Relatives rape 14 year old and kill unborn child.

[Faun]

There was absolutely nothing in the trial which proved who initiated the physical confrontation. That simply never materialized. So it remains to be nothing but conjecture on your part. And yes, you indeed expect others to accept your false claim as fact since you framed it as a basis for Obama defending Martin. Without that, your claim has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, you are again doing what you often do... build up a strawman and then attack it because you can't actually find fault in what I actually say. In this case, your strawman centers around your false claim that I complained about what Marianne said. I neither read Marianne stating what you did or did I respond to Marianne. Meanwhile, you're claim that Obama sided with a young black criminal remains as false as it did when you first offered it.

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

 

[Correll]

For Martin's actions to be seen as self defense, one would have to conjecture a earlier phase of the fight were Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm.

Thus justifying his sitting on Zimmerman and beating him while he screamed for help. On the legal principle of NOT requiring nuanced judgement in the present of the "upheld knife" (or in this case the speculated serious ass whooping that Zimmerman would have had to be giving Martin for Martins actions to be self defense.)

But Martin has no wounds to suggest that Zimmerman was ever in that position.

My judgement is based on the actual real evidence and witnessed events.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he did so in a way that left no injuries on Martin.

I have no problem with you speculating on the periods that there were no witnesses for.

But your speculations seem based on nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Thus, making my judgement to be the, by far, more likely scenario.

Thus, Martin was a criminal, Obama identified with him, based on Race.

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

 

[Faun]

Repeating your nonsense does not lend it credibility. Your conjecture remains based on the fallacy that you're capable of rendering a conclusion based on a "likelihood" when in fact, nothing was ever proven in regard to which one initiated the physical confrontation. You then, laughingly, extend that fallacy to justify the falsehood you portrayed earlier about Martin being a criminal, when in fact, you are merely citing yourself as the arbitrator of what you believe most likely took place. Relying on your own perspective of what occurred as evidence you are right is not all that impressive.

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

 

[Correll]

Being able to reach a conclusion based on high probability is part of being a sapient being.

That you don't know this is completely credible.

That you don't know that, while holding firm to your low probability wishful thinking, just shows you to be an extreme partisan.

And you are partisan with the violent criminal.

Much like Obama. And both of you are motivated by Race.

Obama identified with the criminal based on Race.

YOu libs supported that.

Now that Marianne has done the same as Obama, now you oppose that.

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

 

[Faun]

Great. more strawmen ... more fallacies .... more nonsense. Meanwhile, you remain unable to prove your claim that Martin committed a crime. Way to go.

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

 

[Correll]

What strawman? THat your claim of self defense requires that at some point in the fight that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with serious harm?

THat's not a strawman.

It's a requirement of your self defense claim.

Though...

It is credible that you did not realize that, as you just threw it out without any serious consideration of what the implications were.

Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I mean, you called my speculation a strawman, but strangely did not clarify what you supposedly, really meant.

This is all bullshit and mirrors.

Martin was the criminal. Zimmerman defended himself. YOu libs up to and including Obama sided with the criminal.

Based on Race.

And now, you don't like it when other's play the same game.


Hypocrite.

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

 

[Faun]

Your entire position is a strawman. You're claiming Martin was not likely acting in self defense because he had no injuries indicating he was hit. But of course, being hit is not a requirement to justify resorting to self defense. That's a strawman. You claim I'm basing my position on race. Meanwhile, I said nothing to make this about race. That's another strawman.

Try arguing what I'm saying -- not what you imagine I believe because I'm Liberal.

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

 

[Pogo]

On the contrary -- trying to scrape up some kind of connection between completely unrelated subjects on the basis of absolutely nothing but their race does indeed invite that call.

You may also recall this expressed as, "they all look alike to me".

Talk to Obama about it, not me. They were his words.

I didn't quote his words, if they even exist. I quoted yours.

If they even exist!!?? Oh you wacky liberals and your selective memory.

We have what we call "links" to sorta breathe life into our points. If you have any clue what the **** he's talking about, use one.

If you're so fucken stupid as to not remember obams comments I dont know why I waste my time with you.

Learn to ******* READ, asswipe.

The question was never about Obama quotes. It was about the poster's quote (Meathead).

--- Which ain't even your ******* conversation in the first place.

 

[Ernie S.]

I am under no such obligation. The jury found Zimmerman's self defense claim valid. In order to do that, they had to assume an assault took place, you dumb ****.

Good bye.

Again ... what assault? You won't say.

Of course you're under no obligation to demonstrate you're not the flaming idiot you appear to be. But make no mistake, citing the verdict as evidence of something we both know you're incapable of explaining, since it's not true, only further certifies what an idiot you are.

Again ... those who can ... do; those who can't ... cower with their tail tucked firmly between their hind legs.

Keep cowering!

Dude, you just got your ass kicked.

Sure I did by someone who couldn't describe an assault he insists took place which he idiotically claims led to Zimmerman's acquittal.

That's rightard logic ... someone who couldn't prove their bullshit, kicked my ass by repeatedly refusing to prove it.

I didn't have to prove anything. The trial jury was privy to all the evidence, heard all the testimony listened to the prosecution and defense attorneys' arguments and heard the judge's instructions.
They, by virtue of their acquittal, decided that an assault took place and that Mr. Zimmerman acted within his rights to defend himself from that assault.

I can explain it to you a hundred times, but I can not understand it for you.

 

[Correll]

Now that's a strawman.

I did not say that being hit was a requirement to justify resorting to self defense.

I was clear on that.

I explained that IF he had some such injuries it would greatly increase the possibility of your scenario.

I asked you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario if not as I speculated.

You failed to do so, and have failed to do so again.

Indeed, you seem very hesitant to explain your scenario. Almost as though you haven't really thought it though.

This is in line with my previous suspicion that your arrived at your conclusion based on Race and are making up "reasons" to justify your race based conclusion after the fact.

And AGAIN, Would you like to explain how you imagine that a credible self defense claim might be made for the person sitting on top of the supposed aggressor and beating him while the supposed aggressor screamed for help?

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

 

[Faun]

I am under no such obligation. The jury found Zimmerman's self defense claim valid. In order to do that, they had to assume an assault took place, you dumb ****.

Good bye.

Again ... what assault? You won't say.

Of course you're under no obligation to demonstrate you're not the flaming idiot you appear to be. But make no mistake, citing the verdict as evidence of something we both know you're incapable of explaining, since it's not true, only further certifies what an idiot you are.

Again ... those who can ... do; those who can't ... cower with their tail tucked firmly between their hind legs.

Keep cowering!

Dude, you just got your ass kicked.

Sure I did by someone who couldn't describe an assault he insists took place which he idiotically claims led to Zimmerman's acquittal.

That's rightard logic ... someone who couldn't prove their bullshit, kicked my ass by repeatedly refusing to prove it.

I didn't have to prove anything. The trial jury was privy to all the evidence, heard all the testimony listened to the prosecution and defense attorneys' arguments and heard the judge's instructions.
They, by virtue of their acquittal, decided that an assault took place and that Mr. Zimmerman acted within his rights to defend himself from that assault.

I can explain it to you a hundred times, but I can not understand it for you.

Yet you can't say what the assault was.

 

[Faun]

I'm not the one making shit up, you are. You're the one speculating Martin was a criminal -- only you can't prove it. As far as your statement on what would make a Martin self defense viable, you said...

"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."
​

I saw you offer no other possibilities than that and it was with that reasoning you determined Martin committed a crime. If you now admit there are other possibilities in which Martin could have been defending himself, this is new to your argument,

And of course, regardless what argument you try to make, if you determine Martin was committing a crime, you are speaking from a position of ignorance since it was never determined if Martin was or was not fighting in self defense. And of course, your determination is meaningless.

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

 

[Correll]

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

 

[Ernie S.]

I was asking you to explain how you imagined your self defense scenario playing out.

You just made the claim with no explanation.

I pointed out that the most likely, though still very unlikely scenario for self defense by Martin was not supported by the evidence.

YOu accused me of putting forth a strawman.

I have since repeatedly asked you to present YOUR scenario to explain how you imagine that Martin might have been defending himself when he was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him while he screamed for help.

YOu have not done so, preferring to spout off deflections and distractions.

Any time you are ready to defend your unlikely scenario, I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

I will be operating from the vastly more likely probability that the young man sitting on top of the other man, beating him while he screamed for help, was committing a violent criminal assault.

YOur odd claims that this is wrong notwithstanding.



Obama identified with the criminal based on race. You libs supported this.

Marianne identified Obama with the criminals based on race. YOu libs had a fit.


YOu are hypocrites.

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate with intellectual honesty.

 

[Faun]

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

 

[Faun]

Why would I make up what may have happened when I'm the one pointing out you're in no position to do that?? What matters is it was not determined who started it. You can pretend all you want to act like you can determine what happened but you can't. You never will. Your determiniation remains meaningless and stems from your own conjecture. You don't know what the "probability" is without further contributing to your own conjecture.

I did not make this about race, you did. So you're wrong about that too.

I said nothing to Marianne, so that is yet more you're wrong about. For the most part, at this point, you're not even debating me -- you're too busy arguing the strawmen you're building up.

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate with intellectual honesty.

I am. You're the idiot who actually thinks he can prove Martin assaulted Zimmerman by merely pointing to the trial's verdict and insisting that must mean an assault took place.

Using that mentally retarded logic, one could cite any crime. You could have said Martin bribed Zimmerman and you know that because Zimmerman was acquitted. That would make almost as much sense as the idiocy you are claiming.

And the reason I know you're a moron is because you can't say what assault took place.

 

[Correll]

Everyone who has an opinion on the issue has made a determination based on possibilities, from Obama on down to me and you.


Big Racial Divide over Zimmerman Verdict Pew Research Center

Here is a link to a PEW poll on the issue. Only 19% had a don't know answer. Everyone else had an opinion.



It is nonsense for you to pretend that that is not the case, or that is it wrong, or whatever odd notion you are putting forward to dodge defending your scenario.



Obama decided immediately that Martin was the victim and identified with him based on Race.

YOu libs loved it when he did it.

When Marianne did it, you libs flipped out.

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

My point was clear.

Obama identified with the criminal Martin, based on Race.

Libs loved that.

Marianne identified Obama with criminals based on Race and libs hated it.


LIbs are hypocrites.

YOur defense of the violent criminal Trayvon Martin is in keeping with the general lib siding with black criminals.

Your bizarre defense that reaching a conclusion based on evidence and high levels of probability is wrong, just shows how far you libs will go in defense of violent black criminals.

 

[Faun]

Now you paint yourself wrong by painting with such a broad brush. Again, I said nothing to Marianne or about what Marianne said. You were wrong when you first said it and you're still wrong.

And again, your determination means nothing. So claiming Obama "sided with a young black criminal" when in fact, you can't prove Martin committed a criminal act, is nothing more than you spouting nonsense based upon your own meaningless determination.

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

My point was clear.

Obama identified with the criminal Martin, based on Race.

Libs loved that.

Marianne identified Obama with criminals based on Race and libs hated it.


LIbs are hypocrites.

YOur defense of the violent criminal Trayvon Martin is in keeping with the general lib siding with black criminals.

Your bizarre defense that reaching a conclusion based on evidence and high levels of probability is wrong, just shows how far you libs will go in defense of violent black criminals.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no "high probability" as to who started the altercation. You are making that up and then using it to lend credibility to your incredulous position.

Who knows what you mean when you say libs loved that Obama sided with Martin because he was black? You haven't said and that is not clear.

I have no idea what you mean by libs hated what Marianne said? Again, the OP says nothing about Obama. Also, not clear.

Using your logic and generalization, cons think blacks are criminals.

And finally, unless you can prove Martin was not acting in self defense, you are lying when you call his actions criminal. Of course, that would be you keeping with the general con belief that blacks are criminals.

 

[Correll]

If my determination is meaningless, then so was Obama's.

Yet you libs loved it when he spoke out in favor of Martin.

You are arguing against normal, healthy thought processes.

All to dodge defending your position.

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

My point was clear.

Obama identified with the criminal Martin, based on Race.

Libs loved that.

Marianne identified Obama with criminals based on Race and libs hated it.


LIbs are hypocrites.

YOur defense of the violent criminal Trayvon Martin is in keeping with the general lib siding with black criminals.

Your bizarre defense that reaching a conclusion based on evidence and high levels of probability is wrong, just shows how far you libs will go in defense of violent black criminals.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no "high probability" as to who started the altercation. You are making that up and then using it to lend credibility to your incredulous position.

Who knows what you mean when you say libs loved that Obama sided with Martin because he was black? You haven't said and that is not clear.

I have no idea what you mean by libs hated what Marianne said? Again, the OP says nothing about Obama. Also, not clear.

Using your logic and generalization, cons think blacks are criminals.

And finally, unless you can prove Martin was not acting in self defense, you are lying when you call his actions criminal. Of course, that would be you keeping with the general con belief that blacks are criminals.

SIlly lib.

I wonder, is this more Proof by Assertion Logical Fallacy, or more Shotgun argumentation?

I think Proof by Assertion. YOu keep repeating yourself "regardless of contradiction".


Though you do keep bringing in more Strawmen as part of a Shotgun approach.

I'm surprised how little you've touched on Argumentum ad hominem.

 

[Faun]

Let me know when you're prepared to debate without a strawman.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

My point was clear.

Obama identified with the criminal Martin, based on Race.

Libs loved that.

Marianne identified Obama with criminals based on Race and libs hated it.


LIbs are hypocrites.

YOur defense of the violent criminal Trayvon Martin is in keeping with the general lib siding with black criminals.

Your bizarre defense that reaching a conclusion based on evidence and high levels of probability is wrong, just shows how far you libs will go in defense of violent black criminals.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no "high probability" as to who started the altercation. You are making that up and then using it to lend credibility to your incredulous position.

Who knows what you mean when you say libs loved that Obama sided with Martin because he was black? You haven't said and that is not clear.

I have no idea what you mean by libs hated what Marianne said? Again, the OP says nothing about Obama. Also, not clear.

Using your logic and generalization, cons think blacks are criminals.

And finally, unless you can prove Martin was not acting in self defense, you are lying when you call his actions criminal. Of course, that would be you keeping with the general con belief that blacks are criminals.

SIlly lib.

I wonder, is this more Proof by Assertion Logical Fallacy, or more Shotgun argumentation?

I think Proof by Assertion. YOu keep repeating yourself "regardless of contradiction".


Though you do keep bringing in more Strawmen as part of a Shotgun approach.

I'm surprised how little you've touched on Argumentum ad hominem.

Questions the poster citing himself as an authority to determine Martin committed a crime. What type of fallacy is that?