no repercussions. Instead of fearing lost credibility you just call the messenger a racist or moron and keep saying 'IT NEVER HAPPENED'...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... tests.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/28 ... s-20100728



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wiscons ... gore-votes

http://herald-review.com/business/local ... =hottopics

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chi ... 50527.html

Wow this thread has gotten as dirty as real politics.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:You mean like the left did in the Zimmerman case?

how so....and, really CUDA, the 'they did it too' defense is sort of lame, under any circumstance, don't you think?

How so??

Feigned ignorance is not a becoming trait. Just an FYI.

Try stepping away from the DNC politics and try looking at it in reality. Only the race baiters are saying its racial. And if the shoe fits wear it. The judge, jury and FBI all said race was not a factor. And those same race baiters call anyone thats black and agrees with the verdict vile names. And I'm terribly sorry if pointing out hypocrisy is offensive to you. If you don't like it then stop doing it. Maybe you should hold those on the left to the same standard you hold those on the right too. But I understand thats probably asking too much from you.

Probably one of the most honest commentaries I've found.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/66730-c ... rman-case/

Will Robinson wrote:As usual every time slick pronounces something NEVER happened you can bet it did...

I grabbed these from a quick search, this is nothing new but the blatant denial from people like slick is a relatively new symptom, born of the result of the media giving your side a pass too often. You tend to lie with impunity when there are no repercussions. Instead of fearing lost credibility you just call the messenger a racist or moron and keep saying 'IT NEVER HAPPENED'...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... tests.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/28 ... s-20100728



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wiscons ... gore-votes

http://herald-review.com/business/local ... =hottopics

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chi ... 50527.html

Careful Will, you'll give slick a migraine. And here is another example of busing in protestors. Remember the SEIU sending their thugs to bank officials homes to terrorize their families? It's always fun watching what happens when a common street organizer gets elected to the nations highest office. Kinda makes me think of Venezuela.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:You mean like the left did in the Zimmerman case?

how so....and, really CUDA, the 'they did it too' defense is sort of lame, under any circumstance, don't you think?

How so??

Feigned ignorance is not a becoming trait. Just an FYI.

Try stepping away from the DNC politics and try looking at it in reality. Only the race baiters are saying its racial. And if the shoe fits wear it. The judge, jury and FBI all said race was not a factor. And those same race baiters call anyone thats black and agrees with the verdict vile names. And I'm terribly sorry if pointing out hypocrisy is offensive to you. If you don't like it then stop doing it. Maybe you should hold those on the left to the same standard you hold those on the right too. But I understand thats probably asking too much from you.

C'mon Cuda, you knew well before you invited slick here that he was a indigent toady for the Democrat party and proud of it.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:You mean like the left did in the Zimmerman case?

how so....and, really CUDA, the 'they did it too' defense is sort of lame, under any circumstance, don't you think?

How so??

Feigned ignorance is not a becoming trait. Just an FYI.

Try stepping away from the DNC politics and try looking at it in reality. Only the race baiters are saying its racial. And if the shoe fits wear it. The judge, jury and FBI all said race was not a factor. And those same race baiters call anyone thats black and agrees with the verdict vile names. And I'm terribly sorry if pointing out hypocrisy is offensive to you. If you don't like it then stop doing it. Maybe you should hold those on the left to the same standard you hold those on the right too. But I understand thats probably asking too much from you.

um, I have been saying from the start that nothing about the Zimmerman killing of Martin struck me as racial, and further that I don't think the DOJ will find grounds to prosecute after the investigation is completed. What more do you want from me?

woodchip wrote:C'mon Cuda, you knew well before you invited slick here that he was a indigent toady for the Democrat party and proud of it.

first off, I am no one's toady, and unless you don't know the meaning of indigent, that is one funny description.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:C'mon Cuda, you knew well before you invited slick here that he was a indigent toady for the Democrat party and proud of it.

first off, I am no one's toady, and unless you don't know the meaning of indigent, that is one funny description.

woody should know the meaning full well. He's an unabashed, unapologetic, indigent toady for the tea party. How do I know that? He let loose with their usual derogatory code word, "Democrat Party". They can't seem help themselves.

but how do you know anything about Woody's finances?.......hint: INDIGENT--
Synonyms:
poor - needy - destitute - necessitous - impecunious

callmeslick wrote:but how do you know anything about Woody's finances?.......hint: INDIGENT--
Synonyms:
poor - needy - destitute - necessitous - impecunious

A 'toady' might feel needy of something other than riches.....in Woodys example maybe more like someone with a need for being counted among the elite...

Hehe, this post and many others just like it are proof positive of how a discussion can easily be diverted.

callmeslick wrote:but how do you know anything about Woody's finances?.......hint: INDIGENT--
Synonyms:
poor - needy - destitute - necessitous - impecunious

You need to study the word "Metaphor" and perhaps the phrase "Rhetorical Allegory"

I've done so, but it still doesn't work for the syntax you used. For instance, a metaphor has to be pointed to within the phrase somehow. Misusing a word doesn't pass as metaphor and nothing you have ever written here would pass for Rhetorical Allegory. Ever.

Sadly, I expected as much from you.