oh what's the point. You are not listening to me.

When the state executes a man who is innocent (because of SHODDY AND UNFAIR COURT ROOM PROCEDURES), that is murder.

It is not anything else but.

When the state executes a guilty man - it is STILL murder.

If it's okay for the state (aka the people), to kill someone when they don't approve of his or her behavior - why aren't they permitted the same privilege?

Because they didn't go to a courtroom first and argue about it?

War? Well, that depends on what kind of a war you're talking about. What we did to a LOT of INNOCENT PEOPLE in Iraq - was wrong and it was murder. That was a totally unjust and uncalled for war. We wasted incredible amounts of money (except for Haliburton which MADE incredible amounts of money) which is still having a terrible affect on the American economy.

The only time I believe it is justified to kill someone is if it is in total and unavoidable self defense.

The martial arts experts always teach this. "RUN WITH PRIDE."

That means that if you know in your heart that you could take your bare hands and kill someone in one swipe - if you could instead run away and avoid the entire confrontation?

You should run away. There is no shame in it.

George Zimmerman should have obeyed that rule. In fact, he didn't even have to run away. All he had to do was sit in his car and wait for the cops.

His fingers were itchy. He wanted to kill somebody and boy oh boy - here was his chance to be a real hero and kill one of those black people he did not like.

Dream on Grim
Dream on

threat? AND this wacko is still working at his same job.

UNFUCKINGREAL!

[www.nydailynews.com]

Doing what is right and just is never a losing battle. Hearts and minds will win out in the end. The mantra of the Progressives that the battle is over has never been right because it has always proved to be wrong....

So Z is overcharged with a crime, and all the defense has to do is show Martin was capable of being agressive, and Zimmerman walks. Book tours and talk shows, radio, etc.

and a massive civil suit he has no chance of winning, followed by a drive by shooting by some pissed of gang members.

wait and see... either Zimmerman will be in jail or dead within 2 years time. He will not "walk" in any real sense, even if he does beat the rap.

Abortion should be banned....period. Conception is when human life begins, end of story. BTW, that is science that says that.

It will never banned Grim.
I suggest you get over it.

Look, GW and the right held all the cards for GW's first 6 years and couldn't get it done. They didn't even try. That should tell you something.

Neither will other right wing pet issues like "English as the national language" or getting the Ten Commandments on the back of the dollar bill ... although it would be nice to have them wallet sized.

Never Grim, never ever.
Move on, pick a battle you might win.

This issue, along with gay rights, is over ... they are generational issues and the demographics are against you, no much you may stomp your feet or howl at the moon. Abortion is here to stay.

Here's the kicker, the next step will be to take away tax exemptions for Catholic and other religious based institutions who refuse to abide by federal law. And while righties will claim "freedom of religion" the argument they won't be able to refute is this: there's nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that guarantees Churches or their institution tax exemption. It's a PRIVILEGE we, as society, extend to them ... one we can take away at any time by voting for people who support that position.

And when you consider the Catholic Church is one of the world's biggest property owners, making them pay tax just might be an idea whose time has come.

"...and I agree the DA made a bad choice in going that route..."

Thats the easiest way to an acquittal. Overcharge him. The prosecution basically has to prove Zimmerman was out to shoot someone that night. Laughable.

But the state needed to do something to calm the folks who were outraged. The Sanford Police didn't charge him, the state attourney (or whoever it got bumped up to) in Jacksonville wanted nothing to do with it and walked away. It wasn't until the second state attourney (in tallahassee I believe) made the trumped up charges that he was charged.

So Z is overcharged with a crime, and all the defense has to do is show Martin was capable of being agressive, and Zimmerman walks. Book tours and talk shows, radio, etc.

Abortion should be banned....period. Conception is when human life begins, end of story. BTW, that is science that says that.

"...You can't fuck with somebody on the street, make them feel threatened, and then simply walk away as if nothing happened..."

That is exactly right Jim.

So at that time Trayvon should have called the police. He had every right to. His civil rights had been violated and he had been harassed. He should have called the cops.

But he decided to take matters into his own hands.

If Burgess actually said the word "masturbate" during the hearing, be a stand up guy and post a link to an MSNBC article stating the same.

Now let me try to get you to understand this: The prohibition against murder from the Christian (particularly the Catholic) prospective (since there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations I would not even hazard to guess what they teach) is this: The DIRECT taking of an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE is always wrong and is always murder.

Now you will notice that I have put into bold type certain words because they are very important in understanding the Catholic Christian Perspective when it comes to abortion, self defense, homicide and war.

If it is someone's intention to kill an innocent person as in an abortion, the age of the victim does not matter. Murder is murder.

If a pregnant woman is in need of surgery or certain medications to save her life and those procedures end up killing the baby in her womb, that is not murder as it is not the DIRECT INTENTION to kill the baby but the baby died as a result of saving the woman's life.

That is the same principle that applies in war when INNOCENTS die as a result collateral damage. This is a consistent view of what murder is.

One more thing, in the case of the State using the death penalty this done in the past because the State was protecting the citizens from a criminal. In our present age where incarceration is and should be the norm, Capital Punishment is not supported by the the Catholic/Christian doctrine although the Church does recognize the States right to do so.

So, saying that one is okay with the direct killing of an innocent because of the age of the victim and saying that the indirect killing of an innocent in a war is never to be tolerated are very inconsistent theories and hard to reconcile. At least for me it is.

There was an initial confrontation, initiated by Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the aggressor, no argument there. They got separated. End of confrontation 1

wrong, that wasn't the end. You can't fuck with somebody on the street, make them feel threatened, and then simply walk away as if nothing happened.

That's not real life Fox,
it's a naive position.

Try it sometime for yourself, let me know how it works out.

Once you start shit with someone, unless you apologize, the shit ball grows.

I live in the real world Fox.

Zimmerman may not have committed murder one, and I agree the DA made a bad choice in going that route, but this manslaughter at the very least.

And even if Zimmerman beats the rap, someone will even the score.
Wait and see.

Woman beater and failure at life Zimmerman's life is effectively over, one way or another.

You're an idiot....Carry on.

Now Jim, keep in mind that the liberals like to say Zimmerman hunted Martin and shot him in cold blood. That's all well and good.

However, in court, it will be presented as confrontation 1/confrontation 2.

I will be amazed if the state doesn't drop all charges after they actually hear what really happened.

Another right winger obsessed with another person's penis. He must be a homo, right Grim?


Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said Monday that abortion should be banned as early as 15 weeks after conception because he has witnessed male fetuses masturbate at that stage.

"This is a subject that I do know something about,” said Burgess

Since you don't like facts, or really care about investigating anything for himself, (typical of NBC) let me fill you in.

There was an initial confrontation, initiated by Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the agressor, no argument there. They got separated. End of confrontation 1.

Confrontation 2 was initiated by Martin. As Zimmerman walked back to his vehicle he was attacked from behind by Martin. This time Martin was the agressor. Martin at this time committed felony assault and possible attempted murder as he reached for Zimmermans gun, and also said he was going to kill Zimmerman as well. Keep in mind Trayvon was training to be an MMA-style street fighter, so the injuries and agressive nature of the attack are in line.

All this information is available through on line police reports, etc. All you have to do is go to a website called "Google.com" and put in search words. It's really quite easy.

WASHINGTON -- States can't demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval to do so, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision complicating efforts in Arizona and other states to bar voting by people who are in the country illegally.

The justices' 7-2 ruling closes the door on states independently changing the requirements for those using the voter-registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. They would need permission from a federally created panel, the Election Assistance Commission, or a federal court ruling overturning the commission's decision, to make tougher requirements stick.


7-2? Hmmm, seems there are some conserves on the SC that aren't the hate mongers Fox News was hoping they'd be.
Can't wait to see how they spin this as the fault of liberals.

Stand Your Ground doesn't apply in this case.

The Founders set up the entire Federal Government with an 8 page document but it take thousands of pages to pass an immigration or health care law?

um yeah, we're a much bigger, more complex country now. Haven't you noticed?

Grim, if you love these guys so much, then why do hate illegals? By 1776 standards, they would all be here legally.

I'll ask again:

Do you hink you have a better understanding of the law than the man who wrote the bill too, huh?

The Founders set up the entire Federal Government with an 8 page document but it take thousands of pages to pass an immigration or health care law?

The only reason for this is to either obscure the real intent of the law. By adding all these pages of provisions that often are at odds with one another, we get statements like those of the former Speaker of The House like "We have to pass the law before we can find out what is in it" that is total bull, there is no reason why any law passed by any legislature in the nation should not be easily read and understood by any citizen of this nation.

We are often told that we cannot use "ignorance of the law" as a defense. That being so, then lawmakers have an obligation to write the laws in plain language as our Constitution was written in so that they are easily read and interpreted by not only the citizens, but the courts.

I get a good laugh out of reading your posts about the Zimmerman case, you must get a pretty good laugh out of writing them too.

Don't worry NBC IT guys, it's the truth!

Wow, there are so many things wrong with the facts regarding this post I don't know where to begin. Jim if you signed something for NBC saying you're knowingly not taking part in inaccurate reporting you're toast.

"...Martin was walking home, minding his own business, even Zimemrnam doesn't dispute that..."

Wrong, he said Martin was acting strangley, hanging out in the rain, looked like he was on drugs, etc.

"...Zimmerman followed him, even after he told by 911 not too..."

Zimmerman was told to stop following Martin and he did. The two split up. As Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle to wait for police, he was attacked from behind by Martin.

Answer me this Jim, why didn't Martin call the police to say someone was harrassing him? And don't give me the BS that the cops wouldn't have done anything because he was black.

The bottom line is the wanna be MMA streetfighter decided to take matters into his own hands and we know how it turned out.

"...Even if Martin punched him the face, Zimemrman still had no right to shoot him becuase HE PROVOKED THE CONFRONTATION..."

This was the second confrontation. If it happened during the first confrontation this is spot on, but it happened after the initial confrontation ended. Martin started the second confrontation.

And for Stand Your Ground? Doesn't apply in this case. Liberals would love it if it did stand up in this case, but the case is based on self defense.

So, you also think you have a better understanding of the law than the man who wrote the bill too, huh?

Coming up with original ideas is hard.

you mean like Independence, abolishing slavery, women's right's, social security, medicare, worker's rights, civil rights?

Just to name a few

Throughout history, on major issue, conservatives from both parties have been proven wrong. This is matter of fact.

tell us again how the earth is only 6,000 years old and how Jesus rode around on dinosaurs.. LOL!

Ms E... another day, another chance to see you as the racist moron you clearly are.

Martin was walking home, minding his own business, even Zimemrnam doesn't dispute that. Zimmerman followed him, even after he told by 911 not too. He was being followed because he was black and wearing a hoodie... clearly in violation of the right's vision of the Constitution.

Martin, like some people might, felt threatened by someone following him. He confronted Zimmerman, a pussy of a man who failed the police entrance exam and couldn't follow simple directions from the 911 dispatcher. Zimmerman could have waited for the police but he didn't

Even if Martin punched him the face, Zimemrman still had no right to shoot him becuase HE PROVOKED THE CONFRONTATION

Listen to the MAN WHO SPONSORED THE LAW:


"The 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.

I have great sympathy for the family of Trayvon Martin and am grateful that things are finally moving in the right direction to further explore what actually happened on that night in Sanford, Florida. Awaiting the convening of the grand jury, I trust that justice will be served and healing will begin for all of those affected.

Republican Dennis Baxley represents the 24th district in Florida's House of Representatives. He was the prime sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005.


But Yeah Ms. E.. I'm sure know about the law than the man who wrote the bill, right?

Coming up with original ideas is hard. So we just copy and paste things no one will ever read. But we're not sheep though.

Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" and stopped pursuing Martin. As he was returning to his vehicle he was attacked from behind by Martin.

When opponents of a bill are reduced to talking about the literal, physical size of the legislation, they've completely given up on the pretense that public policy matters. If opponents of immigration reform want to debate the merits of the proposal, great. But focusing on pages and pounds is the absolute worst form of debate.

This came up quite a bit during the fight over health care reform -- it was easier for the right to count the number of pages in the Affordable Care Act than debate it on the merits -- so let's review the basics.

Sometimes, when professional lawmakers and their staffs address national needs, their proposals get pretty long. That's to be expected. We live in an advanced, 21st-century superpower, and legislation often deals with complex issues. Bills aren't really prepared for a lay audience anyway -- they're filled with technical and legal jargon, which is necessary for it to be implemented as intended.

It's not unique to lawmaking, either. When automotive companies design new cars, the schematics aren't short. When scientific researchers publish studies on life-saving medication, their reports aren't brief, either. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with the research or the schematics.

What's more, there's something about the nature of legislation that folks sometimes forget.

If you've ever seen the physical page of a bill in Congress, you know that it doesn't look like a traditional printed page. There are huge margins, a large font, and everything is double-spaced. Legislation may look enormous, but be fairly manageable.

For example, if the immigration bill is about 1,075 pages, in terms of the number of words, it's about half the length of Sarah Palin's first book. And while I confess that I did not read "Going Rogue," I think it's fair to say it was not an endless tome.

So why does this talk persist? I think it speaks to the post-policy anti-intellectualism that too often plays a role in conservative commentary. Big bills must be bad bills because they're, you know, big.

You have interpreted the Trayvon Martin evidence one way and I have done the same. I do not understand how you could possibly feel the way you do, but I am not going to yell at you for it. Nor will I accuse you of being some asshole I met in my past just because I don't like your opinion.

I guess this is hard for you to get but I will try.

Not that I agree with it but - if a woman WANTS to have her baby - then nobody has the right to kill it. If she doesn't want the baby?

As things stand - a doctor is permitted to kill it.

Personally? I believe in birth control and the morning after pill. Up to two months, I will tolerate an abortion but after that?

It should be a case by case decision AND if aborted? The fetus should be given pain medication - overdosed on it basically, so that it is unconscious for the procedure.

I ABHOR abortion but unfortunately, forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy is also horrid.

TRAYVON MARTIN WAS UNARMED AND DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. Why you believe he should have been killed, I can not imagine.

Zimmerman was the aggressor and the attacker. He was instructed BY THE POLICE OPERATOR TO NOT PURSUE THE YOUNG MAN. He did not listen or obey.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

There is also a very clear video of him right after the altercation and except for a little cut on the back of his head - he was uninjured.

Look - I don't believe you're a new person. I believe you've posted here before under another name. If you're not Jim Flynn - then whoever you are?

You need to be honest and tell the truth.

As of now, I don't believe you're new or that you just came along out of the clear blue sky.

That just doesn't happen at EVP.

Despite the examples you give, it is against the law to commit murder. If you doubt that, go out and kill someone and see if your ass is not in jail. Meanwile, you can kill an infant in the womb if the woman agrees to it and it is legal.

But, if you kill the baby in the womb without the woman's permission, it is murder....not, how can that be? is not murder really murder?

Trayvon Martin was not murdered. He was killed in self defense when he attacked a man who happened to be prepared for such an occasion.

Facts matter.

watch out for falling toilet seat covers

[news.yahoo.com]

(Anntelope)