Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by kenny41, Mar 24, 2012.
What about Counter-counter-racism?
Hard to do this to yourself when a kid is supposedly eating Skittles and and skipping through the neighborhood innocently. No telling what all the whole truth is but it's obvious that Trayvon engaged this guy in a physical confrontation and inflicted some damage.
My opinion is this.
While the corporate owned media keeps distracting the nation with stories filled with racist related material, the real injustice is secretly and quietly being done behind closed doors, with a stacks of cash being stuffed in pockets.
This story was obviously distorted by the media when it first broke, making it seem like it was a hate crime. Of course, nothing excites the good 'ole US of Aryans...I mean, Americans, like gettin' their chance to have their say-so in a race-related topic. This is no doubt proved by the fact that this thread has 32 pages, whilst the more relevant threads are left with an unflattering -- perhaps ghastly -- few pages.
It's no secret (unless you're a Republican) that corporations run this country. It's no doubt that corporations continue to promote stories that keep the nation distracted, in order to further increase the stronghold the '1%' hold over the rest of the US. The '1%' percent wants to keep the US dumb by its TV programming, credit cards, stupid phones they have nowadays, socials networks (I admit, I use this site and Yahoo answers, but that's it), and whatever else method we continue to fall for, in order to keep the rest of us in debt to them - and to keep us distracted.
This story is silly. This government is an embarrassment. And we keep eatin' it all up, just because they know that by promoting healthcare and race-related material to the public, they'll have us blinded by what's really wrong with the US. And it's not healthcare, nor Hispanics, nor Blacks, nor whites. It's the effing we're gettin', for the effin' stupid we're giving.
I stopped reading at this point because anything you had to say afterward was of no consequence.
The real question is if and when the riots come, what is our vaunted AG Sir Eric going to do about them? So far, I think the indictment of Zimmerman is a stretch, with the burden of proof clearly on the state at least theoretically. And a state which appears to be profiling for the potential riot crowd.
I'm sorry Martin was killed in this unfortunate incident but it seems to me Zimmerman had something of a reason for his actions, e.g. Martin definitely has some documented baggage which should in a sense of fairness be presented as evidence.
At his hearing I definitely noted that Zimmerman looks much different that the mug shots our "elite" media has been bantering about.
Some of what you say may be true but do you really believe that the problem lies mostly with the Republican party or are both parties corrupted? If you believe the former then mabye you're the one who has been blinded by the rhetoric. But if you believe its the latter, why do you think attacking republicans and contributing to the divisiveness would be the best way to approach the problem. By making this a Rep vs Dem issue aren't you just as guilty of distracting us from the realy problem? Either way, you're very words in this post seems to be contradictory to your overall point.
I'm always amused by those people who say we all just need to get along and comprimise so why can't the other party just see it my way so we can move along and live a happy life.
Are there no Democrats who run and own corporations? Or only Republicans?
You've been brainwashed by the left and you are in lockstep with the "it's someone else's fault" faithful following of the liberal machine.
Wasn't it Kerry/Heinz that was complaining about sending jobs overseas to only learn that's where their money came from? Those damn corporations and democrats!!!!
The funny part to me is these people complaining about Corporations and this "1%" fail to realize they are being manipulated by the very Corporations they are protesting.
I am all for more strict Monopoly Laws to break up some of these mega Corporations - including the one I work for - creating more competition and a stronger free market. Why do they never want to discuss that? Why is it always about "taking from those that have"? Ever notice that the ones pushing for this, like Buffett, have already made their millions and been taxed on it. They know you can't tax the millions they already have sitting in bank accounts overseas. They want to keep that club exclusive and make it as difficult as possible for anyone else to join their elite little club.
However, the real irony to me lies in a couple things:
1. If you live in the United States you are most likely already in the 1% of the world. Over 99% of the people in the United States fall in the 1% of the world in both income and standard of living.
2. The biggest Corporation of all is the Federal Government. Like any mega-Corporation, it is filled with waste, corruption and greed. The examples are all over the news right now. The worst part about it is that the Fed Gov is a Corporation that produces nothing (it has no product) and doesn't make any money. It has almost no accountability and makes its own rules as it goes. Its source of income is the reoccurring revenue (and ever increasing) it takes from the taxpayers and producers in our society - taking from the job creators. It also is the only giant Corporation that violates every rule of economics and accounting by consistently running in the red.
It is pretty comical listening to this 1% talk from people that don't have a clue to what they are talking about. It is a talking point pushed by the very 1% they hate so much and they are too ignorant to even realize it.
Yes, it has been known all along that a physical confrontation occurred. The evidence that has been released to the public appears to suggest that Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation. However, I don't think we know the details. As I understand it, if Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, he cannot use the Stand Your Ground law as a defense, because that makes him the aggressor, not the defender.
I did a LOT worse to myself after excessive drinking in college. I'm not saying Martin didn't do that to Zimmerman. I don't know. I'm just saying there are other possibilities. If I was facing a murder charge, I could force copious amounts of blood to leave my skull, too!
Yes, but ours are nicer.
Why is it people are looking for all sorts of ways (even to the point of making things up) to suggest Zimmerman is guilty but refuse to do the same for Martin?
<sarcasm> Why is this so hard to understand? Zimmerman went to the young Trayvon's home, where the kid was working on a school project: artwork of Martin Luther King Jr made out of Skittles and ice tea bottles. Zimmerman, who has a hatred of Skittles since a near death choking incident in '99, kicked in the door, went on a racist expletive laced tirade, and then shot young Martin for wearing a grey hoodie, which happened to look like the SAME hoodie of the gas station attendant who sold him the Skittles back in 1999. True story. </sarcasm>
I believe I said......
"Hard to do this to yourself when a kid is supposedly eating Skittles and and skipping through the neighborhood innocently. No telling what all the whole truth is but it's obvious that Trayvon engaged this guy in a physical confrontation and inflicted some damage."
Actually if he initiated the contact in the form of a neighborhood watch security guard simply questioning why Martin was in the gated neighborhood and then dis-engaged contact and retreated to his vehicle to call it in (as has been reported) and Martin followed him back to his vehicle and initiated a second contact by throwing him to the ground, bashing his head on the pavement and punching him in the face instead of just continuing on his way then Zimmerman's actions very well may end up covered by the "Stand your Ground" law. You and I don't know any more than the race-baiting media wants us to know so the best thing to do is to watch the legal system sift through the details, search for the truth while trying to ignore the hype (hopefully) and get to some sort of justice. I hope they can. The whole thing is sad.
I agree with most of that. If a second interaction was initiated by Martin then Zimmerman may be covered by the law. That is Zimmerman's account of the events. Unfortunately, Zimmerman made sure he was the only one around to tell the story.
Of course we will have to see what comes out in the trial, but we may never know the whole truth. From the facts I have seen, I think your (and Zimmerman's) scenario is unlikely. That story paints a picture of a calm and collected Zimmerman who was attacked by an agitated Martin. The facts seem to show the opposite. Zimmerman was clearly agitated during his conversation with the 911 operator (he was running, his comment about "these ******s always get away!", his ignoring the operator's instructions to disengage, etc.). The interview with Martin's girlfriend (bear in mind this is not yet testimony) says that Martin was calm (just chillin, having a friendly conversation, when prompted to run he said "no, I'm just going to walk away quickly", etc.). All of this shows that Zimmerman initiated the interaction with a hot head while Martin tried to avoid any interaction with a cool head. Based on that I think it is unlikely that the tables completely turned to Zimmerman's scenario. I find it much more likely that there was only one confrontation in which the larger, armed, Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's because Zimmerman is 10 years older, 100 pounds heavier, and he brought the gun.
As I said, I don't know what happened. Everything from Zimmerman stalking Martin like prey to Martin going all NWA on a (Peruvian) honkey are within the realm of possibility. I guess we'll just have to wait for the trial. God I hope it's televised!!!