• 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.

What does this case say about our society as a whole.......

I dont't agree with the underlined. Al Sharpton DOES NOT get involved and start trouble with cases guns. He focuses all his time with people who are BLACK. Not black people involved w/ black people....or white people involved w/ white people. NO...... only black people involved with white people. Do you seriously think Sharpton and his crew would have been involved if GZ was black and TM was white???????????? :roll:

What I am saying is this was an opportunity for many agendas to be played out. I def would not say that Sharpton or Jackson cared about the gun issue. They were only interested in race.

If this had been a stabbing instead of a gun, I have doub't we would have heard about it nationwide. It got pumped up due to guns being in the spotlight and the racial issue added to it. That is only my opinion of course.
 
What I am saying is this was an opportunity for many agendas to be played out. I def would not say that Sharpton or Jackson cared about the gun issue. They were only interested in race.

If this had been a stabbing instead of a gun, I have doub't we would have heard about it nationwide. It got pumped up due to guns being in the spotlight and the racial issue added to it. That is only my opinion of course.
'I understand that is your opinion. I am just saying, mine. That I don't doubt for 1 single min. that the reason Sharpton and Jackson were involved ONLY had to do with race. Their past history proves that.
 
Actually, focusing on only one city, which you think supports your dogma, is the epitome of delusional thinking.

Well you didn't base your comment on ANYTHING besides personal bias, but then again, you're completely devoid of "delusional thinking" .....right??? (-;

Ok then don't use Chicago, how about Detroit??, Nawlins?? Washington DC?? Camden NJ? Atlanta? Los Angeles?? St Louis? Houston? Baltimore? Philly??

Oh wait I'm delusional.
 
Last edited:
'I understand that is your opinion. I am just saying, mine. That I don't doubt for 1 single min. that the reason Sharpton and Jackson were involved ONLY had to do with race. Their past history proves that.

I would agree with you on that.
 
Question, does the jury see the demonstration going on and now chanting? I just got in abit ago and don't know how long they had been there, anybody know?
 
Well you didn't base your comment on ANYTHING besides personal bias, but then again, you're completely devoid of "delusional thinking" .....right??? (-;

Ok then don't use Chicago, how about Detroit??, Nawlins?? Washington DC?? Camden NJ? Atlanta? Los Angeles?? St Louis? Houston? Baltimore? Philly??

Oh wait I'm delusional.

What are you saying happens in those places which you believe to be unique?
 
Nah; you just went with the straw man. Pretty lame.

Well, I could have said that your "for every white racist, there's a black racist" comment leads to the logical conclusion that a larger percentage of the black population is racist, but I thought that would in bad taste.

/sarcasm
 
'I understand that is your opinion. I am just saying, mine. That I don't doubt for 1 single min. that the reason Sharpton and Jackson were involved ONLY had to do with race. Their past history proves that.


The JUSTICE Brothers...Al and Jesse LOL!
 
Well, I could have said that your "for every white racist, there's a black racist" comment leads to the logical conclusion that a larger percentage of the black population is racist, but I thought that would in bad taste.

/sarcasm

You more than could have; you did. It's me that said nothing of the sort.

Straw man much?
 
You more than could have; you did. It's me that said nothing of the sort.

Straw man much?

Ugh. I can't believe I have to do this.

/sarcasm = I'm being sarcastic in the above content. It appears you have mistaken me for someone who is actually trying to have a serious discussion with you. The content of your post, when taken literally, meant exactly what I said. Hence the joke.
 
Ugh. I can't believe I have to do this.

/sarcasm = I'm being sarcastic in the above content. It appears you have mistaken me for someone who is actually trying to have a serious discussion with you. The content of your post, when taken literally, meant exactly what I said. Hence the joke.

LOL C'mon CW!! don't you know....."strawman" is now the chanted mantra when a liberal has no facts. (-; No worries, means you are in good standing!!
 
LOL C'mon CW!! don't you know....."strawman" is now the chanted mantra when a liberal has no facts. (-; No worries, means you are in good standing!!

I'm more embarrassed that I had to explain what /sarcasm means. I thought I was being pretty obvious.
 
Ugh. I can't believe I have to do this.
/sarcasm = I'm being sarcastic in the above content. It appears you have mistaken me for someone who is actually trying to have a serious discussion with you. The content of your post, when taken literally, meant exactly what I said. Hence the joke.

Me either; I would have sworn that participation here was voluntary.

Who knew?
 
Me either; I would have sworn that participation here was voluntary.

Who knew?[/QUOTE]

The burden of the obligation to be properly:mrgreen: understood is a heavy one to bear :mrgreen:
 
I think that what this case says is that the majority of people on both sides are owned by the media. There is no reason in the world why this issue should be partisan. In a way, shouldn't conservatives back Martin, saying that people have the right to hit somebody who is following them? I don't know how it was universally determined by conservatives that Martin was wrong and Zimmerman was right when nobody was there and can know how it really played out.

I feel that this case isn't really about race, and I think Zimmerman is scum, and I think he's not guilty of murder. Manslaughter, probably, but not murder. It astonishes me that my opinion is one of the more nuanced ones. What that really says is that we're told what to think, on both sides, and I find that very sad.
 
It is clear this case was brought for one reason. The "race baiters" revved up the issue. SPD did an investigation and filed no charges. Some 44 days later and without using the usual avenue of a grand jury, charges were filed. When Trayvon's mother was asked on the stand, where did you go to hear the 911 call, she answered "the mayor's office". Speaks volumes about the removal of law enforcement.

My question. Does this /will this case make us more likely or less likely to get involved in ANY interaction where race will be brought to the forefront?

It has long been my contention the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jacksons of the world only serve to make things worse. As long as we encourage all non-African-American's to be referred to as "creepy ass crackers" or "white............Hispanics" the issue will not improve. We are all equal. Why do we continue to INSIST we point out the differences?

Personally, the fact this case even went to trial, regardless of the verdict, makes it less likely I would get involved. Like many of the witnesses in this case, I will simply not participate. Will I call law enforcement? Probably. Would I attempt to do anything else? No. That may be completely and utterly wrong, but in my humble opinion it's simply not worth the risk of becoming a target for the spike lee and black panthers of the world.

I've never, nor will I ever, judge a person by the amount of melanin in their epidermis, or lack thereof. This case, however, makes me acutely aware, the amount of melanin in one's epidermis determines if you become a target for those who continue to pass judgement solely based on melanin in one's epidermis.

I don't disagree with what you're say with the exception that this is a case of self-defense and I don't believe any individual defending themselves gets to choose who or what is attacking them. As such, unless you intend to circulate narrowly or to run in fear of anyone not like you, you may find yourself in a situation where you have no choice but to defend yourself against someone who could be President Obama's son.
 
That race is still a dividing influence in America.

Really? I thought that when Barack Hussein Obama II was elected, we became a post racial society. At least that's what I was told. I hold no animus toward my fellow man. As Oceandan put it, the amount of melanin or lack thereof in a person has no effect upon me. It may matter to others as we have seen here. I judge a person by their character not by their skin color.
 
Really? I thought that when Barack Hussein Obama II was elected, we became a post racial society. At least that's what I was told. I hold no animus toward my fellow man. As Oceandan put it, the amount of melanin or lack thereof in a person has no effect upon me. It may matter to others as we have seen here. I judge a person by their character not by their skin color.

No. Racism ended a nanosecond after LBJ signed the civil right bill. Former KKK members suddenly had many black friends, and kicked it to Stevie Wonder while enjoying menthol brands of cigarettes. It was amazing, and a real paradigm-shifter.
 
Tolerance

By: Bob
Jul• 09•13

Picture-3-500x368.png


Daniel Issacs of Issacs Software is not a very nice man, threatening the life of me and what he thinks was my child… for tweets he didn’t like about cognitive dissonance.

This was the tweet address before he deleted it: https://twitter.com/daniellesseps/statuses/354639001837256705

Forensic pathologist Vincent Di Maio testified this morning in State of Florida versus George Zimmerman, and as the guy who literally wrote the book on gunshot wounds for his fellow forensic pathologist peers, Di Maio is likely the foremost expert in the world at his specialty.

Di Maio’s testimony gutted the prosecution’s case.

He used science to show that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the exact position as he described, and he testified that the wounds Zimmerman suffered were entirely consistent with the sort of beating he claimed to take. Di Maio also slapped state medical examiner Shiping Bao for not opening up Trayvon Martin’s hands to check for evidence of bruising consistent with the kind of attack Zimmerman reported. Such bruising would not have been evidence on a man killed so soon after issuing such a beating.

Put bluntly, the state failed to make a viable prosecution of Zimmerman, and in my opinion, never came close to establishing “beyond a reasonable doubt” for any possible charge. The defense Mark O’Mara has orchestrated so far has been masterful, and we’re moving very close to the point of proving innocence, which is almost unheard of in a trial.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Tolerance « Bob Owens

Haven't we all read something of the sort from people of the "Tolerant Left". Is this what Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America" is all about? Is this the post racial America Obama promised?
 
A lot of things, all of them negative.
 
That if you are white and getting beat up by a minority and you defend yourself with deadly force, expect charges to be brought against you whether there is evidence to support it or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom