Feds take custody of evidence from Zimmerman trial

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think the civil rights pursuit is a good idea. I think it is pretty stupid actually and reenforces racis,. He should have gotten jail time for excessive force. Whether or not he is a racist is rather insignificant compared to the fact that he is a murderer Just about everyone is racist. Scapegoating Zimmerman for being a racist misses the point that he is again a MURDERER and just makes people feel better about themselves.

Plenty of people get beaten up and still don't feel it is right to actually kill the other person. It is about being a good person. It is about having a heart and being reasonable. Zimmerman deserved some consequences for being an idiot. You cant just kill anyone who you feel threatened by. Okay, that is all.

Bill, since I've already answered your questions, your incredulous reaction begs another question: What would it take to convince you that you are wrong--about anything? Since you have ignored, rather than refuted, everything I have stated, I consider the following assessment to be both fair and accurate:

Individualism is a key characteristic of both right and left liberalism. Individualism started off innocently and righteously enough as the assertion of the citizen's right against an increasingly powerful state. Then liberalism placed the individual above God, as evidenced by Voltaire's notorious "ecrasez l'infame". Then liberalism placed the individual above society during the cultural revolution of the 1960's. And now liberalism has placed the individual above reality itself, which is a central tenet of the narrative of the antinarrative of postmodernism.

So, a liberal is one who ultimately believes that human nature and reality are infinitely malleable--like so much putty in their hands. This explains why people like you are as impermeable to facts and truth as a duck's back is to water; truth and facts are whatever you wish them to be, Unprincipled Exceptions aside. For the liberal, things like facts and truth are to be scorned or ignored. It is the nature of liberal ideology.

In fact, as a good liberal you are incapable of holding an unfashionable thought or opinion about anything. Therefore, the only thing that would make you change would be if liberalism became unfashionable. This is a real shame too, as you are throwing away the biggest advantage aspies have over NT's: The ability to see things as they are without respect or regard for groupthink.

I say two plus two equals four. If you wish to declare it to equal five and ignore evidence to the contrary, that's regrettable, but it's your decision.

[quote="Thelibrarian"]Bill, since I've already answered your questions, your incredulous reaction begs another question: What would it take to convince you that you are wrong--about anything? Since you have ignored, rather than refuted, everything I have stated, I consider the following assessment to be both fair and accurate:

Individualism is a key characteristic of both right and left liberalism. Individualism started off innocently and righteously enough as the assertion of the citizen's right against an increasingly powerful state. Then liberalism placed the individual above God, as evidenced by Voltaire's notorious "ecrasez l'infame". Then liberalism placed the individual above society during the cultural revolution of the 1960's. And now liberalism has placed the individual above reality itself, which is a central tenet of the narrative of the antinarrative of postmodernism.

So, a liberal is one who ultimately believes that human nature and reality are infinitely malleable--like so much putty in their hands. This explains why people like you are as impermeable to facts and truth as a duck's back is to water; truth and facts are whatever you wish them to be, Unprincipled Exceptions aside. For the liberal, things like facts and truth are to be scorned or ignored. It is the nature of liberal ideology.

In fact, as a good liberal you are incapable of holding an unfashionable thought or opinion about anything. Therefore, the only thing that would make you change would be if liberalism became unfashionable. This is a real shame too, as you are throwing away the biggest advantage aspies have over NT's: The ability to see things as they are without respect or regard for groupthink.

I say two plus two equals four. If you wish to declare it to equal five and ignore evidence to the contrary, that's regrettable, but it's your decision.

If you do decide to open your mind to truth and facts, and do your homework, I would like nothing better than to have a discussion with you; it is the best way to learn. But under the circumstances, I consider a continuation of this discussion to be quite pointless and futile.

Bill, I will work with parts of what you wrote as follows:

"Just because Voltaire had believed the individual should be placed above the God he didn't believe in doesn't mean that's the opinion of liberals today. It may surprise you that I am a church member - I belong to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which is hardly a bastion of liberal theology."

Then you have a dissonance problem: Christianity places God above all else and liberalism places the invididual above all else. This is why the liberal, mainstream Protestant churches are dying. Many of them have fewer adherents in absolute numbers--not percentage-wise--than they had in the 1950's. In fact, the Church of England, which was part of the liberal avant garde, garners less than five percent of English citizens on any given Sunday. There are more Muslims in mosques on Fridays by far. The only churches that have grown have been the conservative churches, such as the evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

Tell me, do you think liberalism has a fixed meaning, or does liberal mean anything you want it to?

"And last time I checked, Martin Luther King Jr. was himself a liberal, and hardly clung to Voltaire's opinions."

The MLK myth is the very embodiment of hyperreality. From what I've read about MLK, from multiple sources--including Michael Eric Dyson, who is hardly a right-winger--MLK was a communist sympathizer if not a full-fledged communist, a serial adulterer, a plagiarizer, and very possibly a number of other bad things. In fact, when I was doing my master's in library science, the University of Washington had MLK's plagiarized PhD thesis beside the work he copied as an example of what would not be tolerated. This is why his FBI record was sealed for fifty years, despite legal challenges over the years; it will be made public in 2027. The fact that few people are aware of this speaks of the very liberal hyperreality that I'm talking about. The facts make it very hard to see MLK as an example of a good Christian. Do the facts on MLK matter to you? Or would you rather be fashionable?

"As a matter of fact, back in the days of the Reagan Revolution, when even Democratic presidential candidates wre afraid to use the word liberal, as if it was a dirty word, I still unabashedly declared my political views. So no, even when liberalism is out of fashion, then I'm also proudly out of fashion."

Yet more hyperreality: I'm concerned about what things really mean and the way they are. And by proper definition, Reagan was a hybrid of right-liberal (i.e., free trader, reducing taxes on the wealthy, globalist, and for open borders), as well as conservative (anti-communist, pro-prayer in schools, anti-abortion, etc.). So, if liberalism was unfashionable, so was Reagan. The fact that people think differently, again, is pure hyperreality.

I got rid of my TV twenty years ago, and have never watched a lot of it. Books and periodicals are all I have to go by.

Remember the other day when news came out about Zimmerman pulling people out of an upside down car on fire?

Lots of the stories appear to have been modified to take out the mention of the fire since there was apparently no such fire.

There are allegations that the cop responding to the report of the overturned car was a friend of Zimmerman's and texted him to get over there and assist the people before he got there. In other words, Zimmerman's presence was a publicity stunt designed to rehabilitate Zimmerman in the eyes of the world. If this is true, what do you bet that the cop responding to the accident slowed down his response so that Zimmerman could get there first and be the big hero?

The rollover was reportedly less than a mile from where he shot Martin and he is apparently still living in that area. It also appears that they don't know it was a text -- only that the cop either texted or called Zimmerman right after the call came in about the rollover but before he arrived at the scene.

I'm not a fan of either Martin or Zimmerman. I figure that if two people get in a fist fight and the loser pulls out a firearm and kills the other, he should go to prison. If Martin had shot Zimmerman, then I would have thought Martin should go to prison.

/\ Whatever, and maybe it was actually a guy on a grassy knoll with a rifle that shot Martin and it's all a conspiracy. At this point I don't know that I'd even bother to give a s**t.