Sick of all of this - A Rant

[Mitchrapp]

actually there is a huge difference between the police, with powers authorized by state law, who are professionally trained, subject to internal disciplinary review, and supported by a legion of professionals who write the rules and procedures they use to do their jobs... and a neighborhood watch.

if you can't tell the difference between the two, well, let me just say it's a good thing you're not in charge of anything important, though it's a bummer you can still vote.

he didn't just follow the kid either... he acted like a vigilante, getting involved... though I guess that depends on whether you believe his story. Martin - heavily armed with skittles and iced tea - decided to jump him and try to beat him to death... just because well... you know kids these days!

He's not innocent in this thing. Most people see a guy following you and was armed, guess what - they would go home. Being followed isn't an excuse to beat a guy up. And you make it sound like the kid was just quietly walking the streets. How do you know? I have no idea what transpired but neither do you..

 

[redandguilty]

I have no idea what transpired but neither do you..

According to Jeantel, Martin said "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman said "What are you doing around here?" Then there was scuffling. Then someone yelled "Get off. Get off."

Not that that clears it up.

 

[Michchamp]

According to Jeantel, Martin said "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman said "What are you doing around here?" Then there was scuffling. Then someone yelled "Get off. Get off."

Not that that clears it up.

that at least undermines his story that he was just walking around when Martin leaped on top of him and started smashing his head into the sidewalk.

my 100% speculation as to what happened:

Zimmerman grabs Martin or something like that. Martin hits him in the face (like a lot of guys would do when some twerp like Zimmerman confronts them), knocking him to the ground and causing the bloody nose and couple of scratches on the back of his head that the police photographed.

then Zimmerman, the tough guy wannabe cop - with more injury to his pride than this body - pulled out his gun and shot Martin.

no way was the use of deadly force in self defense justifiable there - which is all that really matters. that's the standard, whether Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Martin's character, while not perfect, didn't make him out to be the sort of psychotic reckless killer that would attack and kill a man without provocation. and regardless... he was talking on the phone at the time, not hiding in ambush.

 

[Mitchrapp]

According to Jeantel, Martin said "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman said "What are you doing around here?" Then there was scuffling. Then someone yelled "Get off. Get off."

Not that that clears it up.

Does anyone actually trust Jeantel? Or if what she said was truthful or not. In the end, Zimmerman might be as guilty as they come but there are so many missing pieces, IMO, for someone to say he's 100% guilty.

 

[redandguilty]

that at least undermines his story that he was just walking around when Martin leaped on top of him and started smashing his head into the sidewalk.

I think Zimmerman's version also included some dialog. Something like "What's your effing problem homie?" Which people pointed to as an obvious lie since nobody Martin's age would ever say that.

 

[redandguilty]

that at least undermines his story that he was just walking around when Martin leaped on top of him and started smashing his head into the sidewalk.

my 100% speculation as to what happened:

Zimmerman grabs Martin or something like that. Martin hits him in the face (like a lot of guys would do when some twerp like Zimmerman confronts them), knocking him to the ground and causing the bloody nose and couple of scratches on the back of his head that the police photographed.

then Zimmerman, the tough guy wannabe cop - with more injury to his pride than this body - pulled out his gun and shot Martin.

no way was the use of deadly force in self defense justifiable there - which is all that really matters. that's the standard, whether Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Martin's character, while not perfect, didn't make him out to be the sort of psychotic reckless killer that would attack and kill a man without provocation. and regardless... he was talking on the phone at the time, not hiding in ambush.

I bet suspect the 1st contact was a shove, not a grab.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I think Zimmerman's version also included some dialog. Something like "What's your effing problem homie?" Which people pointed to as an obvious lie since nobody Martin's age would ever say that.

I think I've seen that on YouTube from people. Of course they could have been a white middle aged guy. I have no idea how the youth talk. I can barely understand my 14 year old niece.

 

[Monster]

Does anyone actually trust Jeantel? Or if what she said was truthful or not. In the end, Zimmerman might be as guilty as they come but there are so many missing pieces, IMO, for someone to say he's 100% guilty.

"yes sirrr" ....."is you retarded?"

 

[Mitchrapp]

"yes sirrr" ....."is you retarded?"

Lol.

 

[Thumb]

You know kids get followed all the time. By Cops, because that's part of their job - follow the suspicious. Not all that different for a neighborhood watch. IMO, the kid was probably more a thug that an innocent.

Btw, on a side note - why did Obama say "If I had a boy he'd look like him (The Martin boy)." What the hell does that even mean? Lol.

what makes you say that, Hitler?

 

[Mitchrapp]

what makes you say that, Hitler?

Just a thought. I'm just guessing like everyone else.

 

[Sbee]

That's not what I was saying. Sbee can say one side is a child and the other is so and so but in the end the child side is at fault with everything. They both say bad and dumb things now and again but to just blame the republicans is being very short sighted.

it's really simple mitch, there are two sides to the republican party. there is the true mental patient side who are the bible beaters and gun nuts. there are also the republicans who think that what the country needs the most is for the rich to pay less in taxes and for the poor to have less access to food and health care.

you have to act totally crazy during the primary, then try to shift to the middle to win independents. this is not a winning formula

 

[KAWDUP]

it's really simple mitch, there are two sides to the republican party. there is the true mental patient side who are the bible beaters and gun nuts. there are also the republicans who think that what the country needs the most is for the rich to pay less in taxes and for the poor to have less access to food and health care.

you have to act totally crazy during the primary, then try to shift to the middle to win independents. this is not a winning formula

Actually this is just stereotypical crap that means very little. I'm sure you can find someone who will tell you the poor should have less access to food and health care, but that is vastly over-simplfied and actually a pretty dumb thing to say.

I could say the democratic party is made up of two sides, the tree-hugging environmentalists who value bird sanctuaries over human life, and elitist thugs who think they know better than everyone else - but then I would be just as guilty as you of spouting crap.

BTW ". . . act totally crazy, then try to shift to the middle to win independents." Isn't that how Obama won the election?

 

[Michchamp]

...

BTW ". . . act totally crazy, then try to shift to the middle to win independents." Isn't that how Obama won the election?

no. Obama won by preaching liberal causes: better environmental regulations, accountability for Wall Street, foreign policy that doesn't violate the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law, and equal treatment of all citizens regardless of their race, creed, gender or sexual preference, then won by letting the wealthy know he'd do the exact opposite of all those things once in power, and won reelection based on the fact that he did the exact opposite of all those things during his first term and continues to do so.

...but I don't think any of those things are "totally crazy." I think any SANE person would consider them ideals we should try to implement because they are reasonable and good governance.

so, yeah, that's the difference between the two parties: the GOP primaries featured a lot of race baiting, gay-bashing, promises to rule according to religious doctrines, insane tax cutting proposals... and then a move to more or less continue business as usual. The Democratic Party primaries feature a lot of promises that benefit the middle and working classes, a lot of lip service to sound governance... and then continue business as usual.

and business as usual is: a military and intelligence agencies that operate above the law, a two-tiered system of justice for wealthy & powerful people vs. everyone else, higher taxes, more privatised services (putting a higher financial burden on those using the services, while lowering the tax obligations of the wealthy) and fewer social programs in return for those taxes.

 

[KAWDUP]

...but I don't think any of those things are "totally crazy." I think any SANE person would consider them ideals we should try to implement because they are reasonable and good governance.

Well of course, by your definitinon, I must be insane then, because I, of course, disagree with your contention that it wasn't crazy. The ideals were fine and actually important good to do, but the actions regarding them were "totally crazy".

 

[Michchamp]

Well of course, by your definitinon, I must be insane then, because I, of course, disagree with your contention that it wasn't crazy. The ideals were fine and actually important good to do, but the actions regarding them were "totally crazy".

:hmm:

 

[Michchamp]

in the end the result over the last couple decades is closer to what conservative guys want, regardless of whether the Dems or GOP has been in the White House: less government, bigger military, more militarized police force, less adherence to the rule of law (i.e. the Constitution, or the "piece of paper" as GWB referred to it.)

crazy that in 1954, Eisenhower offered this quote, and now in 2013 it appears to be the actual practice of both political parties to take the foolish course he warned against, though the Democrats don't admit it publicly, or talk around it, and the members of the GOP who go further and advocate pretty much abandoning the rule of law completely and living in a militaristic theocracy are winning primaries...

 

[redandguilty]

in the end the result over the last couple decades is closer to what conservative guys want, regardless of whether the Dems or GOP has been in the White House: less government, bigger military, more militarized police force, less adherence to the rule of law (i.e. the Constitution, or the "piece of paper" as GWB referred to it.)

crazy that in 1954, Eisenhower offered this quote, and now in 2013 it appears to be the actual practice of both political parties to take the foolish course he warned against, though the Democrats don't admit it publicly, or talk around it, and the members of the GOP who go further and advocate pretty much abandoning the rule of law completely and living in a militaristic theocracy are winning primaries...

This nations needs moderate Republicans. If only we could get enough moderates to see it and participate in Republican primaries. Sadly, I think the Republicans have gone so far right, the moderates that would vote that way aren't even willing to slap a 'Republican' label on themselves anymore for the purpose of primary voting.

 

[KAWDUP]

:hmm:

Wow - when you have to explain, it probably loses something, don't you think?

BTW ". . . act totally crazy, then try to shift to the middle to win independents." Isn't that how Obama won the election?

The key here is "act totally crazy". The entire few months leading up to the election, it made no difference what the planks of the parties were anymore. I can't see how you don't think it was acting crazy - on both sides.

. . . and as usual, courting the independents, actually has been a winning strategy for at least the last two decades.

So, what I said actually makes perfect sense, to any SANE person.

 

[Monster]

Actually this is just stereotypical crap that means very little. I'm sure you can find someone who will tell you the poor should have less access to food and health care, but that is vastly over-simplfied and actually a pretty dumb thing to say.

I could say the democratic party is made up of two sides, the tree-hugging environmentalists who value bird sanctuaries over human life, and elitist thugs who think they know better than everyone else - but then I would be just as guilty as you of spouting crap.

BTW ". . . act totally crazy, then try to shift to the middle to win independents." Isn't that how Obama won the election?

it's easy to seem elitist when compared to some in the republican party nowadays. There are many intelligent republicans, but when a presidential candidate goes on to make a speech, calling the president a snob for thinking everyone should be able to go to college, it's not helping. Then, you get the wonder twins (bachmann and palin) that think only with their bibles and somehow seem to be the female leaders of the party. Add to that, morons that think rape almost never ends in a woman getting pregnant and that blacks should be thankful that slavery happened. Even worse, grown men who go on radio shows, calling a woman a slut because she wants to be able to use birth control as a part of her health care plan.

Sorry, bro. But the GOP better become the GOP again and start kicking out these idiots. I may not love the Republican party as you might, but I recognize we need them as a balance. And some of their ideas are very worthy.

The democrats, meanwhile, need to stop playing the fucking race card every time someone criticizes obama. it's not because he's black that you people hate him. It's because he's a very popular (or was) democrat that seems to want the same things the people want (even if he hasn't fulfilled all of his promises). I think there's also a huge amount of misinformation about him from the republicans. It scares the Hell out of all of you.

The war on women has to stop, too. It's not a war on women. It's a war on something that republicans feel is immoral and against their beliefs. I accept that, but when the vast majority of Americans support things like a woman's right to choose and birth control, they need to shut up and accept it.

It's give and take and all our politicians seem to do now is take. Can't get shit done in this country.