Relatives rape 14 year old and kill unborn child.

[Faun]

No, you're not making sensr. Between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. But he's not black. So who are you talking about?

It only doesn't make sense if you don't understand that sitting on a man and beating him while he screams for help is a crime.

Is that the problem you are having with understanding me? DO you not know that beating people is illegal?

Or are you giving him a pass because his skin was black?

That's not necessarily a crime -- depending on the circumstances, it could be self defense. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. The only conclusion I can logically reach when you said there was a "young black criminal" is that you were hallucinating.

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

 

[Ernie S.]

It only doesn't make sense if you don't understand that sitting on a man and beating him while he screams for help is a crime.

Is that the problem you are having with understanding me? DO you not know that beating people is illegal?

Or are you giving him a pass because his skin was black?

That's not necessarily a crime -- depending on the circumstances, it could be self defense. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. The only conclusion I can logically reach when you said there was a "young black criminal" is that you were hallucinating.

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

 

[Faun]

No, you're not making sensr. Between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. But he's not black. So who are you talking about?

Very few 17 year-olds do.

Michael Brown didn't either and he made it all the way to 18. He was black and a thug too.

Well either Michael Brown was never arrested before turning 18 or you're just ignorant?

Guess this answers that question, huh...?

Mike Brown s Alleged History of Armed Robbery and Assault

Criminals don't need to have been arrested to be criminals.

We have Michael Brown on tape committing a crime. He then attacked a cop. He was a criminal.

Perhaps you need help understanding what I posted? I agreed Brown was a criminal prior to being shot.

Not above you didn't.

You focused on his lack of a criminal record. Your intent was obviously to deny or distract from him being a criminal.

Apperently, you do need help understanding what I posted to meathead. I'll try, but I can't make any promises that you'll get it....

It was meathead, not I, who said Michael Brown did not have a criminal record prior to turning 18. I was the one who said he did ahd even posted a link with a criminal charge against him when he was 17. That is what I responded to. I said nothing of his criminal activity the day he was shot.

 

[Faun]

No, you're not making sensr. Between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. But he's not black. So who are you talking about?

It only doesn't make sense if you don't understand that sitting on a man and beating him while he screams for help is a crime.

Is that the problem you are having with understanding me? DO you not know that beating people is illegal?

Or are you giving him a pass because his skin was black?

That's not necessarily a crime -- depending on the circumstances, it could be self defense. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. The only conclusion I can logically reach when you said there was a "young black criminal" is that you were hallucinating.

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.


Read more at Police buried Trayvon s criminal history

And yet, Martin was not caught with a buglary tool or marijuana. He was caught with a screwdriver and marijuana residue. Neither of which is criminal.

 

[Faun]

That's not necessarily a crime -- depending on the circumstances, it could be self defense. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. The only conclusion I can logically reach when you said there was a "young black criminal" is that you were hallucinating.

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

 

[Correll]

It only doesn't make sense if you don't understand that sitting on a man and beating him while he screams for help is a crime.

Is that the problem you are having with understanding me? DO you not know that beating people is illegal?

Or are you giving him a pass because his skin was black?

That's not necessarily a crime -- depending on the circumstances, it could be self defense. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. The only conclusion I can logically reach when you said there was a "young black criminal" is that you were hallucinating.

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

 

[Correll]

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

 

[Faun]

That's not necessarily a crime -- depending on the circumstances, it could be self defense. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. The only conclusion I can logically reach when you said there was a "young black criminal" is that you were hallucinating.

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

 

[Faun]

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

 

[Correll]

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

So you are assuming that he was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

That's quite a conclusion to reach based on the available evidence and eye witness accounts.

You aren't allowing your biases to interfere with your judgement are you?



I am not "shaking my fist at the sky".

Martin was witnessed sitting on a man's chest and beating him.

Depending on the local laws, that is almost always a crime.

That is strong evidence supporting my judgment that he was a criminal.

And Obama and you libs took his side, the side of the violent criminal thug.

Why?

Race.

 

[Correll]

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

 

[Meathead]

THat is a lie.

You could logically reach the conclusion that I find the idea that Martin was defending himself while sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help very unlikely.

It is possible.

One could imagine a scenario where Zimmerman started the fight and was beating the crap out of Martin, until Martin managed to turn the tables.


Except that there is no evidence of that. Martin had no injuries that suggest that Zimmerman ever had the upper hand in the physical fight.

And there were no witnesses reporting that.

So why do you think that is the most likely scenario?

Because you don't. From the beginning you libs have been on the side of the black guy and looking for scenarios to rationalize your conclusion.

Because you NEED to find support for your belief that America is a racist land where Whites are out to get Blacks.

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

 

[Faun]

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

 

[Meathead]

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

He was a criminal. It was implicit in the court's decision. Stop being an asshole!

 

[Correll]

You apparently didn't read what I posted above, or follow the provided link.
Martin had been caught with burglary tools, stolen jewelry and marijuana. He should have been arrested but wasn't due to the Miami-Dade School District's botched attempt to show that black crime rates were improving in the district.
Had Martin been white, he would have had an arrest record.

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

 

[Faun]

Do you ever debate without building up strawmen? I did not say it was the most likely scenario. I inferred it's a possibility, which you even agreed with.

Nor did I make it about race. That too is a strawman of your own creation.

Ignoring your strawmen, what remains is the simple fact that between the two, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman.

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

 

[Faun]

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

 

[Faun]

Don't be so ******* stupid. I read your post and responded to it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

He was a criminal. It was implicit in the court's decision. Stop being an asshole!

Implicit because you, a confirmed idiot of our justice system, thinks so. Just want to clarify that.

 

[Meathead]

You not only inferred it, you stated that the only reason I could hold my dissenting opinion was if I was hallucinating.

Which is nonsense.

I did admit that it was a possible scenario.

Of course you failed to note or respond to my point about the complete lack of evidence or witnesses supporting that scenario.

Thus, my conclusion that the young who was witnessed sitting on top of a man beating him while he screamed for help, and would not stop even when told the cops were coming, was committing a crime and was thus a criminal, is certainly a completely reasonable one.

Which is you had an once of moral courage or intellectual honestly you would admit.


That is the black criminal that Obama identified with.

You lib supported that.

THus, the thread tiltle which identified Obama with another black criminal(s) to draw forth the outrage from libs, to reveal them as complete hypocrites, was completely called for and completely correct.

You stated it as fact in that being with whom the president sided. Changing your position now to it being nothing more than ypur opinion affirms my observation that you were indeed hallucinating.

There was no need to respond to the lack of evidence since the same also applies to who started the physical altercation. And again, the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman. You can keep repeating Martin was a criminal, but that will never make it so.

Bullshit.

Referencing that I had an opinion based on evidence and eyewitness accounts, does not equate to admitting that I was hallucinating.

Why are you such a liar?


Criminal records do not define who is a criminal. Many criminals do not have criminal records. They have simply not yet been caught and convicted.

Trayvon Martin was witnessed sitting on the chest of a man and beating him while he screamed for help.

Admitting that there is a scenario where that could possibly have NOT a crime is not the same as admitting that that is very likely.

THe far more likely scenario is that is WAS a crime being committed and that is the scenario I base my judgement of Trayvon Martin on.

This has been clear. It is not confusing.

Why are you playing stupid?

Because you, on some level, know that the Truth is not on your side.

And yet you hew to your position.

Obama identified with Trayvon Martin, the criminal based on race.

You supported it when he did.

Now that a conservative is identifying Obama with a criminal based on race, you are outraged.

This is you being a hypocrite.

YOur refusal to deal with my point on this honestly?

THat is you being a troll.

And the fact that your scenario has no evidence to support it is something you have to deal with. It makes your unlikely scenario even more unlikely.

No matter how much you shake your fist at the sky, Martin was not a criminal. And again, the only criminal was Zimmerman.

Don't be an ass. The court obviously concluded that Martin was a criminal, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have walked.

How many ways can you lose the same ******* argument?

What is obvious is your ignorance of our justice system. The court never reached any such conclusion. They couldn't since Martin wasn't on trial. Zimmerman ws found not guilty because the state couldn't prove his claim of self defense wasn't justified.

Asshole, I I don't use that term loosely, If Zimmerman was found not guilty, Martin was implicitly committing a felony.

Stop being an asshole. Everyone knows what happened.

 

[Correll]

Perhaps you shouldn't be so rude, clown.

You are purposefully avoiding the point of the thread.

Obama self identified with a criminal because of race.

Libs approved of this.

A con identifies Obama with a criminal over race, and libs flip out.

This is hypocrisy.

Do you agree, and if not, explain clearly without deflections, or obfuscations, why it is not.

You're still hallucinating. Obama did not side with a criminal. And this thread is about the horrific abuse of a 14 year old girl. Not Obama or Trayvon Martin.

Yes, he did.

The abuse was carried out by criminals. Even if they have not yet been convicted, they are still criminals.

If Obama identified with Martin based on Race, and you libs loved it,

THen why is it not cool to identify Obama with these criminals based on Race?

Why the different reactions?

Why give Obama support and Marianne condemnation?

Since Martin was not a criminal (don't forget, your opinion doesn't make him one), Obama did not side with a criminal. Revealing your strawman about Obama not siding with these fuckers as the nonsense it is.

You can't really expect Obama to be given a pass on his behavior based on the absurdly slim possibility that Martin was acting in self defense when he sat on that man's chest and beat him while he screamed for help?

Admitting that something is POSSIBLE, is not the same as saying that it is a reasonable possibility.

It is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.



Obama was wrong to rush to judgement on Martin's shooting based on initial reports.

He was even more wrong to do so in a manner to fan the flames of racial resentment in this country. THat was the exact opposite of what a President of ALL the people should have done.

Once the evidence came out he should have apologized and admitted he was wrong to side with the criminal rather than the poor innocent guy you liberals tried to railroad into prison.

Again, had Obama sided with a criminal, he would have been siding with Zimmerman since he was the only criminal there.

Zimmerman was committing no crime. Martin was.

Your unlikely scenario of self defense on Martin's part is NOT reason to give Obama a pass for his racist actions.

This is you being a partisan leftist.

SUch Race Baiting serves your lib agenda, and you are fine with it as long as it does.

When Marianne does it, to point out what Obama did, that is different.

But you cannot honestly explain why.

Hence your tortured rationalizations of this thread.