Hey Martin Supporters... It's time you were educated and enlightened

[Caine]

Racist gunmen disgrace the US. What more is there to say?

That you apparently don't know how to read! That is what there is to say.

 

[Arbo]

We can all read what rightist Americans post, kid. They are racists to a man, and all support racist murder. If you want to give a different picture, change.

Ah, so back to knowing more than the FBI. And still nothing to support his assertions.

Isn't that the GREAT thing about the racist card? All you have to do is play it and walk away.

 

[Caine]

He is a racist gunman supported by racist gunmen, as you know. though all racist gunmen now deny being racist gunmen, as you also know, because it is unfashionable.

Come back when you have something better than..........

 

[Grim17]

A half jury under a racist law - racist murder justified by a totally racist system set up by racist gunscum.

Aren't you the least bit embarrased falsely attacking people with lies? I know I certainly would be, but that's because I have this little thing called a "conscience".

 

[Penderyn]

That you apparently don't know how to read! That is what there is to say.

Why bother to say it? People can judge for themselves, no doubt.

 

[Penderyn]

Ah, so back to knowing more than the FBI. And still nothing to support his assertions.

Isn't that the GREAT thing about the racist card? All you have to do is play it and walk away.

Racists, you see, identify themselves by their posts. Reactionary Americans long for Holy Writ, and quotations from the Good Book. The rest of us can see a racist by what he/she writes, you know - and I think even you do know that. 'Race card' my American elbow! Racist posting is what we go by!

 

[Penderyn]

Come back when you have something better than..........

Have you really got nothing better to do? Take up woodwork, kid.

 

[Penderyn]

Aren't you the least bit embarrased falsely attacking people with lies? I know I certainly would be, but that's because I have this little thing called a "conscience".

You have conscience? In which bank do you keep that, then, and when do you plan to use it?

 

[Arbo]

Racists, you see, identify themselves by their posts. Reactionary Americans long for Holy Writ, and quotations from the Good Book. The rest of us can see a racist by what he/she writes, you know - and I think even you do know that. 'Race card' my American elbow! Racist posting is what we go by!

Again, nothing to support any of your assertions, just more partisan clap trap.

 

[Penderyn]

Again, nothing to support any of your assertions, just more partisan clap trap.

Live with it, kid, until the Archangel Michael brings you a lollipop! Don't you understand disagreement? You belong to the group that is shutting down the freedom to think and write in the US, and I am a British Socialist. We aren't going to agree, and you can't bully me - at least yet. So take up a hobby or something!

 

[Arbo]

Live with it, kid, until the Archangel Michael brings you a lollipop! Don't you understand disagreement? You belong to the group that is shutting down the freedom to think and write in the US, and I am a British Socialist. We aren't going to agree, and you can't bully me - at least yet. So take up a hobby or something!

So you are someone to ignore, as you have nothing of value to add to any conversation. Noted. Though I'll add you are also bad at labeling people. Perhaps one day you will grow older and rid yourself of the youthful ignorance you put forth.

 

[Excon]

Inconsistency is usually a red flag. Every time Zimmerman retells his story, it changes....

No it is not. And the fact is that you have been informed of this by more than just me.

Killing someone isn't a common occurence for most people. After a person kills someone, they're going to add and/or omit details in their favor. Thats to be expected, too.

Sigh!
Only if they are trying to deceive.
And as we all know, there was no deception detected in Zimmerman's case.

Zimmerman's account to the police was not consistent with the dispatcher recording or the interview he gave to Hannity or the accounts from his father and brother.

Wtf?
A third parties understanding matters not. What they think, or believe, or understand, what they think, believe, or understand they were told, matters not.
And yes what he relayed was consistent.

Zimmerman still hasn't explained what he was really doing for the 2 1/2 minutes after his call with the dispatcher ended. He says he was looking for the street sign...but theres only three streets in the complex and Zimmerman, the NW guy who had made many, many calls and reports to the police, didn't know what street he was on? Thats hard to believe.

Wrong!
He did explain what he did in that time frame.
And no it is not hard to believe. This is common. Even folks here have attested to the same.

Susan Simpson had the links to the factual evidence and she made some good points. And too, she's a civil litigator practicing in the Northern Virginia area and graduated from George Washington University. LL2 is the law library at George Washington University. While I didn't agree with everything she said, her opinions are probably more valid than most.

More valid? :lamo
That is laughable, as she was wrong in most of what she said.
That is like saying Leatherman was more valid than most. The fact is, they weren't.

Rachael lied to get out of going to the funeral and meeting TMs mom and about her age because she didn't want to get involved. But her trial testimony was consistent with her orginal account to the investigators and Zimmermans timeline. She is no more a liar than Zimmerman's continual changing of his story.

Wrong! She is a liar who engaged in perjury.
Her account was suspect from the start because of the circumstances surrounding it. It is highly likely she was coached.
And she supposedly lied to not upset/offend the Mother who was present while she was giving her statement. Guess who was in the Courtroom while she was testifying at trial? The Mother. There is no reason to believe she was still lying.
Bottom line is that she was not found to be credible. Period.

She is no more a liar than Zimmerman's continual changing of his story.

Wrong! He did not change his account.

Deedee's was a case of knowingly telling an untruth. That is called lying. You have nothing like that from Zimmerman. Nothing, nada! ​

1.) It can take two and a half minutes to do what he stated.

It could also have taken 30 to 60 seconds to do what you described...so what was he doing during the rest of the time?

Wtf?
You admit that it could take the time he stated, and then say it could have also taken a shorter period of time. And then ask what he was doing for the rest of the time. ??? Wtf?
And it could have taken longer than it did, yet it didn't.
He was doing what he said he was doing.

He admitted to the police that he was still actively following Trayvon after the dispatcher said it wasn't needed.

Do'h!
No he didn't.
The facts are he went East where Trayvon had gone South.
That is not the same direction and not following, or do you not know that?

Zimmerman was actively looking for Trayvon in the vicinity where he last saw him heading for the back exit...which was also near Trayvons house. Rachael testified that Trayvon said he lost him, but then he said, "he's right behind me again."

Sigh!
We already know that DeeDee is not credible.
Secondly, the "T" where Zimmerman looked, over 100 yards from, is not really near the house he was staying at.

According to the evidence, he was.

Wrong!
As stated, according to the evidence, he apparently was not.

You're speculating.

There are only three options to what he was doing.

It doesn't contradict Rachels account.

Do'h!
You are not considering the evidence in toto.
What you suggest contradicts the rest of the evidence.
And again, DeeDee is not, and was not, credible.

You seem to forget that Zimmerman was still following Trayvon when they encountered each other. Zimmerman said many things.."emerged out of the darkness, he came out of the bushes, he came from behind....

You obviously do not know the evidence, as he was not still following. He was on his way back to his vehicle.
And those things you mentioned he said, they are all the same thing and consistent. It was dark, the direction he came from was from that of the bushes and he came from his behind.

Zimmerman said he was reaching for his cell phone. But was he really? Trayvon could have thought...or perhaps saw that he was reaching for a gun.....

You have already been told. Your assertion is not plausible. He was focused on his attack.
And reaching into a front pocket does not normally look like going for a gun. Stop with the absurdities. It just is not plausible.

How do you know what Trayvon was concerned with? He was being followed for at least 4 or 5 minutes....

Yeah, sure. And he turned around and circled Zimmerman. That is an act of sizing up. An act that says you are not intimidated by the person.
And as for what he was concerned with?
That is established by his actions. He came out of hiding from Zimmerman's behind and approached in a hasty manner, yelling, and immediately struck Zimmerman upon arrival.

"Oh, he's right behind me again." Trayvon was concerned that Zimmerman was still following him. It also suggests that it was Zimmerman who came up behind Trayvon ...or Trayvon stopped running and turned to face his pursuer.

iLOL
And again. DeeDee is not and was not credible.

That is right. Zimmerman was the one with the gun and calling for help.

Yeah, so why didn't he try pull his gun out when he was being beaten and smothered? Wasn't it threatening enough?

Why would he?
He was calling for help.
It wasn't until Trayvon went for the gun with the stated intent to murder Zimmerman did he then go for it.
Damn. Learn the evidence.

Trayvon might not have heard him because of Zimmerman's yelling, "help".

And yet Zimmerman did. How strange is that?
Not!
Stop with the absurdities.
Trayvon was in the wrong.

Good didn't see Trayvon throw any punches either.

iLOL
He saw the swings, didn't see them connect.

It's interesting that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened enough to use his gun while his head was getting bashed onto the concrete and he was being smothered, but he did after Trayvon saw his gun and alledgedly said "your gonna die tonight, mf". Zimmerman waited until Trayvon verbally threatened to kill him...with what? Zimmerman's own gun?

No it isn't strange.

The threat to Zimmerman's life came from his own gun.

Wrong!

Yeah, but it doesn't hurt to discuss it and see just how consistant the inconsistancies really are. If the story never changed it definitely would look scripted. But Zimmerman's inconsistancies look more like he's padding his story to make himself look more like the victim rather than the tuff guy pursuer who created and aggravated the entire situation.

No it doesn't.

If only he had stayed in his truck and waited for the police.

News flash. His getting out of his truck was legal.
Trayvon attacking him wasn't.

If Trayvon would only not have acted out violently this whole thing would never have happened.



Moot. Just stop with your absurdities.
They have all been gone over previously and shown to be false or not in accord with the evidence.
There is no reason to continually rehashing the same crap.

He was found not guilty. Period!

 

[Grim17]

You have conscience?

Of course I do... That's why I don't spew lies just to attack people, or to prop up my politicl beliefs like you do so effortlessly.

 

[Caine]

Have you really got nothing better to do? Take up woodwork, kid.

Kid?

No sorry, I have two of my own.

 

[Caine]

Live with it, kid, until the Archangel Michael brings you a lollipop! Don't you understand disagreement? You belong to the group that is shutting down the freedom to think and write in the US, and I am a British Socialist. We aren't going to agree, and you can't bully me - at least yet. So take up a hobby or something!

Wow...

Okay, I predict if this member continues to post here on a regular basis they don't last longer than two months.

Anyone want to wager?

 

[What if...?]

I did a little research and it turns out that "watermelon lean" was invented by a poster on the Conservative Treehouse based on this:

watermelon drank

All references track back to this post.

Also, "skittles" is slang for Coricidin pills.

Rock on, conservative truth machine.

If you can't find it just make it up and repeat it and it will become the "truth".

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Grim17]

I did a little research and it turns out that "watermelon lean" was invented by a poster on the Conservative Treehouse based on this:

watermelon drank

All references track back to this post.

Also, "skittles" is slang for Coricidin pills.

Rock on, conservative truth machine.

If you can't find it just make it up and repeat it and it will become the "truth".

This is why we can't have nice things.

Since you can't defend Trayvon, you do the next best thing and try to blame something on conservatives... How lame is that?

Now just think about your accusation for a minute, and you just might figure out how rediculous it is... Think about it... Young teen aged conservative druggies? LMMFAO

 

[HoongLoong]

Quote Originally Posted by Campbell View Post
If you think Zimmerman wasn't at least guilty of manslaughter you are a racist.

MY RESPONSE:

Mostly Black Racist Scum, and the Enablers of Black Racists DEM Lib/Gay turds believe that Z is guilty of manslaughter. Surprisingly there are some sentient people that also believe that Z is guilty of manslaughter.

No one of any note believes that Z is "GUILTY" of murder because even a retarded paramecium with frontal lobotomy realizes by now that the LAW of SELF DEFENSE, when properly applied, as it was in this case, clearly points to a "NOT GUILTY" verdict for Z.

But what is surprising to the extreme is that people who clearly understand the LAW of SELF DEFENSE resulting in "NOT GUILTY" for Z .....these same people are befuddled into thinking that Z was INCORRECTLY exonerated for manslaughter.

These confused people simply can't get it through their skulls that the LAW on SELF DEFENSE ALSO precludes a "GUILTY" verdict for manslaughter.

These people are bamboozled into thinking that if some get "killed" then, ipso facto, the killers are GUILTY of "slaughtering" people......therefore, GUILTY of MANSLAUGHTER !!!

They simply don't understand that SOME KILLINGS ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL, and AT THE SAME TIME, free the KILLER from a "MANSLUGHTER" charge.

These same bamboozled people DO UNDERSTAND that when a person defends his wife, and/or kids, "that" SELF DEFENSE LAW frees the "KILLER" from "MANSLAUGHTER" ...... However, these same people feel that just because they want to OVERTURN, or MODIFY, the SELF DEFENSE LAW, as it is... BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IT.....it is LEGAL to do that even though the LAW of SELF DEFENSE prohibits such modification AS IT STANDS at the present time.

Thus, using that kind of logic, one could then say: if you don't LIKE some part of the LAW on ANY issue .....you can INSIST on your delusion and freely accuse the person ILLEGALLY ......under the impression that you are acting LEGALLY.

 

[What if...?]

Since you can't defend Trayvon, you do the next best thing and try to blame something on conservatives... How lame is that?

Now just think about your accusation for a minute, and you just might figure out how rediculous it is... Think about it... Young teen aged conservative druggies? LMMFAO

Ok Grim.

Prove me wrong.

Find me a recipe for "watermelon lean" that is more than stoners talking about watermelon drinks that really taste like watermelon.

It IS the source cited in the post upon which the "M had two of three ingredients of "lean"" meme is based.

And am I not correct that conservatives make up the base of subscribers to "The Conservative Treehouse"?

Here's the original article with the link to the cannabis site:

Update #26 Part 2 – Trayvon Martin Shooting – A year of drug use culminates in predictable violence… | The Last Refuge

So please show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Grim17]

Ok Grim.

Prove me wrong.

Find me a recipe for "watermelon lean" that is more than stoners talking about watermelon drinks that really taste like watermelon.

It IS the source cited in the post upon which the "M had two of three ingredients of "lean"" meme is based.

And am I not correct that conservatives make up the base of subscribers to "The Conservative Treehouse"?

Here's the original article with the link to the cannabis site:

Update #26 Part 2 – Trayvon Martin Shooting – A year of drug use culminates in predictable violence… | The Last Refuge

So please show me where I'm wrong.

No thanks... This isn't about conservatives, it's about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman... Your claim is rediculous, and I don't have to prove THAT.

 

[What if...?]

No thanks... This isn't about conservatives, it's about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman... Your claim is rediculous, and I don't have to prove THAT.

So you post a video based on a false premise, I show where the false premise originated from, and you say MY position is ridiculous?

Conservative "truth" at its finest.

You provide no counter BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.

 

[Grim17]

So you post a video based on a false premise, I show where the false premise originated from, and you say MY position is ridiculous?

Conservative "truth" at its finest.

You provide no counter BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.

False premis...Say what?

I'm not playing your game, so you have a nice day now.

 

[What if...?]

False premis...Say what?

I'm not playing your game, so you have a nice day now.

The premise that the watermelon drink and skittles are two of three ingredients of "lean" was born on The Conservative Treehouse.

There is no evidence that these are "lean" ingredients beyond this site.

Sprite and jolly ranchers is the "classic" recipe.

Watermelon drink and skittles COULD be used, but so could ginger ale and jawbreakers, or ANY combination of drink and candy.

But watermelon drink and skittles could just as well be watermelon drink and skittles.

COMPLETE speculation based on a post on a board that cites a stoner discussion on cannabis. com.

Your video is NOT proof that M was purchasing the ingredients for "lean". It is only an internet circle jerk based on a false premise.

 

[Grim17]

Your video is NOT proof that M was purchasing the ingredients for "lean". It is only an internet circle jerk based on a false premise.

Well isn't it a damned good thing that I never claimed it was?

 

[clownboy]

The premise that the watermelon drink and skittles are two of three ingredients of "lean" was born on The Conservative Treehouse.

There is no evidence that these are "lean" ingredients beyond this site.

Sprite and jolly ranchers is the "classic" recipe.

Watermelon drink and skittles COULD be used, but so could ginger ale and jawbreakers, or ANY combination of drink and candy.

But watermelon drink and skittles could just as well be watermelon drink and skittles.

COMPLETE speculation based on a post on a board that cites a stoner discussion on cannabis. com.

Your video is NOT proof that M was purchasing the ingredients for "lean". It is only an internet circle jerk based on a false premise.

So, you admit they could have been purchased and used for the making of lean/purple drank but you don't want to go down that road, fine. It may not be proof that's what TM was doing, but it's definitely a legitimate counter to the meme that he was this innocent young waif coming home from buying a kid's treat of iced tea and skittles.