dalegg

We argued as to which one we should select. That should tell you which one I selected.

Don't worry, Putin is hot on the trail of the "real killers". He's already suggesting such viable options as maybe Chechnyian terrorists, and had nothing to do with the fact that he was about to publish a report in opposition to the illegal Russian involvement in Ukraine. Seriously, how are there Americans who stand by this Russian Mafiosa leader?

Don't worry, Putin is hot on the trail of the "real killers". He's already suggesting such viable options as maybe Chechnyian terrorists, and had nothing to do with the fact that he was about to publish a report in opposition to the illegal Russian involvement in Ukraine. Seriously, how are there Americans who stand by this Russian Mafiosa leader?

They should concentrate all of their efforts on serving their American husband. Their very existence should revolve around it. They shouldn't even consider working outside of the home lest it detract from their duty of making the household a perfect domicile for their husband.
--And daily massages would be nice.
..and why wasn't there anyone around to give this awesome advice to my wife 9 years ago?- because she clearly didn't get the memo.

So why is ISIS called a terrorist group anyway? They don't seem so much like a Terrorist group that does random acts of violence that don't seem to have any military objective. They seem more like a traditional bad guy army just bent on occupying other people's lands and changing the government of those lands.

The crash is coming! Doom, I say! Doom!

Wow, the Clippers made a statement about it today though!

Russia has an interesting argument. This would be like Mexico saying that Mexicans in Arizona are being discriminated against, so they have the right to invade Phoenix. If they are Russians and have emigrated to Ukraine, why does Putin care so much about them anyway? I call BS on this argument.

Someone should be along shortly to remind you both that you are no better than the killer with this "Revenge Mentality"...

I think he's a better fit for San Diego.

What an incredibly helpful thing she did by coming out and saying this.

I did not know that Cracker was in reference to the slave owner cracking the whip. I always thought it was some strange reference to saltine crackers which is why I've always considered the term way funnier than insulting. Even as the term is now defined it doesn't necassarily seem denograting. The guy cracking the whip was an authority figure. It'd be like someone calling me warden or something.

I did not know that Cracker was in reference to the slave owner cracking the whip. I always thought it was some strange reference to saltine crackers which is why I've always considered the term way funnier than insulting. Even as the term is now defined it doesn't necassarily seem denograting. The guy cracking the whip was an authority figure. It'd be like someone calling me warden or something.

Well, I guess in part because the trial wasn't about giving the benefit of the doubt to the young black man. I see this over and over and it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that it wasn't TM that was on trial, and you can take that two ways. The defendant here was Zimmerman and what you have to see is whether or not you can give him the benefit of the doubt. Why people opposed the trial isn't just because they think Treyvan had it coming. Some of us "opposed the trial" because we saw that there was no way you could convict a man based on the evidence we saw. For disclaimer I never actually "opposed the trial" myself. I think every so often its good to expose our legal and political system and put it up for debate. Before you go say this is some "conservative" view point, ask yourself do you honestely think that the vast majority of all the political analysts on CNN are conservative? Because if you paid attention, very few of them thought there would be a conviction. Are Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos conservatives? I don't think so. They know their stuff.
If you followed the trial objectively and listened to the legal experts, you really cannot have come to the conclusion that a conviction was coming. When I first heard about this case, I was of the opinion that Zimmerman was in the wrong too, but the more I heard the more I questioned what actual case the prosecution had. This is not to say he wasn't also partially to blame for this either. It just says there is no where in this that we can say beyond a reasonable doubt he broke any laws.
So since you can't rationally be mad at the verdict, you must be angry at the laws. But what law exactly? Do you think there should be a law forbidding neighborhood watch to follow someone they deem suspicious? Do you think someone should never be allowed to use a gun to shoot someone unless the other person has a gun too? Do you think someone should not be able to shoot someone in self defense until they are actually on the brink of death themselves? (I loved this part of the trial by the way- did we actually need someone to tell us George Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening? Dude was very alive after the incident wasn't he, so doesn't that answer that question?)..or do you just think that people should not be allowed to carry guns?
Here is another question for you- Do you think that people should not be able to claim self defense when killing someone unless there is a witness that can absolutely 100% corraborate his story? I've heard this hypo brought up before-'How to get away with murder-make sure there are no witnesses and claim self defense" (as if this hasn't been done about a million times before already). Are you suggesting that we change our legal system to where we do NOT give a defendent the benefit of doubt and that unless he can prove his story he is guilty? Have you thought about what that would mean? So if a woman is attacked while walking home and she uses a firearm to defend her self while nobody is around and cannot prove she was attacked she goes to jail because she cannot prove she was attacked? Is that where you want to go?
Maybe that is what is angering people on the other side. Maybe juries don't give the benefit of the doubt in unprovable situations to black defendants- this is something suggested by some of those commentators on CNN- and that the anger is the inequity in the law. That I can understand, but that hasn't really come out, and if it is that, the focus should be on showing those cases that mirror this one to bring attention to that problem where it exists.

Well, I guess in part because the trial wasn't about giving the benefit of the doubt to the young black man. I see this over and over and it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that it wasn't TM that was on trial, and you can take that two ways. The defendant here was Zimmerman and what you have to see is whether or not you can give him the benefit of the doubt. Why people opposed the trial isn't just because they think Treyvan had it coming. Some of us "opposed the trial" because we saw that there was no way you could convict a man based on the evidence we saw. For disclaimer I never actually "opposed the trial" myself. I think every so often its good to expose our legal and political system and put it up for debate. Before you go say this is some "conservative" view point, ask yourself do you honestely think that the vast majority of all the political analysts on CNN are conservative? Because if you paid attention, very few of them thought there would be a conviction. Are Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos conservatives? I don't think so. They know their stuff.
If you followed the trial objectively and listened to the legal experts, you really cannot have come to the conclusion that a conviction was coming. When I first heard about this case, I was of the opinion that Zimmerman was in the wrong too, but the more I heard the more I questioned what actual case the prosecution had. This is not to say he wasn't also partially to blame for this either. It just says there is no where in this that we can say beyond a reasonable doubt he broke any laws.
So since you can't rationally be mad at the verdict, you must be angry at the laws. But what law exactly? Do you think there should be a law forbidding neighborhood watch to follow someone they deem suspicious? Do you think someone should never be allowed to use a gun to shoot someone unless the other person has a gun too? Do you think someone should not be able to shoot someone in self defense until they are actually on the brink of death themselves? (I loved this part of the trial by the way- did we actually need someone to tell us George Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening? Dude was very alive after the incident wasn't he, so doesn't that answer that question?)..or do you just think that people should not be allowed to carry guns?
Here is another question for you- Do you think that people should not be able to claim self defense when killing someone unless there is a witness that can absolutely 100% corraborate his story? I've heard this hypo brought up before-'How to get away with murder-make sure there are no witnesses and claim self defense" (as if this hasn't been done about a million times before already). Are you suggesting that we change our legal system to where we do NOT give a defendent the benefit of doubt and that unless he can prove his story he is guilty? Have you thought about what that would mean? So if a woman is attacked while walking home and she uses a firearm to defend her self while nobody is around and cannot prove she was attacked she goes to jail because she cannot prove she was attacked? Is that where you want to go?
Maybe that is what is angering people on the other side. Maybe juries don't give the benefit of the doubt in unprovable situations to black defendants- this is something suggested by some of those commentators on CNN- and that the anger is the inequity in the law. That I can understand, but that hasn't really come out, and if it is that, the focus should be on showing those cases that mirror this one to bring attention to that problem where it exists.

Yeah, I'm confused about how any of this stuff is relevant at this point myself.
It seems that at this point it is pretty much a certainty that TM was on top and GZ was on bottom before the shooting. And because of that it pretty much has to be GZ screeming for help, and it seems like that can be proved because during one of the 911 calls you can hear the screaming so if they just match the time stamp of that call to when Jonathan Good called they can sort of say, okay, 20 seconds before he called, what did he see? And the screaming sure does sound like someone is in fear for his life, so this is done, isn't it? Even if that can't be proved well then you just have the theory that after following TM, Zimmerman actually attacked TM, but somehow after being attacked TM got on top. That's what you would have to prove, and thus far I've seen nothing that comes close to proving that. You have TM attacking first, probably a pre-emptive strike because because he didn't know GZs intentions were. That is the most logical thing, so really what the prosecution needs to prove is that GZ didn't need to shoot him while he was on the bottom because he really knew his life wasn't in danger. Good luck with that one, but definitely 2nd degree murder is out.
Also, the shooting occurred after Jonathan Good saw them fighting. If GZ knew someone was going to call for help, why would he shoot TM other than if he thought his life was in danger? He saw Good, so he could only assume that Good saw that he was the one on the bottom since he was yelling to him.

Yeah, I'm confused about how any of this stuff is relevant at this point myself.
It seems that at this point it is pretty much a certainty that TM was on top and GZ was on bottom before the shooting. And because of that it pretty much has to be GZ screeming for help, and it seems like that can be proved because during one of the 911 calls you can hear the screaming so if they just match the time stamp of that call to when Jonathan Good called they can sort of say, okay, 20 seconds before he called, what did he see? And the screaming sure does sound like someone is in fear for his life, so this is done, isn't it? Even if that can't be proved well then you just have the theory that after following TM, Zimmerman actually attacked TM, but somehow after being attacked TM got on top. That's what you would have to prove, and thus far I've seen nothing that comes close to proving that. You have TM attacking first, probably a pre-emptive strike because because he didn't know GZs intentions were. That is the most logical thing, so really what the prosecution needs to prove is that GZ didn't need to shoot him while he was on the bottom because he really knew his life wasn't in danger. Good luck with that one, but definitely 2nd degree murder is out.
Also, the shooting occurred after Jonathan Good saw them fighting. If GZ knew someone was going to call for help, why would he shoot TM other than if he thought his life was in danger? He saw Good, so he could only assume that Good saw that he was the one on the bottom since he was yelling to him.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

I'm sure its already been said somewhere in these answers, but really I think that most people realize that the children of the President of the United States are in need of higher security than your average kid. The NRA is starting to slip away with its arguments.

Holy cow. I caught a bit of the Alex Jones interview on Piers Morgan (guy who wants to have him deported). The NRA might want to reach out to this guy and ask him to please not be a spokesman for them.