• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Sanford, Florida's Long, Troubled History of Racism & Racial Injustice" [W:16]

George's family has certainly hurt his chances.. with their begging for money, letter writing, books and TV appearances.. Robert juniors non-stop tweeting.. I have never seen such a stupid family. I don't watch HLN or Nancy Grace.

Good for you....you're much better for that. My wife doesn't miss a one of those programs so I have a choice....either leave her there watching it alone and go to another room and watch a ball game or sit there and stay real quiet. That's one thing I've learned during my 78 years. Either get a divorce or play the game. I never did learn that with my first wife. We divorced after 17 years. I've been with this one, who I love dearly, for over 32 years.
 
Last edited:
George's family has certainly hurt his chances.. with their begging for money, letter writing, books and TV appearances.. Robert juniors non-stop tweeting.. I have never seen such a stupid family. I don't watch HLN or Nancy Grace.

If the Zims with father Zim having 22 years as a Trooper, a second career as a Magistrate and Mom Zim working in the Courthouse for years and years is the stupidest family you have ever seen then clearly need to get around more. George collected about $100,000 in the latest Defense Appeal in about 2 weeks. TV Personalities crying and debating the "issue" and little stupid George Zimmerman starts a Defense Fund and collects $350,000 in the first round which enables him to make a Million Dollar Bail. Looks smart to me.
I like Ryan Smith on HLN and some Nancy Grace. The problem is HLN is 99% commericials.
 
If the Zims with father Zim having 22 years as a Trooper, a second career as a Magistrate and Mom Zim working in the Courthouse for years and years is the stupidest family you have ever seen then clearly need to get around more. George collected about $100,000 in the latest Defense Appeal in about 2 weeks. TV Personalities crying and debating the "issue" and little stupid George Zimmerman starts a Defense Fund and collects $350,000 in the first round which enables him to make a Million Dollar Bail. Looks smart to me.
I like Ryan Smith on HLN and some Nancy Grace. The problem is HLN is 99% commericials.

Trooper? George father was in the army and then worked as a Justice of the Peace.
 
I heard the 911 recording and he said, "These Damn Coons"
You heard what you wanted to hear.
And the analysis is clear, he didn't say that.
 
He said effing coons or goons..

Why don't you start by listening to the SPD interviews with George?

No sharon he didn't.
He even says he said punks.
And we all know he didn't because it was analyzed, and he said punks.


I do not think you can see how ridiculous your claim is especially after the FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence the suspect, George Zimmerman, was motivated by racial bias or hatred.
 
No sharon he didn't.
He even says he said punks.
And we all know he didn't because it was analyzed, and he said punks.

Listen to it yourself.. He says coons or goons.. there us NO unk sound.. No K..
 
Analyzed by whom? You mean by Tom Owen?
Of course. He was hired by CNN and that is what he concluded after the noise was removed.
Or if I recall correctly, the phone suffered an anomaly at that point which was recorded, it was removed.

He wasn't discredited on that audio analysis was he?
It is spoken speech and can be analyzed, unlike screams, which can not be.
He can't testify to who was screaming.

And after cleaning up , it doesn't take an expert to tell what he said. Duh!


So what point do you think you are making? :doh iLOL
 
Wrong sharon.

Then there is no problem.. The jurors will hear it for themselves.

Most mothers have some experience with a six year old lying to them....
 
Of course. He was hired by CNN and that is what he concluded after the noise was removed.
Or if I recall correctly, the phone suffered an anomaly at that point which was recorded, it was removed.

He wasn't discredited on that audio analysis was he?
It is spoken speech and can be analyzed, unlike screams, which can not be.
He can't testify to who was screaming.

And after cleaning up , it doesn't take an expert to tell what he said. Duh!


So what point do you think you are making? :doh iLOL

So what you're saying here is that he's credible when you like what he says, but otherwise he's a moonbat who got thumped?

I suggest you look up the term "confirmation bias" and "cherry picking" because you Zimmerman defenders have spent a considerable amount of time attacking Mr. Owen as a fraud. If he's a fraud then you can't reasonably say "except here, where he says something that helps Zimmerman because then it's true".

That's completely batty.
 
So what you're saying here is that he's credible when you like what he says, but otherwise he's a moonbat who got thumped?

I suggest you look up the term "confirmation bias" and "cherry picking" because you Zimmerman defenders have spent a considerable amount of time attacking Mr. Owen as a fraud. If he's a fraud then you can't reasonably say "except here, where he says something that helps Zimmerman because then it's true".

That's completely batty.
Maybe you don't understand, but you are trying to compare apples to oranges, and that just ain't gonna work.

The sample of the screams can not be analyzed to determine scientifically who it was. Period.

Figuring out what was spoken is a different ball game. Especially when we know who said it, and all you have to do is clear up the audio and remove anomalies.
 
Maybe you don't understand, but you are trying to compare apples to oranges, and that just ain't gonna work.

The sample of the screams can not be analyzed to determine scientifically who it was. Period.

Figuring out what was spoken is a different ball game. Especially when we know who said it, and all you have to do is clear up the audio and remove anomalies.

No, I fully understand cherry picking when I see it.
 
No, I fully understand cherry picking when I see it.

Obviously you do not as you were speaking apples to oranges and didn't even know the difference.
 
Obviously you do not as you were speaking apples to oranges and didn't even know the difference.

Apples, oranges, cherries, whatever.

All I know is your whole argument here is fruity.
 
Apples, oranges, cherries, whatever.

All I know is your whole argument here is fruity.
Well the problem with that is, it is your argument that is "fruity" or if you prefer, unknowledgeable.
The two were, and are, separate issues.
Period.

One was about the analysis of who was making the screams, and the other about what is being said by a spoken voice.
Two separate and distinctly different things.
But because you can not understand that the other person is of course wrong in your thoughts.
Unfortunately for you, your thoughts are not based in reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom