3rdnlng Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 It is too much to read and I'll take you at your word. As far as I known from general society the initial outrage was over the no arrest for so long and right or wrong that is at least credible IMO but as for the case itself it's in court now and that's that. The arrest became political because the f'n "men of god" jj & al decided to take their usual extortion cause to FL. Something never felt right. The local DA refused to charge him, but we had people all over claiming GZ stalked him down and killed him because he was black. It should have went to a grand jury to decide whether an indictment was appropriate. Instead we have the POTUS speaking out and saying he "could be his son" and the DOJ getting involved, not with the New Black Panthers bounty offer but intimating that they would prosecute GZ if FL wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) I don't mind the Obama comment it was a tragedy and he's sympathetic as a leader. I'm sure a number of people will disagree. As for the DOJ...investigations are investigations they aren't inherently bad and they happen a lot with matter of large public concern where injustice may or may not be present. The bottom line, as I see it...is that he should have been arrested and the case should go to trial as it has. Ultimately that's what happened and now whatever the verdict is we accept. I just don't see the issue as political but it is just my opinion. Now it does shed light to stand your ground and that is political if the people of Florida decide the law is ambiguous or otherwise not good policy...but that's a separate discussion. What happened or is happening in that thread is probably everything I despise about this case from both view points but once again I haven't read it. As a side not I'll just add that it is my personal opinion that he should have been arrested (not convicted) soon after and the media attention while out of control on both sides brought the issue to light...something the media is traditionally supposed to do. Edited June 5, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 As a side not I'll just add that it is my personal opinion that he should have been arrested (not convicted) soon after and the media attention while out of control on both sides brought the issue to light...something the media is traditionally supposed to do. The media didn't just "bring it to light" though. They shined a glaring spotlight on the "hoodie-wearing skittle-eating pre-teen boy innocently gunned down by a racist white guy," story. If the media's traditionally supposed to bring issues to light (something I could disagree with - Remember the Maine?) they stopped that quite some time ago. And by "they," I'm thinking primarily of Rupert Murdoch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The media didn't just "bring it to light" though. They shined a glaring spotlight on the "hoodie-wearing skittle-eating pre-teen boy innocently gunned down by a racist white guy," story. If the media's traditionally supposed to bring issues to light (something I could disagree with - Remember the Maine?) they stopped that quite some time ago. And by "they," I'm thinking primarily of Rupert Murdoch. Well I said the coverage was out of control and I mean it. I do believe that so I don't really disagree there. That said the story certainly had light shed on it either way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Well I said the coverage was out of control and I mean it. I do believe that so I don't really disagree there. That said the story certainly had light shed on it either way.... You should peruse the thread. Pretty much everything you could want to know about the case, the media coverage, and relevant law is in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The way this happened is not the way America is supposed to work. The way this has transpired is just wrong. GZ's life is schit no matter what the verdict. Why does the left even tolerate the jj's and as's of this world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Well to cut to the chase the bottom line with me personally is I'm just not interested in the case. So I don't mean to suggest that I roll my eyes only at the thread here...and also I make a lot of assumption about what is in the thread I don't click on it. The way this happened is not the way America is supposed to work. The way this has transpired is just wrong. GZ's life is schit no matter what the verdict. Why does the left even tolerate the jj's and as's of this world? Well I really don't but then again I'm only leaning left in the current political climate despite my reputation. I have literally never watched Sharpton and honestly (embarrassingly so but I'll admit it) don't know who you are referring to w/ "jj." Some think it's a cop-out of pretentious to self-identify as a "centrist" but over time I generally think that's the best description. I admit though I'm certainly "the left" relative to this board and probably clearly left-leaning in 2012. But that doesn't mean I'm Al's boy or a Bush hater in unfair ways or against having money or anything like that... Edited June 5, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Well to cut to the chase the bottom line with me personally is I'm just not interested in the case. So I don't mean to suggest that I roll my eyes only at the thread here...and also I make a lot of assumption about what is in the thread I don't click on it. Well I really don't but then again I'm only leaning left in the current political climate despite my reputation. I have literally never watched Sharpton and honestly (embarrassingly so but I'll admit it) don't know who you are referring to w/ "jj." Some think it's a cop-out of pretentious to self-identify as a "centrist" but over time I generally think that's the best description. I admit though I'm certainly "the left" relative to this board and probably clearly left-leaning in 2012. But that doesn't mean I'm Al's boy or a Bush hater in unfair ways or against having money or anything like that... Jesse Jackson. I see some hope that you might be someone from the left that sometimes I might be able to actually have a conversation with. When you buddy up with MDP it just changes the whole picture though. That's one far out dude/chick/thing/it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Haha I'm not really buddies with anyone here and I don't have the best grasp of who the liberals even are we're usually interested in different issues and rarely supporting each other in actual discussion. I do know MDP was open to my one topic encouraging people to watch Fareed Zakaria's GPS and I shamelessly admit I just love that show and think highly of Fareed (not to say I'm here to defend anything a youtube search can bring up on him) so I do remember potentially being a "buddy to him" in taht sense b/c he was willing to be swayed to give it a shot. Edited June 5, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Ah deflection. Good response. And if you did read correctly, I did say I was wrong. But I definitely was attacked more than I attacked. My "angry, old, white guys" strike a big nerve for some and I apologize for that (even if I was right ). But movign forward, why can't people argue the issue instead of making it personal? Great response. And as a thank you: youtube.com/watch?v=BB0DU4DoPP4&ob=av2n Have you ever thought that you are so predicable you are just boring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Because of inconsiderate and hypocritical jackasses like me who complain about ad hominems while in the same sentence subtly tossing insults. I don't see why the ad homonyms get thrown around either. Frankly, I don't get why anything to do with someone's sexual habits ends up being political whether it is homonym or heteronym or binym or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Fair responses and thanks. I admit I struggle with the name calling Douche! and think if people posted their pictures and/or names, there won't be as much. But I guess that's the beauty of the internet. The internet is the ultimate decision support system. Rather than fear it/be upset by it, you should be thankful. Would we ever have found out about Dan Rather's blatant BS, without the internet? We may have....but it would have been 4 months after the election, with John Kerry winning. The internet will evolve, just as it has so many times already. Right now, it is like the wild west, with yankee traders and the renaissance and French Revolution mixed in as well. It's chaos. But remember, people will eventually gravitate towards order, and those who will provide solutions that create order will profit, while those that create chaos will eventually lose. It's just a matter of time. However, one thing is certain: any government involvement will retard this evolution, and, when said government activity inevitably fails, things will be worse than they were before it. Think Russia, post-Communism. In the meantime, just do what they did in the Wild West: carry a "gun", know how to use it, and most people won't mess with you. I still don't understand why people get so fired up about politics. A 2 party system is very flawed yet people argue like hell that their side is "right." A more accepted form of the Bloods and Crips. I couldn't care less about party. I do care about people that refuse to learn from history, refuse to admit their mistakes, and are willing to choose failure for the sake of consistency. I do care about false premises driving false logic driving false conclusions that lead us into things like considering Obamacare as a good idea. It is intellectually dishonest. But not only that, when we prove it to be such, I am very concerned that a group of people would be OK with the tactics, and payoffs, that were used to force Obamacare upon us, even after Mass. gave a Republican Teddy Kennedy's seat for the express purpose of blocking it. The second that election occurred, the right thing to do was accept defeat, and look to build a consensus as to what to do about health care reform. That didn't happen, because these people are fascists. Their behavior IS defined by that word. It is not "name-calling" to call something what it is. We, as Americans, who derive our identity from the true meaning of that term, are therefore obligated to fight their efforts to restrict liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. If we refuse, we don't deserve what our forebears worked so hard, and risked so much, to provide for us. Party is irrelevant. If any group decides that they know better than us what we can do with our lives, bodies, work, money, etc. it is our duty to fight them, and defeat them. The role of government is not to support the tyranny of the minority, or majority, or tyranny of any kind. I'd be just as willing to fight evangelicals who want to ban all abortion. They have no right to decide what the next 18 years of 1 or more person's life will look like. That is just as tyrannical as Obamacare. It must always come down to the consent of the governed. Please understand: he reason I mostly attack the left, is that they mostly want to operate without our consent. It really is as simple as that. But see, I don't feel "fired up" when I say these things. Why would I feel "fired up" by simply telling the truth? This fires me up = reading a manual on SQL. The people who may get "fired up" by these simple truths, are just flat out wrong, and their emotional response proves it. Edited June 5, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Share Posted June 6, 2012 Good thoughts all around and I apperciate the responses. Basically, everyone is hard headed in their own way. And there is nothing wrong with that. Given my job and how I was raised, I always like to find a way to meet somewhere in the middle. I hate people just tossing liberal and conversative around. Seriously, replace them with Blood or Crip or Flutie or Johnson. Just because there are 2 choices, it doesn't mean one is wrong and there isn't some truth in one you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Flutie or Johnson. Just because there are 2 choices, it doesn't mean one is wrong and there isn't some truth in one you disagree with. You picked a bad example there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Share Posted June 6, 2012 You picked a bad example there. You're right. You have to be an idiot to have wanted Johnson over Flutie. I'd rather have a small Flutie than a big Johnson. Hopefully, Super Mario will end the Curse of Flutie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 You're right. You have to be an idiot to have wanted Johnson over Flutie. I'd rather have a small Flutie than a big Johnson. Hopefully, Super Mario will end the Curse of Flutie. Flutie sucked, and was a cancer. Johnson sucked...but he was more of a benign cyst. Johnson > Flutie. Which, really, is like arguing the difference between being mauled by a man-eating tiger or gored to death by an elephant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Flutie sucked, and was a cancer. Johnson sucked...but he was more of a benign cyst. Johnson > Flutie. Which, really, is like arguing the difference between being mauled by a man-eating tiger or gored to death by an elephant. I haven't felt this despondent since I found out Dorris Day wasn't a virgin. Flutie took a team that couldn't get out of its own way and made it a top NFL team. Tom, this time you're the idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts