Well and truly said!

Thank you!

"the racists around the country have grabbed it from the headlines to try and somehow justify the shooting."

No, the Left-wingers grabbed it and turned it into a racial issue to foment race conflict, of course.

How childish can you get? Just wondering......:)

Yet another of the antique bugaboos the rightists love to resurrect, the old "race riots" scare, guess it plays well to old white people huddled around their t.v's in terror of "the blacks" rioting and "comin fur dem in da middle a da nite!"

It was turned into a racial issue by the left. Please stick to content instead of hurling personal attacks.

Thank you.

It does seem cut and dry!

It would appear that the answer to your question is more, much more.

No need to apologize for an excellent news source.

{ I know people of both persuasions that think it's all bullshit. It's politically motivated. }

EX-ACTLY!

So true!

Not to mention a few mom's and dad's!

Good to see you! We have honored guests!

Have you even considered for a moment that if the msm had not jumped onto this to play the racist card (to further drive a wedge of divisiveness upon the populace) that justice would still have been served?

Instead, look at the hate and derision that has been fostered and nurtured right here on current... and I speak truth.

The crud and vitriolic hatred displayed here by current members that has been predicated upon nothing less than suppositions, that are vengeful prejudices regurgitated by vindictive, vacuous ideologues determining and assigning guilt based on despicable ideological rhetoric.

I'd be ashamed to call myself tolerant and understanding if I were to claim to be a "progressive."

Well, first, based on some of the absolute horrific things I've witnessed right-wingers say about Trayvon Martin, I really, honestly think you have no leg to stand on attacking progressive for their conduct. I mean, would you like me to post some examples of things I've seen people call the kid? We're talking four- and six-letter words here.

Second, you can rip on the MSM, but in this case, I disagree with you. If it wasn't for the media, there would have been simply no opportunity for justice, because frankly, the case was closed. It was over. Open and shut. The police said, "no crime here." ONLY after the media got involved, was it genuinely investigated, and charges were filed ... after the city's police chief resigned in disgrace.

Race is hopelessly intertwined in this case, because an unarmed black kid was gunned down by a self-appointed vigilante (and yes, that's what he was). I'm not sure anything can be done about that. But, after some of the things I've seen posted about Trayvon and his race by right-wingers, don't blame progressives for being solely responsible for fanning that flame.

Frankly, if I were a conservative, I'd be pretty damned ashamed.

"I really, honestly think you have no leg to stand on attacking progressive for their conduct. I mean, would you like me to post some examples of things I've seen people call the kid? We're talking four- and six-letter words here."

Please do, and for everyone that you post, I can match it with 10 comments from here on current that have prosecuted, tried and hung him before his day in court - - and the vitriol vomited here which are based on absolute supposition would peel varnish off of the toughest of finishes.

I'm making no judgements of guilt or innocence, because I really don't know what went down, nor do you - that's fact, and not predicated upon unsubstantiated partisan speculation.

What you're in effect are saying is, is that your preconceptions are valid, and my non-judgemental reservations are not! - - which is total hypocritical bullshit!

Have you seen ME convict him?

I don't know if he's guilty. Frankly, I was shocked they charged him with second-degree murder. I don't know how the trial will go.

I mean if people call Zimmie a "murderer," I would respond they have a right to feel anger because a young boy died, and it doesn't appear to make sense that he died, but no one has the call to call Trayvon a four- or six-letter word.

But, here's the deal, if I call OJ a murderer, does that make you angry? Does that make you sick to your stomach. If I call Ben Roethlisberger a rapist, does that make you sick to you stomach? Or if I call Robert Blake a murderer? None of these guys were convicted. But, people call OJ a "murderer" all the time. Does that bother you? Personally, I believe all three were guilty; I and others have our right to our opinions about Zimmerman -- mostly, I want to see justice and I want to see the justice system WORK, and I hope it does, for good or ill.

Nor do I, which is exactly my point. How can we ever reach common ground if it is believed that our respective ideologues are faultless absolutes?

Agree! So very true!

Is it talking about its personal life again, claiming it never talks about its personal life ... because then "leftists" attack it?

Well it would be foolish of us to expect anything like sanity, or coherence... The stories (endless stories already told) don't hold water, this is probably the real reason it doesn't want to talk about these things, trying to keep all the stories straight must be a real task!

Oh ... like what country it actually lives in...?

Yes, amongst so many, many stories told. Exactly!

Yeah. I explained that below. Most of us realize this is wild, wild west. Once you bring it here, it's here.... and there..... and everywhere.

Everything is accurate and truthful; I believe it is a violation of Current guidelines to call other posters liars. Hoever you will find no inconsistencies. Try and find one.

The best way to find out if a person is a liar and has not simply made some mistake is to check what he writes or says about himself. People may mistake specific statistics, but they will not mistake their own lives and experiences.

I think it is pure pettiness to speculate and gossip about the personal lives of dothers on these threads; sticking to content is the mark of mature and intelligent adults. However, if you are going to write disparaging comments, I request that you substantiate your charges.

I think he had several hundred grand donated through the website before that was outed and I believe it kept running so, yeah, he's probably got a pretty good stash. $100,000 up front no problem. Remaining collateral unknown. Book & movie rights? (not kidding). If he'd been charged orginally they'd be a decent chunk of change. With all the hoopla, multiply by 10 maybe? He'll be okay. His wife will be for sure.

Right-wingers and their holy-money! How disgusting, now they can make their holy-dollars off murdering children! A new low for them. Every time I think I've seen the worst those people can do they manage to bring out yet a new even more obscene level of foulness!

Just making the most of what they've got to work with. Fortunately, we are the tolerant bunch.

No, Liberals are the intolerant ones. Their intolerance is primarily toward the thinking and beliefs of others.

"It was just GOP pandering to the hard Right to make them feel like they were somehow empowered with some enhanced protection from, you know, THEM."

Yeah, sure. You need to do some research about what the stand your ground laws are for and the reason behind them. You don't have a clue.

I'll stand on that. Yes, I do have a clue. This was on the street so it plays as self defense any way you cut it. There are no crime laws that inherently protect you from the circumstances of a particular encounter until those circumstances are understood through tangible fact or proponderance of evidence. All the law did in this case was give Sanford Police greater latitude in justifying Zimmerman's release, a decision that turned out to be wrong.
If your comment refers to reference to THEM, don't pretend there is no relevance. We know who they are and that it was a factor from start to finish.

No. The Left used this as an excuse to play their usual race card. It is nothing more than that. There are over 13,000 murders a year, and I do not need to go into how many of them are the sort that to point out the truth, the Leftists would scream because some truths would violate their Political Correctness Fascist Dogma.

Actually, you didn't need to go into any of that at all. The "race card", as you call it comes out because you draw it out. It's the intolerance and stupidity of the Righ-Wingers. You demand it be drawn so you can point at it. The '60's are over, Mishima. Been there, done that. Not a new trick. Boring even.

No, right from the start this became a race issue for the ideologues and hate-mongers. Just like you label the patriots of the Tea Party racists, and claim that the policeman near Harvard arrested a black professor because he was a racist. The hate-mongering race-baiting never ends. You claimed that Mississippi was racist because it appeared that over 70% of whites there voted for Obama, yet, in the same post, that person did the calculations by an estimation of 90 - NINETY - percent of blacks voting for Obama! And you do not see the double-standard, the hypocrisy, the race-baiting, the hate-mongering, the attempts to stifle free speech and exchanges with your branding people racist?

You wrote that? Are you serious? If numbers are difficult you should try to avoid them. Nothing you have written here has any correlation to what I posted. Nothing. You started with some crazy conclusion then tried to assemble some justication because you are off script and have nothing.
Where did I say that; "Mississippi was racist because it appeared that over 70% of whites there voted for Obama"? I said nothing of the sort. At all. Reading comprehension problem. Even the number itself is wrong.
You glean some profound meaning from the 90%? National overall was 96%. I used 90% to avoid conflict over minutia. Still the point is made to those who understand.

Perhaps you should begin again with a calculator or with an assistant.

The rest of it is just your frustration at, it seems, not being able to speak rationally to the issue at hand.

The Right, as in Your Right, as in You, as in member of the Tea Party, are simply hung with the term "racist" or "bigot" or whatever you chose to project on to others, simply because you did the deeds. Period. There is more than ample documentation, books, articles, movies, documentaries, and loads of actual footage from the time (most of it that wonderful black-and-white stuff that's just so REAL). You may somehow think that is unfair because it flipped back and forth as the country progressed.
Were they Democrats? Yes. States-Righters who resisted with all the hatred they could muster. The hated LBJ for the Civil Rights Act so the GOP welcomed them with open arms to become the States-Righters that we see today with all the same hatred and determined to mobilize around the bigotry.
There is no question of fact here. It is plain.

"attempts to stifle free speech"

Ha! Like the right-wing-corporate-fascist-parties ongoing treason of voter suppression? That attempt at stiffing the free speech rights of american citizens to have voice in their political process through their vote?

I apologize for getting you mixed up with someone else on the other thread where they are distorting and lying about voter suppression in Mississippi. I am sure that you saw that post and simply tacitly agreed with it.

{You glean some profound meaning from the 90%? National overall was 96%.}

Thank you for clearing that up. Past research I did showed the same overall figure. It is interesting that not a single president in our entire history (please omit Washington) got more than 61% of the vote. So, what do you think of people voting according to skin color?

Apology accepted. I did not find such a post as you describe but I do not wish to belabor the issue. Since didn't find the thread I don't know what I might have simply agreed with it. It is improper for you to suggest that I tacitly agree with anything of import.

" It is improper for you to suggest that I tacitly agree with anything of import."

See how it is when people assume something that may not apply at all? Now imagine if it is about your family!

How about not deflecting and answering the question in the post above?

Ok. You just looked it up. That is fine.
It is inevitable that people will vote according to skin color, wherever there is racial divide in the world. It is rooted in basic human instinct to fear or be distrustful of those who are different. It requires significant intellect to overcome and many don't possess the intellect or have accepted the hidden messages that there is something to be feared. When there is co-mingling it can be relieved but many refuse to accept that so we remain segregated and don't communicate. That just perpetuates the "problem".
For national elections it makes no significant difference. As you saw from the 2008 election, Obama got 96% of the black vote but they were only 13% of the total vote. The effect is diminished by the large population of blacks in the South. Those went to McCain anyway. No discernable effect. It is a political wedge issue and/because it is a cultural issue. It is a much more important factor at the state level where the distribution of race concentrations is not evenly distributed. It is not unusual in the South for a high-% black district to have a white representative because both parties ran a white man. It is what we call the "Good Old Boys Club". Both parties work together to ensure white control.

I hate this argument about Obama and the black vote.

Obama only got a marginally higher percentage of the black vote than Kerry, Gore and Clinton. Republicans have consistently gotten 10 percent of the black vote or less for more than 20 years.

{When there is co-mingling it can be relieved }

I am going to take a bit of a chance, but if what I say gets twisted and distorted, it will not happen again.

Based on personal experiences - with friends and relatives - I have consistently observed something related to that: When there is a relatively rare proportion of a certain group that is "different" from those already there, little to no prejudice is seen. In fact, the "odd" persons become sort of a celebrity in some ways. I have noticed this in different countries, too.

But when many come into that area, conflict ensues. I contend that some, if not most, of this is due to culture, and it may even be a reasonable and rational response. People in an area enjoy a culture with which they are comfortable. Suddenly, a group comes and their culture conflicts with the one already there. Maybe they enjoy quiet and the new culture seems loud, for example. In reality, the first culture worries that they culture will be superceded or changed by the new culture, so they resist.

Thoughts?

I know what you mean. It's just a political wedge issue for the GOP to mobilize around. The problem for red states is they can't continue to stuff ballot boxes and miscount precincts. These are modern times.
The GOP mistake was to jump on Acorn. They, of course, we're cleared of all that because it was nothing more than mistakes at the street level. Dems just dumped them. GOP took it as a victory but it set up the Dems with the high ground to hammer the GOP. So we have the Mississippi issue.

That is not completely accurate, but close. Kerry got 88%,, Gorged food got 90% (not over), and Billary got 83% and 84% in the elections. Please do not exaggerate, OK?

That is what I have to say on the matter. And if fact, you continue to make this exchange tedious. I don't think there is anything else to discuss here.

I remember a few years ago, Bush didn't go to a NAACP meeting and came right out and said something to the effect of "why should I? Blacks aren't going to vote for me." He came right and said it.

I don't deflect. That is your specialty. You have stated that you do not like the involvement of your family. I did not involve your family.
I have already explained this. Again, you are simply tedious and argumentative for no useful purpose.

I had forgotten that. Ha! At least he told the truth that time, for once.
I think both parties realize that it makes little difference nationally. But with redistricting off the 2010 census the red staters are concerned about maintaining status quo, especially with blacks/hispanic becoming more system savvy.
If, say like Mississippi, the blacks are some 37% and hispanic are, what?.. 10%. Together they can be very disruptive to the legislature. Red states are going for the gold as hard as they can now because it's their best chance. It's down hill later. Hence the effort to put in an ID system that limits blacks.

I see. If I openly ask your thoughts about the nature of prejudice, you simply state "that is all I have to say on the matter." Yet you write that you are an independent thinker. I see now.

Oh, yeah -- 88 and 90 percent, BIG exaggeration ... not like "you leftists are all racists and hate freedom..." Whatever.

Well, Bush and Dole each got 10 percent ...

I forgot about Perot.

Besides, this is all terribly off-topic and I'm done with you tonight because as usual you're arguing just for the sake of argument and no other discernible reason, and I won't be giving you any more of the attention you crave.

You will always see what you wish to see, Mishima. I said "that is all I have to say on the matter" because.... wait for it...... wait for it........ That is all I have to say on the matter. As I said, it is simply tedious because of comments like this one. Simply tiresome.
As to you comment about new people coming into the area and posing a threat: That is trivial and shows a distinct lack of understanding of those matters. As I said earlier; "You are from a different world."
Done

Ok. Good night.
Mishima will turn the light off.

I brought up a new topic and asked your opinion. It was not even political. Left-wingers always claim they can have an HONEST discussion about race. I have found that it is impossible to have any kind of honest discussion about race with Liberals. I have yet to find an exception, but I still have a sliver of hope.

Well. from 83% to OVER 90% - yes, that is an exaggeration.

Hah, I misread your comment anyway.

I knew it! OCD!

No doubt!

You know Reagan got only 9 percent of the black vote in 1984? And he got 14 percent in 1980, so African-Americans kinda soured on him, it seems.

"THEM" is somewhat like "they" so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Stand your Ground Laws (SGL) were written so that an intended victim who does not turn and run but rather stays and defends him/herself + family etc. at the scene is protected from over zealous prosecution by the state. Investigation will reveal the facts in the case and if what I say is true in a circumstance then the state cannot go after the proposed victim. This saves taxpayers and the proposed victim the journey in court of having to prove self defense. In other words, the onus of proof is on the prosecution to show that our victim acted outside the scope of self defense.
It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was released pending investigation, charges can be brought whenever for felony crime. SGL are a really good thing. If someone kicks in my door I don't want to have to scoop up everyone and run to the farthest closet then wait until the bad guy come to me. The criminal calls the tune. If he/she expires in his efforts then so be it. The state should not stomp on the intended victim.

Excellent!

Figuring this out as you go along? Before edit your post actually described the Castle Doctrine, which has been around for centuries in Western culture. You are in your home. You are inherently non-aggressive toward society and there is no available retreat.
SGL expands that to places outside the home. Had Zimm remained in his car I would defend your side of this (apart from my objection to the cultural implications of SGL itself). Had he remained in his car Zimm would have received far greater benefit from SGL and, indeed, the likelihood of his head pounding the pavement would have been virtually zip
Reality, Paratus, is that we are discussing nuance of law, the discussion should actually be the many cases of stupid existent in this whole business. The Black community (THEM, of course you know) reacted to a government that attempted to make the situation disappear. THAT is why outside assistance ran to the aid of the locals. Yes, they pulled the "race card" that you gave them through years of oppression, the "states-rights" mentality. There is simply no plausible reason for the city's (and state) initial reaction other than the race issue. Subsequent administrative actions show that the decision was not the right one. IMO, the SGL was counterproductive in that it gave Sanford the wiggle room it needed to rationalize its initial action.
Again IMO, it's all moot because the case will plea bargained. Everybody wants this to go away and it's for damn sure the state does not want to air out SGL in MSM. Zimm's lawyer will likely angle for a few years with consideration for time served. He'll be out in a year or less. If he's got good sense he'll strongly advise Zimm to gift a substantial portion of donations to the family as an act of good will. That would help a lot.
Wouldn't that be cool?..... all that Right-Wing money winding up with the family? Poetic justice.

"He came right and said it."

Wow he must have been off his meds that day, a few words of truth were actually spoken! Herr karl rove musta been screamin mad at that!

"Had Zimm remained in his car"

And had Martin not gone to the 7/11 this would not had happened. If the queen ahd the testicles she would be the king. that isn't how it is. SGL should expand outside the home. Intended victim is and intended victim regardless of location.

"The Black community (THEM, of course you know)"

Actually no I didn't. SGL would have resulted in the "city's initial reaction". Unlike you I don't see the race card as something to be trotted out when I need a trump card and no I dont believe Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin was black.

If I were Zimmerman I would go for the jury trial. He has the injuries, Martin has injuries to his hand, Florida has the SGL and it is Zimmermans word against a dead man. I wasn't there, don't know all the facts but this is based on what little I know. An impartial jury would be key.

You initially sought to educate me on the Castle Doctrine, then changed your comment realizing that it was not germaine. The thrust of the post you reference is stupid met stupid and shit happened because Zimm didn't know WTF he was doing. The queen had no options as to her junk. Zimmerman did. Remaining in his vehicle would have afforded him considerably more standing under SGL. Again, stupid vs stupid, but the onus for understanding the situation was Zimmerman's. Fail.

The case has not been tried yet. Is it possible that Zimmerman has not yet seen justice for having to go through all of this just for defending himself from a violent attack.

"... having to go through all of this.." What "all of this"? This man killed another human being, Mishima. The "all of this" you are apparently referring to is SOP for someone who has killed another human being. People here are expressing their belief, based on what they know, that he is guilty. That is common. Your apparent lack of concern demonstates your lack of empathy for the victim. That would be, again, the "killed human being". You demonstrate psychopathy again. We talked about that in the the other thread. Not a good idea. You become a political liability to your superiors.

I refer to the truth that Zimmerman has not been found guilty yet, and maybe he actually was in fear of his life. But you have already hung him, and your counterparts would certainly welcome the Florida death penalty - I have seen them write it! And the death penalty, like abortion, means the end of a human life, ya know.

"Will Trayvon's family ever see justice?"
They will, on the day the verdict is read. Regardless of the finding, guilty or not, justice will have been served.

If self defense holds up and he is exonerated then yes, "all of this". IF Zimmerman is found not guilty he will have been found to have acted within the law which does have provisions for homicide. People are not willy nilly charged because they kill someone but because there is probable cause to believe that they did it unlawfully. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty. He certainly killed someone but that does not mean he violated the law. You don't know if he is guilty, I don't know. I say wait until the trial until we pronounce him guilty.

Will Trayvon's family ever see justice?

Not if the NRA can help it

but surely as a right-winger you kowtow to the holy-party line and are for the death penalty?

...and the right-wingers!

I have hung no one. Neither has Leen61. Her belief in his guilt is her opinion. Being not directly involved she is entitled to that opinion. She is entitled to be wrong as well. As an aside, I would point out the "wisdom of the crowd" has been shown to be accurate to an uncanny degree.
You claim the high moral ground based on "innocent until proven guilty". Then you say: "... just for defending himself from a violent attack." You have made the prejudgement as well; just the opposite one. How is that better? Leen61's prejudgement guarantees a trial. Yours sets him free.

You have distorted and lied about what I wrote. I will not repeat it; I have had enough of repeating posts with you. Suffice to say, you misrepresented what I wrote.

{Regardless of the finding, guilty or not, justice will have been served.}

That is it! Real justice.

The "all of this" applies to all similar situations so it's moot. I could argue that once he began the whole episode he placed "all of this" on the table. That's why we have people out there who know what they're doing and those who should stay out of it.
Heck, I don't know if he's guilty either. I seriously doubt that Z knows, even if his story is straight. Fact is, I don't know why we're wasting our time on this. Just wish Sanford would have charged him to start with. Given the river of crap out there that directly affects us all, this is just MSM entertainment. But it won't end and whatever we do we'll get more MSM interpretation by the clueless for the clueless. :)

I quoted what you wrote, Mishima. The meaning is quite clear. You are often quite loose with word definitions but there are none to misinterpret there. If you wanted different meaning you should have used different words. At the same time you praise Paratus for seizing a phrase from Incredulous, obviously rhetorical in context, and using it in a literal sense to make a weak point.
It is boringly the same each time. You are simply an ideologue who defends it no matter what, It's impossible to have conversation because you can't. When, in this case, the point was clearly made that your position was no different than Leen61's you assert misrepresentation. You simply can't handle it. You have your scripts but nothing behind to back them up. As with Romney, off-script is simply more than you can handle.
In that context I understand your "had enough".

No, you are the ideologue who twists words. You actually are telling me about what I value and do and think in my personal life!

{The "all of this" applies to all similar situations so it's moot.}

No, the Left-winger media played the race card really big time on this one.

{ I don't know why we're wasting our time on this.}

The Left sees a chance to claim racism. That is why.

Is this your professional life? If so, how do you separate it from your personal life here? How would someone here know which is which? How could I possibly know what you value/do/think in your personal life? I can only know what you bring here? If you don't want it known, don't bring it here.

{how do you separate it from your personal life here?}

I do not carry this into my personal life much at all. Almost none. It appears that you must if you suspect that I do.

{How could I possibly know what you value/do/think in your personal life?}

You cannot, of course, but you act like you do.

{If you don't want it known, don't bring it here.}

I do not. You have declared what I value related to time and money. You have made comments about my family. You are distorting and lying again.

The "race card" will be there for quite some time, Mishima. You Right-Wingers created the race card by attempting to suppress human beings to a lesser existence for no other reason than you had the power to do it. Do you even realize how heinous that is? I think not. You hate it so much because you know that it was Right-Wing hatred that made the race card the ace of hearts. Sorry.
As I said above. You know exactly when the race card will appear. If you don't want it played, don't create those circumstances. But you always do. It is the same with Right-Wingers every time. They do hateful things then hate those who call them out.

No it is the Leftists who are the racists.
Our laws protecting equal access and opportunities are in place, of course; therefore, the Modern Liberal who is making these claims has brought to light his or her deep-seated racism:

1.The Liberal, by virtue of his assertion that any “minorities” need special help is implying that they are inferior. Unless people are inferior in some way, they do not need help, but Modern Liberals believe that they do, and this reveals one aspect of their racism.

2.The Liberal is refusing to look at the individual and instead looks at people as members of groups defined by skin color; that is what racists do. Their very ideology and psyche virtually necessitates their looking at people as part of some category, and that is a tell-tale mark of a racist.

3.The Liberal, by revising history, assumes certain races and ethnicities want more representation. Again, he assumes—by virtue of race—that people of certain skin colors must feel inferior because, the Modern Liberal assumes again, they need to have history revised to raise their self-esteem. This is about as condescending as it gets: How would you like someone to assume you must feel inferior to the “rest of us” by virtue of your skin pigmentation?

4.The Liberal is actually destroying lives of people whom he teaches are victims or oppressed. When a person becomes convinced that he is a victim or a member of an “oppressed” class, it permanently changes him—for the worse.

5.The Liberal is using various groups to enhance his own status and sense of superiority. By claiming he knows what is best for Group X, the Liberal attempts to elevate his status as both an authority and a savior of a group that he deems inferior and in need of help.

6.The Liberal undermines Rule of Law by not treating people as individuals. The law is not perfect, but to change it to meet outcomes or treat members of a group differently is to pervert the law and seize the rights of others.

no they wont. The loss is beyond justice. All because of stupid prejudice pushed on FOX TRASH network. We should go after them.!!!!

those are included
only they follow the preacher reading from a tin can

Anything with reference to your family was associated with conjecture about your future life based on your ideology and no specific person That is all. You offered the information freely. That you have kids. Your son is starting a business. And, of course the Tea Party in Sarasota, as well as several other small things along the way. For most here it a facet of their personal life and they understand that what they bring here is available to all.
Since you did not answer, I will assume this is your professional life.