13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 4/3/12 10:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Shooting a guy to death isn't illegal now? Wow...Florida has some crazy laws.
Not if it really was self defense, which we've yet to disprove.
Oh, but it is if people are going to keep trying to push this ridiculous notion that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin with deadly weapons and confront him and that somehow he is the victim of a "beating" that there seems to be little and less evidence for all the time. Not the unarmed kid he shot and killed.
But if we add that he was a neighborhood watch who was looking out for suspicious activity after a string of robberies in a Gated Community who went up to someone he didn't recognize....
Suddenly it's not so clear cut.
But go ahead and keep leaving out information... it makes it all the more amusing when you demand a "proper investigation."
I love how you people act as if Cops don't do things like this on a regular basis with... *GASP* ... weapons.
Think about it: If you're a neighborhood watch whose making sure no one gets robbed in your community after a reported string of robberies.... why wouldn't you be carrying a gun?
Are you fucking retarded?
Except that is NOT all that Zimmerman did! Good God! Let's actually argue ALL the facts, or not argue at all already.
Yes, let's argue ALL the facts by leaving out information like you did above!
Then you're not reading posts correctly (which you're reply to my last one does lend credence to). People have posted a variety of other evidence...stuff that is very very inconvenient to folks on your side of the fence, who seem to only have hypotheticals, and theories based on a selective reading of the known facts.
Let's test that!
Yeah, I just can't see it myself, because Zimmerman's story is implausible to me, and the fact that he was supposedly assaulted so badly as to draw blood from his head, and yet we see on the video o evidence of bleeding, no bandaging, no evidence of sutures...nothing. Sorry, it says something is very rotten in the state of Denmark to me.
So when an out of focus video appears to show no marks on his head, it's proof he's lying...
But when an enhanced video does, it's still proof that he's lying because his injuries weren't "severe enough", even though he was TREATED at the scene?
Well Fan-Fucking-Tastic!
Enhanced ABC surveillance video shows gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.
The same video where everyone said he was "uninjured."
At 3/31/12 08:46 AM, Memorize wrote: So it turns out Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling...
I forgot about the annoying Forum changes.
"NBC appears to have edited an excerpt of a phone call made by Trayvon MartinâEUTMs killer to portray him as a racist. The edited George Zimmerman says he thinks Martin is âEU~up to no goodâEUTM just because he was black âEU" but thatâEUTMs not what he really said.
On Tuesday, NBCâEUTMs Today Show hosted by Ron Allen ran a segment of a phone conversation Zimmerman had with police shortly before killing Martin, as reported by FoxâEUTMs Hannity Show. NBCâEUTMs version of the phone call allegedly had Zimmerman say the following about Martin: âEUoeThis guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good. He looks black.âEU
But in reality the two sentences were separated by a question the 911 dispatcher asked. The original phone call transcript ran like this:
Zimmerman: "WeâEUTMve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and thereâEUTMs a real suspicious guy. ItâEUTMs Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good, or heâEUTMs on drugs or something. ItâEUTMs raining and heâEUTMs just walking around, looking about."
911 Dispatcher: âEUoeOkay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?âEU
Zimmerman: âEUoeHe looks black.âEU
If one compares the NBC version with the original transcript, it appears the channel jettisoned ZimmermanâEUTMs real explanation on why he thought Martin looked suspicious, and also got rid of the dispatcherâEUTMs question."
So it turns out Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling...
NBC appears to have edited an excerpt of a phone call made by Trayvon MartinâEUTMs killer to portray him as a racist. The edited George Zimmerman says he thinks Martin is âEU~up to no goodâEUTM just because he was black âEU" but thatâEUTMs not what he really said.
On Tuesday, NBCâEUTMs Today Show hosted by Ron Allen ran a segment of a phone conversation Zimmerman had with police shortly before killing Martin, as reported by FoxâEUTMs Hannity Show. NBCâEUTMs version of the phone call allegedly had Zimmerman say the following about Martin: âEUoeThis guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good. He looks black.âEU
But in reality the two sentences were separated by a question the 911 dispatcher asked. The original phone call transcript ran like this:
Zimmerman: "WeâEUTMve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and thereâEUTMs a real suspicious guy. ItâEUTMs Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good, or heâEUTMs on drugs or something. ItâEUTMs raining and heâEUTMs just walking around, looking about."
911 Dispatcher: âEUoeOkay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?âEU
Zimmerman: âEUoeHe looks black.âEU
If one compares the NBC version with the original transcript, it appears the channel jettisoned ZimmermanâEUTMs real explanation on why he thought Martin looked suspicious, and also got rid of the dispatcherâEUTMs question.
Way to go, NBC.
At 3/31/12 12:11 AM, djack wrote:
All Zimmerman had to do was wipe some blood on the back of his head (it wouldn't even have to be intentional) and the officer at the scene would have thought he was bleeding but that doesn't make that police officer a medical expert.
Except that the paramedics who show up typically clean up and treat people before putting them in police cars to let them bleed all over the seats.
I'm not even on Zimmerman's side, and I believe you people are doing an increasingly piss poor job going after the guy.
At 3/30/12 03:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Well, if you broke my nose and slammed me into the sidewalk, but I wasn't injured enough to have a bruise or an ounce of blood visible on me, then that sure as hell wasn't force enough to warrant deadly force in return.
Yes it does.
At 3/28/12 06:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Show his picture and say the name "George Zimmerman" and 99 out of 100 will say he's white. No one would have called him a latino until he shot the black kid.
I thought he was latino the first time I saw him.
But I guess if he's not your shade of "brown", then he can't be hispanic, isn't that right, you racist?
At 3/28/12 10:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Had Treyvon been white and Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would be in jail on murder charges.
Except that Zimmerman is actually Hispanic and you people didn't start calling him "white" until after he shot a black kid.
At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:
No they can't. That's not a good analogy though. We're performing a polcie investigation. We were attacking military targets. When you attack military targets you try to avoid civilian casualties, but they happen.
You'd have a better point if he and his son weren't killed in two separate strikes.
I don't know if he did.
Having 1 man determine the value of someone's life is fun.
At 1 minute ago, Famas wrote:
Initiate maritime policies that don't involve murdering unwitting civilians who happen to be on the wrong boat at the wrong time.
Why should Germany be responsible for the US putting weapons on civilian ships, knowing full well they would be targeted after repeated warnings?
You're just shifting the blame.
At 26 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
His son knew what happened to him. yet he decided to spend time with the same dangerous sort like his father, whom he knew, or should have known, were military targets like his father. 16 may be young, but 16 is more than old enough to appear military aged so his presence near a high military target wouldn't immediately signify his status as a civilian, in reality it paints the other way.
Can the police shoot and kill a 16 yr old kid at his drug dealing parent's house because he didn't run away?
How did I leave anything out? The kid wasn't part of this conversation. (I talked about him a while ago, but I think it was a different thread, and if it was this thread I had already addressed him)
Did he do anything illegal?
At 19 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
I know it contained ammunition, but that is not why it was sunk. The U-boat policy in both wars was one of total war. They sank everything of the enemy that moved. The Lusitania was no exception. The fact that it had weapons on it was merely happenstance.
You're at war with a country and another nation (despite your warnings) continues to put weapons and supplies on ships to send to aid to country you're at war with.
What do you do?
At 7 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:
Al-Awlaki was killed as an emeny soldier, because he acted as such, and held himself out as such. The nation of one's citizenship is mooted the moment that person takes up arms against the US.
Even his 16 year old, American son (which they first tried to claim was in his 20's)?
I love how you always leave out information.
At 2 days ago, poxpower wrote:
why are people so god-damned stupid?
The sheer irony of you making that statement is what's most amusing.
At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:At 1 hour ago, Memorize wrote: But it's just like a socialist to inject Socialism into Capitalism, and then when it fails, blame Capitalism.Please do give an example of this bold statement.
Do I need to repeat myself?
The Government gets involved in housing by pushing loans through regulations, setting low interest rates, and guaranteeing those loans through Government created entities (SOCIALISM)
When this fails (ie. the housing crash of '08), which eventually leads to the Government bailing out favored industries (SOCIALISM), then what form of Government receives blame?
Oh right, Capitalism gets blamed.
Unless you're under this delusion that an economic system which provides almost no Government interference (CAPITALISM) is somehow responsible for Government Bailouts, a central bank, and Government secured Mortgages...
In which case, you'd be an idiot.
The irony of the topic starter is that we haven't had Capitalism in years...
Unless he thinks Government subsidies, military and Corporate welfare, Bank and Auto bail outs, having a central bank that prints money while setting interest rates (effectively taking money from the middle class and poor to give to politically connected wealthy), by some bizzaro standard somehow amounts to Capitalism.
Everything I just listed, we've been doing for decades, could not occur in a real Capitalist nation.
But it's just like a socialist to inject Socialism into Capitalism, and then when it fails, blame Capitalism.
Just sounds like another worthless attempt at solving the problem.
Ok, so you want to save money by drug testing... but how much would that cost? How many times do you drug test? Every few days? Few weeks? Months?
This isn't a real solution. It's just something to make people feel better.
Huh... a retarded thread created by a retarded moderator is still going, eh?
Oh look, the more education one receives, the less likely they are to believe that religion and science conflict (the conflicting view being the clear minority among university students anyway).
All I can say is: LOL!
At 3/9/11 11:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Thank you. Redistributing wealth seems like a very apt description for cutting middle class government workers' pay so the corporations can have $170 million in tax breaks.
Funny how that doesn't involve stealing money from anyone.
At 3/8/11 10:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:At 3/8/11 10:21 PM, Memorize wrote: 67% disapproveThat's a national poll, seems pretty irrelevant.
Don't tell me you're stupid enough to believe that with numbers that far spread, that those Democrats would possibly poll in the majority if it was only Wisconsin.
At 3/8/11 09:55 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
You mean the single poll conducted by Rasmussen, a known right leaning poll that always is 10 points more to the right than any other poll?
Translation: "I only like rasmussen or gallup when they agree with me."
But even still, the 10-point spread doesn't make up for their utter fail on this one.
At 3/8/11 09:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The polls clearly show that the Democrats are representing the majority of people from Wisconsin on this issue, at least in its current form. The Republicans, by proceeding in the manner they have have turned away from what people want.
I like how when Obama doesn't come through with his promises, it's the Republican's fault for being obstructionists.
But last I checked, they didn't flee the state entirely to avoid a vote... which, may I point out again: The polls showing the Democrats clearly not doing what the people want by running away like whiny, little bitches.
Allow me to also say to you, that like Gum, I love how you conveniently neglected to even mention those polls.
Congrats, you two are still just as retarded today as you were yesterday.
At 3/8/11 07:42 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
You understand why that makes no sense right? The republicans hold a majority of the seats in the WI congress and as such, if it weren't for this procedural hurdle their will would be law. There is no public override once you've elected people into office. If you've elected liars or people who campaigned on a different set of ideals than what they led you to believe, you are stuck with them.
The polls also reflect that the people aren't supportive of those Democrats fleeing the state to avoid a vote.
But nice try attempting to neglect that little bit of info.
Translation: They're not rights until the affect me and me only.
At 2/26/11 01:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
What are your thoughts on jury nullification as a whole?
It reminds me of liberals whining about how stupid state's rights are, and that those types of people would bring back slavery...
...until the topic turns to Pot, then suddenly every state should legalize it against Federal Law!
At 2/15/11 07:07 PM, Imperator wrote:
They continue to do bad things.
So we support reparations now?
At 1/13/11 07:20 AM, Drakim wrote:
Republicans are in no way to blame for the actions of madmen, but that "we should kill them *wink wink*" rhetoric has got to stop. The crazies are taking it literary.
You left wing idiots aren't in a place to criticize anyone else for being extreme.
After all, how can you take a group of people seriously who are calling right wingers extreme when:
1) You've never see a "right wing' fascist elected to office today or hanging around with the KKK
while
2) You guys have an admitted socialist you elected in Vermont by the name of Bernie Sanders.
At 1/11/11 01:22 PM, Gorgonof wrote:
The government is working in favor of insurance companies and inflated healthcare costs by not allowing insurance companies to compete over state borders, and by limiting the number of new doctors accepted each year. Besides that, I'd like to see a source on your statistic.
To which I respond: What the FUCK did you think would happen when you got the Government involved?
Not only do you think people don't have the right to health care when their suffering, but when they're about to die as well? Holy shit you're cold, and I don't see any foreseeable shortage of doctors.
Oh, you mean like how you people demanded free housing for, which has now gone bust with those same poor individuals being tossed out of those homes?
I do love how you sidestepped the housing issue though.
Maybe we should insurance for Grocery shopping and Government Medicare should cover food as well!
Here's a tip: It isn't a right if it would force someone else to do something against their will or involved stealing from them.
How is this relevant to health care?
Why do you think Prescription drugs are so costly?
Because now that the Government provides them for "free", the drug companies can now jack up the price knowing the Government will pick up the tab.
Demonstrate to me how this would "eventually work out".
At 1/11/11 12:07 PM, Gorgonof wrote:
I think everyone has a right to healthy and prosperous, regardless of whether you regard them welfare scum or not.
How can you call the US Healthcare system Private when 55% - 60% of it is Government?
Also, I hate you morons who consider a service a right. What would you do if no one wanted to be a doctor? Force them to treat people?
Btw, how did the whole "everyone has a right to a home" thing work out? oh... right... Global housing bust.
At 1/10/11 06:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Just don't confuse "left wing nuts" with liberals. And we won't consider "right wing nuts" as examples of conservatism. K?
Your words don't mean a whole lot when a young man who was an athiest, regarded the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite readings, and who burned the American flag, shot a Democrat congresswoman and killed a conservative judge, suddenly provokes left wingers to bitch and whine "It's the Republican's fault!"
