USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I don't lie. sorry to disappoint you.
Yes you do and you are a disappointment.
I don't lie. sorry to disappoint you.
Not one lie. You're wrong, of course.
you've been asked before to show this supposed lie and have failed to produce it.Untrue on your part.
I'm correct and you lie.
you've been asked before to show this supposed lie and have failed to produce it.
You got nothin'
It was not a "supposed" lie; it was an all out-full blown fabrication, on our part.
"on our part"?
speak for yourself. We all KNOW you're a lying sack of shit, but We - you and I - have never fabricated anything together, let alone a lie.
Now... if you have a lie that I personally supposedly said, present it or stfu....
::yawn::
no. I am not.
If I were, you could point to one. you can't.
stfu.
amf.
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.
Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.
So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?
I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.
I did not attempt to state it, I did state it.
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.
Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.
So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?
I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.
You couldn't even be a private, let alone a general.
deep down he is probably a good person. please speak to him lovingly and compassionately, and gently/patiently explain to him why he is wrong. thank you.
Well I think that the intent of this post has born out what I thought would happen. In the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman there is not a lot to go by in the way of fact. We do know that Mr. Zimmerman was on community watch. We do know that he profiled Mr. Martin. We do know that he followed Mr. Martin against police instructions. We also know that a confrontation occurred in which Mr. Zimmerman was injured and Mr. Martin was killed. Those are the facts of the case. The main fact we do not know is who initiated the physical confrontation and why.
Now Club Zimmerman supporters are adamant that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to self defense under these set of facts. Conversely they also believe that under the exact same set of facts that had Mr. Martin killed Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin did not have a right to self defense. Obviously a double standard.
So that leads to this question. What is the motivation of Club Zimmerman supporters to have a double standard for the exact same set of facts? Why are they inconsistent about the objective application of self defense rights? Why do they have one standard for Mr. Zimmerman and another for Mr. Martin?
I think the answer is pretty much provided by Occam's Razor.
And let's not forget that GZ was NEVER OFFICIALLY A MEMBER OF THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH....
if he was, then he should have been arrested for carrying a weapon, which members are forbidden by law to do.
And as I pointed out earlier, Zimmerman initiated the chain of events that led to the confrontation.
And the band played on.
It was not a "supposed" lie; it was an all out-full blown fabrication, on our part.
Well if being objective makes me a liberal than so be it. Please tell me how you can apply the same set of facts to two different people and come up with two different standards of appropriate behavior? How could that not be a double standard?There is no proof that Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon.
There is no proof that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, "against police instructions"; but your attempt at this just means that you're a dishonest-cock sucking-lying-dumb ass-liberal.
There is no double standard.
You should use that "razor" to slit your throat.