She-Guevara racist white nationalist
Comments
-
I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
See? Liberal media fault.oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.MikeDamone said:
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.SFGbob said:
Not the question I asked Kunt.MikeDamone said:
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.SFGbob said:
What happen to the violent crime rate between 1960 and 1990 Hondo? How much did it increase? And how much would it have to increase before it could be called an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
I'm just asking you to support your srory man. I also know what's happened to crime stats the last 30 years and what's happened to poverty for those 30 years. So post up the facts.SFGbob said:
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are.
It is some mighty fine tuff shit talk though.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation? -
I admire your spunk. Lol. Cum on the tits.creepycoug said:
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.MikeDamone said:
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.SFGbob said:
Not the question I asked Kunt.MikeDamone said:
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.SFGbob said:
What happen to the violent crime rate between 1960 and 1990 Hondo? How much did it increase? And how much would it have to increase before it could be called an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
I'm just asking you to support your srory man. I also know what's happened to crime stats the last 30 years and what's happened to poverty for those 30 years. So post up the facts.SFGbob said:
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are.
It is some mighty fine tuff shit talk though.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation? -
Fat George didn't attack or assault anyone. Fat George lived in that neighborhood and briefly followed someone who didn't live in that neighborhood. From the time Trademark took off running to the time Zimmerman hung up with the police operator Trademark could have been back at the place he was staying and torching up the weed he had just bought a blunt for. But that's not what happened. Trademark decided to get into a fight, to show the "creepy ass cracker" that he wasn't a punk.creepycoug said:
> There was no 'evidence' for you to observe supporting what you take on faith from George as being true. That is not in dispute.SFGbob said:
I haven't taken Zimmerman's word on anything. I looked at the physical evidence and I watched the trial. There was a reason why the police weren't going to charge him with a crime. I brought up Trayvon's comment about Zimmerman because it actually shows that Trademark profiled him. While the claims about Zimmerman profiling Trademark are pulled squarely out of your ass.creepycoug said:
Says the guy who takes Zimmerman's word on its face that Trayvon "doubled back to kick his ass", even though nobody saw any such "doubling back", and even though Zimmerman absolutely needs that point to stick to make his self-defense claim even appear. Says the guy who ignores one of the few facts that was not in dispute: that Zimmerman was following this kid and had already tried and convicted him of doing 'something' and was concerned that he would 'get away' from, you know, walking down the sidewalk.SFGbob said:
Wow, if only the prosecution would have called you. You seem to know all about the facts of the case that the state wasn't able to uncover. You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years. In fact, Trademark profiled Zimmerman when he told his girl friend that Zimmerman looked like a "Creepy ass Cracker."TurdBuffer said:"Trademark beating on Zimmerman violated all kinds of fucking laws and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to plug him."
Look dude, that's the story the jury bought and Trayvon couldn't speak for himself, so we're stuck with it, and there's no need to keep rubbing it in. What I find terrible in that case is the absolute profiling and prejudice exercised by Zimmerman, and the complete inability of that dumb-fuck wannabe cop to de-escalate the situation with words. Thus, he had no business at all playing rent-a-cop that night, and Trayvon wouldn't be dead if he wasn't. At a minimum, it's a tragedy, and you sound like a yahoo gun nut to keep grinding away at "Trademark" and all that shit.
I run into weird, suspicious characters in my neighborhood a lot, because I live within walking distance of the local business district where shitheads rifle cars and roll drunk people for their wallets fairly frequently, and I've had a few showdowns with people I knew were casing or burglarizing the area, but I never stalked a person like Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, because that escalates vs. de-escalates the situation. Zimmerman is a douche, as we all know by now and a douche with a gun is a threat to everyone.
Would you be posting like this if Zimmerman was a known pedophile? I doubt it. And he probably is.
Just how much of a beating was Zimmerman supposed to take before he could respond? And following someone in public doesn't equal "stalking." Trademark was well on his way to becoming a thug. Guns, drugs and fighting were already things he had plenty of experience with. Let it be a lesson, if you're going to attack and start beating people you might want to make sure they aren't packing.
Interesting that you bring up Trayvon's comments about Zimmerman. It would seem to suggest that Trayvon was at least arguably in apprehension of harm with this adult following him around for no apparent reason. You couple that with the 911 tape and it looks like maybe Fat George was the one up to no good that night.
Nobody really knows. If I had to guess, George got himself into something through some combination of his mouth and his actions and severely underestimated this kid, and then as he found himself getting his ass kicked, panicked, and shot him.
And while we're on the 'on his way to becoming a thug' shtick, let's not forget that Zimmie himself was far from a model citizen. There is enuff shit out there about him and his wife, both before and after the incident, to call into question whether he was out there 'up to no good'. Then you add the tape of the 911 call.
There was no "911 tape" it was the recorded call to the non-emergency police dispatch. And there's nothing on that tape that implicates Zimmerman in anything.
Moral of the story, don't go swinging on people when you don't know if they might be packing heat. Trademark got exactly what he deserved.
> 911 tape vs. recorded call is a distinction without a difference. Weak af. What that recording represents is the only evidence we have of either person's pre-altercation state of mind.
> The only physical evidence there was for you to look up was the evidence that Zimmerman can't fight, and thus couldn't finish what he may well have started. There was no evidence, physical or otherwise, of any kind proffered to substantiate that which you hope/assume: the double back claim. Well, other than George, whose chicken is cooked w/o that version of the story.
> The claim that Zimmerman profiled is squarely obvious and almost impossible to dispute; the only thing coming out of anyone's ass is the irrational obstinance with which you deny it. You, yourself, in another post, said that Trayvon fit the profile of people who had committed crimes in the neighborhood. If Z were not profiling, then that point would be, well, rather pointless. Would it not? SO why bring it up? And, in fact, we have the tape of the 911 call to establish, w/o question, that he was indeed profiling the kid. Otherwise, you don't have "these assholes always get away" and "these fucking punks", and the entire thing would not have happened: not the call, not the following, not the altercation and not the shooting. I think what's really up your ass is your head.
> Trayvon's comments, albeit using colloquially racist language, also indicated that Zimmerman's behavior wasn't normal and that he was tracking him. And Zimmerman's reason for doing that, lest we forget, was because the kid was guilty af of walking on the sidewalk minding his own business.
> You continuously bring up the vices of a 17-year old kid, and all the while not once do you acknowledge any of Fat George's shortcomings. All your focus is on the kid's minor league trouble and your assessment that he was "on his way to becoming a thug." Nevermind that Zimmerman seemed to be quite a piece of shit himself, involved in multiple domestic violence calls, arrests and restraining orders, married to a women who attempted to illegally hide assets and perjure herself, and himself arrested for assaulting a police officer. The whole exaggerated (by him) punching incident for (according to multiple witnesses) bragging about killing Martin. Auctioned the gun with which he killed Martin. The list goes on. Somehow, you mysteriously considered none of those things in your thoughtful deliberations. What a guy.
> Is it really that hard to just say that black teenage boys walking alone at night make you nervous too? You seem to be quite aligned with George Zimmerman, who comes off like a world class shit pile, in that you cut him every benefit of the doubt, and the dead kid zero such benefit.
> The real moral of the story here is that you think it would be justified for a kid to shoot your kid to keep from your kid from beating his ass, no questions asked. Sounds good to me.
Where was Trademark all of that time when George was talking on his phone? For all Zimmerman knew the police were going to be there any second. Zimmerman didn't start a fight that for all he knew was going to be witnessed by the police.
You admit that Trademark was beating George's ass. So just how much of a beating was he supposed to take? How many times would you let me smash your head into the concrete after I'd already broken your nose?
-
I don't know enough of the details to know what really happened. The Zimmerman guy sounds like a stupid cock if what you say is true, and should have never been a cop. If the guy who got shot was acting suspicious though, or giving him a hard time or attacking him, it justifies the cop following him and using force to stop him if he was being attacked. I don't know the details of why he was shot. Did he pull something out that looked like a gun or attack the cop? Regardless, it was an incident that the left has used as just another excuse to sow more racial division and law enforcement hating in America.creepycoug said:
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.MikeDamone said:
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.SFGbob said:
Not the question I asked Kunt.MikeDamone said:
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.SFGbob said:
What happen to the violent crime rate between 1960 and 1990 Hondo? How much did it increase? And how much would it have to increase before it could be called an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
I'm just asking you to support your srory man. I also know what's happened to crime stats the last 30 years and what's happened to poverty for those 30 years. So post up the facts.SFGbob said:
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are.
It is some mighty fine tuff shit talk though.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation? -
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
This is why I fucking despise the left.SFGbob said:
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
He wasn't a cop. He was just a guy who lived in the neighborhood, a neighborhood I might add that had a number of break-ins and robberies including a home invasion robbery and in each case it was young black males who were responsible. Zimmerman had every reason to be suspicious of some high as a kite kid who was walking around in the rain looking like he didn't belong there.oregonblitzkrieg said:
I don't know enough of the details to know what really happened. The Zimmerman guy sounds like a stupid cock if what you say is true, and should have never been a cop. If the guy who got shot was acting suspicious though, or giving him a hard time or attacking him, it justifies the cop following him and using force to stop him if he was being attacked. I don't know the details of why he was shot. Did he pull something out that looked like a gun or attack the cop? Regardless, it was an incident that the left has used as just another excuse to sow more racial division and law enforcement hating in America.creepycoug said:
And what's the use of the "K"? It is, after all, the "C" word.MikeDamone said:
What’s with the name calling man? I was just pointing out a fact. Calm the fuck down.SFGbob said:
Not the question I asked Kunt.MikeDamone said:
Started dropping in 1990 about 17 years after the legal genocide of trashy people’s kids before they were born. And by genoicide I mean a larger percentage of blacks.SFGbob said:
What happen to the violent crime rate between 1960 and 1990 Hondo? How much did it increase? And how much would it have to increase before it could be called an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
I'm just asking you to support your srory man. I also know what's happened to crime stats the last 30 years and what's happened to poverty for those 30 years. So post up the facts.SFGbob said:
Hondo I've seen your Kunt act enough around here. I post stats that show a doubling in murder, robbery, rape, and you then engage in a semantics based Kunt act over the word "explosion."2001400ex said:
Present your stats. Support your argument.SFGbob said:
And I asked you what would qualify as an explosion. I've seen your Kunt act enough times already Hondo. Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an explosion? Yes or no?2001400ex said:
I asked for the stats to back it up.SFGbob said:
Hondo, lets get a real gauge on just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are. Comparing the rate of crime in 1958 America, with the rate of crime in 1978 America is it fair to say the crime rate exploded? What would the increase have to be before you could describe it as an "explosion?"2001400ex said:
Like such fag Bob, you seem to think there's been an explosion in crime rates.. Where are the stats to back this up?WestlinnDuck said:
Poverty isn’t necessarily “the” cause of crime. Middle America was poor in the 1930. Very little crime. There was also very little illegitimacy. American is extremely wealthy in 2018. There is lots of crime compared to 1938. There is also lots of illegitimacy. Having illegitimate kids is a good way to get poor. Illegitimate kids having illegitimate kids is a really, really good way to get and stay poor. Get through high school, get a job, get married before you have kids is a great recipe to not be poor. That is also a good indicator that you won’t be a criminal. Call it good moral judgment. Of course, that is no seen as “white privilege” by ignorant leftards. Recipe works for Americans of all colors.
Would a doubling of the murder rate qualify as an "explosion?"
And there's a lot more to crime stats when you are talking in relation to poverty than just the murder rate.
Give me the number in the increase that would make it okay to call it an "explosion?"
Btw, the level of your ignorance is really something. Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of American post war society and what happened to the crime rates in this country through-out the 60s, 70s and 80s would have no problem describing it as an "explosion" in crime. Amazing how poorly informed you are.
It is some mighty fine tuff shit talk though.
Somehow I don't think so. But I admire your spunk commenting on a case that you admittedly didn't pay attention to. And, just guessing, that while people with political agendas use other people all the time in the 'water is whet' sense, there are 'liberals' and maybe just human beings who care a little that this Zimmerman fellow fucked around with a kid for doing nothing and, in response to his fucking embarrassing inability to handle his shit against a 170 lb. teenager, popped him with a gun.oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
I am frankly shocked as shit that the entire scenario doesn't fire you up given your oft-professed concern with victim's rights. Again, legal citizen, 17-year old kid walking alone, unarmed, followed by armed dude freaking out (taped recording) over the fact that the kid is out walking alone because he fits a profile, follows the kid all hopped up that he's going to 'get away' (from what we don't know), picks a fight he can't finish and shoots the kid. I know if it were Bob's kid he'd do nothing because Bob would think his kid had it coming. You have bigger balls than Bob. What say you in this situation?
-
See. Liberal media fault.SFGbob said:
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
Not entirely, racist white liberals and SJW’s warriors who wanted to use the death of a young black kid to whip up racial division and smear the country as intractablely racist also played a role, so yes you could blame the media, since they are mostly one in the same2001400ex said:
See. Liberal media fault.SFGbob said:
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
Holy fuck all.SFGbob said:
Not entirely, racist white liberals and SJW’s warriors who wanted to use the death of a young black kid to whip up racial division and smear the country as intractablely racist also played a role, so yes you could blame the media, since they are mostly one in the same2001400ex said:
See. Liberal media fault.SFGbob said:
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
Truth make your snatch hurt Hondo?
-
We can all chip in a dime for some Vagisil.SFGbob said:Truth make your snatch hurt Hondo?
-
You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years.
Um, @SFGbob: You maybe wanna take another crack at that? Or stick with the "I've never shot anyone in my life. Other than that one guy" logic. Proofread much? -
MikeDamone said:
Hondo gave these boreds AIDS
-
I'll grant you there is truth in this. Fair point.SFGbob said:
The only reason it became a big story is because initially the left thought Zimmerman was a white guy. When it turned out he was Hispanic they still turned him into a "White Hispanic."oregonblitzkrieg said:I never paid much attention to this Zimmerman shit, but this much is true: the left doesn't give one single crap about the kid who got shot ded. They're just interested in racializing the issue because they're race baiting, racist cunts. If it was a white kid shot by a black cop or a latino cop, we wouldn't have heard a single peep out of them.
-
Dem Tittays tho.
-
Under socialism, is there equal distribution of motorboating?TurdBuffer said:
Dem Tittays tho. -
"Staring at my Tits? I like that alot. Wanna motorboat them?"
-
You're right, confusing statement by me. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference but I don't think he just saw a black guy walking through his neighborhood and therefore suspected him of wrong doing. There were blacks that lived in that housing development. He was friendly with many of them. I think he saw someone who looked like the people who'd been ripping off the neighborhood acting strangely and that aroused his suspicion.TurdBuffer said:You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years.
Um, @SFGbob: You maybe wanna take another crack at that? Or stick with the "I've never shot anyone in my life. Other than that one guy" logic. Proofread much?
Profiling gets a bad name but we all profile. It's a shorthand way that our brains make sense of the world. Take for example the shooting yesterday in Maryland. When I first heard about it my brain immediately pictured the prep as a middle aged white guy or at least a male perp. I "profiled" the type of person who is usually responsible for those kind of shootings. I'm I racist against white people because when I first heard about it my initial reaction was to think it was a white male?
Is there anyone here who after hearing a story about someone who plays defensive back in college or the NFL and being told that person was in the room next door wouldn't walk into that room and suspect that athletic looking black guy was the DB before assuming that it was the athletic looking white guy?
It doesn't make you a racist just because you make assumptions that are usually accurate. If you hear about smash and grab robberies going on at Apple stores here in the Bay Area, why wouldn't you assume that the perps were black? It would be man bites dog if they were white and our brains just don't work that way. -
That's a lot of words to say you are racist.SFGbob said:
You're right, confusing statement by me. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference but I don't think he just saw a black guy walking through his neighborhood and therefore suspected him of wrong doing. There were blacks that lived in that housing development. He was friendly with many of them. I think he saw someone who looked like the people who'd been ripping off the neighborhood acting strangely and that aroused his suspicion.TurdBuffer said:You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years.
Um, @SFGbob: You maybe wanna take another crack at that? Or stick with the "I've never shot anyone in my life. Other than that one guy" logic. Proofread much?
Profiling gets a bad name but we all profile. It's a shorthand way that our brains make sense of the world. Take for example the shooting yesterday in Maryland. When I first heard about it my brain immediately pictured the prep as a middle aged white guy or at least a male perp. I "profiled" the type of person who is usually responsible for those kind of shootings. I'm I racist against white people because when I first heard about it my initial reaction was to think it was a white male?
Is there anyone here who after hearing a story about someone who plays defensive back in college or the NFL and being told that person was in the room next door wouldn't walk into that room and suspect that athletic looking black guy was the DB before assuming that it was the athletic looking white guy?
It doesn't make you a racist just because you make assumptions that are usually accurate. If you hear about smash and grab robberies going on at Apple stores here in the Bay Area, why wouldn't you assume that the perps were black? It would be man bites dog if they were white and our brains just don't work that way. -
-
Very few words just to say you're a pedophile Hondo.
-
Actually liked the Creepy and Turd back and forth. That was reasonable and well thought out discussion, but it is mixed in with so much AIDS it's still hard to read.
-
Lol ok!SFGbob said:Very few words just to say you're a pedophile Hondo.
-
I don't see color.SFGbob said:
You're right, confusing statement by me. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference but I don't think he just saw a black guy walking through his neighborhood and therefore suspected him of wrong doing. There were blacks that lived in that housing development. He was friendly with many of them. I think he saw someone who looked like the people who'd been ripping off the neighborhood acting strangely and that aroused his suspicion.TurdBuffer said:You have no idea if Zimmerman "profiled" anyone other than the fact that Trademark did fit the profile of the people who had been robbing the homes in that area for the previous two years.
Um, @SFGbob: You maybe wanna take another crack at that? Or stick with the "I've never shot anyone in my life. Other than that one guy" logic. Proofread much?
Profiling gets a bad name but we all profile. It's a shorthand way that our brains make sense of the world. Take for example the shooting yesterday in Maryland. When I first heard about it my brain immediately pictured the prep as a middle aged white guy or at least a male perp. I "profiled" the type of person who is usually responsible for those kind of shootings. I'm I racist against white people because when I first heard about it my initial reaction was to think it was a white male?
Is there anyone here who after hearing a story about someone who plays defensive back in college or the NFL and being told that person was in the room next door wouldn't walk into that room and suspect that athletic looking black guy was the DB before assuming that it was the athletic looking white guy?
It doesn't make you a racist just because you make assumptions that are usually accurate. If you hear about smash and grab robberies going on at Apple stores here in the Bay Area, why wouldn't you assume that the perps were black? It would be man bites dog if they were white and our brains just don't work that way. -
Fat George didn't attack or assault anyone. Fat George lived in that neighborhood and briefly followed someone who didn't live in that neighborhood. From the time Trademark took off running to the time Zimmerman hung up with the police operator Trademark could have been back at the place he was staying and torching up the weed he had just bought a blunt for. But that's not what happened. Trademark decided to get into a fight, to show the "creepy ass cracker" that he wasn't a punk.
Where was Trademark all of that time when George was talking on his phone? [Walking? Standing in one place?
Things he's allowed to do as an American citizen.] For all Zimmerman knew the police were going to be there any second. Zimmerman didn't start a fight that for all he knew was going to be witnessed by the police.
You admit that Trademark was beating George's ass. So just how much of a beating was he supposed to take? How many times would you let me smash your head into the concrete after I'd already broken your nose?
You don't know any of what I bolded. At. All. It's all conjecture based on what you hope happened so that you can justify the killing of a kid you don't approve of.
How much? I don't know. If someone fucks with your kid at school, and your kid winds up in a fight with that kid, and your kid surprisingly starts kicking that kid's ass, how much of a beating should that kid take before shooting your kid? What if that kid was following your kid around and being a shit bag and pushed him past his limits? In the wake of your kid's killing, would you be making the points you're making here? What if there were no witnesses to establish who threw the first punch, but there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the kid who shot your kid was the instigator by following him around and being an agitator for no reason? What if that kid also had a history of arrests for smacking his mom around? Would that fact that you had caught your kid with weed and that your kid had been in fights at school before be the primary considerations in dismissing fault of the shooter?
Again, you put a lot of stock in some trouble from the 17-year old's background, and you ignore entirely the piles of paper it would take to list Zimmerman's adult resume qualifications to be shit-bag of the year.
I can't remember the last time someone here not named Sledog clung on to such a loser argument so steadfastly. Well done. -
Actually, looking at the facts you can know quite a bit of it. There's no evidence that Zimmerman ever hit or struck Trademark. No marks on his hands so sign of any physical struggle with Trademark like Trademarks clothes being stretched out and pulled and no marks or bruises on Trademarks face or body.creepycoug said:Fat George didn't attack or assault anyone. Fat George lived in that neighborhood and briefly followed someone who didn't live in that neighborhood. From the time Trademark took off running to the time Zimmerman hung up with the police operator Trademark could have been back at the place he was staying and torching up the weed he had just bought a blunt for. But that's not what happened. Trademark decided to get into a fight, to show the "creepy ass cracker" that he wasn't a punk.
Where was Trademark all of that time when George was talking on his phone? [Walking? Standing in one place?
Things he's allowed to do as an American citizen.] For all Zimmerman knew the police were going to be there any second. Zimmerman didn't start a fight that for all he knew was going to be witnessed by the police.
You admit that Trademark was beating George's ass. So just how much of a beating was he supposed to take? How many times would you let me smash your head into the concrete after I'd already broken your nose?
You don't know any of what I bolded. At. All. It's all conjecture based on what you hope happened so that you can justify the killing of a kid you don't approve of.
How much? I don't know. If someone fucks with your kid at school, and your kid winds up in a fight with that kid, and your kid surprisingly starts kicking that kid's ass, how much of a beating should that kid take before shooting your kid? What if that kid was following your kid around and being a shit bag and pushed him past his limits? In the wake of your kid's killing, would you be making the points you're making here? What if there were no witnesses to establish who threw the first punch, but there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the kid who shot your kid was the instigator by following him around and being an agitator for no reason? What if that kid also had a history of arrests for smacking his mom around? Would that fact that you had caught your kid with weed and that your kid had been in fights at school before be the primary considerations in dismissing fault of the shooter?
Again, you put a lot of stock in some trouble from the 17-year old's background, and you ignore entirely the piles of paper it would take to list Zimmerman's adult resume qualifications to be shit-bag of the year.
I can't remember the last time someone here not named Sledog clung on to such a loser argument so steadfastly. Well done.
From the time Zimmerman called the police dispatcher to when the call ended was just a few minutes. Trademark was also talking on his phone with his girlfriend when he made the creepy ass cracker comment. From the time Trademark first mention he was being followed to when he ran away and Zimmerman lost sight of him was just a couple minutes. Trademark's girl friend admitted that even she believed that Trademark started the fight and that Trademark was "always fighting."
I haven't ignored anything. You're the only pulling claiming straight out of your ass about Zimmerman possibly grabbing and detaining Trademark.
The one thing we know for certain is that Trademark could have easily walked from the area where Zimmerman lost sight of him and made it safely back to his dad's girlfriends place. But for some reason he didn't do that and he confronted Zimmerman exactly like what his girlfriend thought he had done. -
No one should be surprised that someone who was living the thug life of guns, drugs and fighting ended up the way Trademark ended up.
https://cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/index.html
