trayvan martin

Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Skylard, I don't expect you to actually know what you are talking about, so I will be gentle. Serino, the detective investigating the whole incident stated that Zimmerman's injuries were "moderately life threatening". The medical personnel who testified at the trial stated that Zimmerman's injuries were potentially life threatening.

If you want to let a thug bash your brains out on the sidewalk then by all means have at it. A stroll down Sanford's streets at night will probably let you test your skull's durability. The world needs fewer dumb progressives.

Pro tip: length of cut is not equal to depth of cut.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="UncleBuck] they concluded that it might have been a possibility that he acted in self defense. no need to twist things[/QUOTE]

talk about splitting hairs.
didn't they conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Martin didn't run away, if he had he would be alive today. He feigned flight so as to entice Mr Zimmerman into a chase so that Mr. Martin could get Zimmerman into a better place in which to attack him.
Click to expand...
He might have even raped Zimmerman if he'd gotten the chance, we've no idea what "No_Limits_Nigga" was capable of.
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
UncleBuck said:
when did the prosecution argue that martin was entitled to stand his ground? that was irrelevant, as zimmerman was the one on trial, not martin.

you're still much of a cowardly racist to even admit that martin was entitled to fear for his life when some unidentified stranger chased after him in the dark.



no, they concluded that it might have been a possibility that he acted in self defense. no need to twist things, you



white supremacists like you are not civilized, martin was never convicted of any crime, and had zero history of violence whatsoever (unlike your hero zimmerman, who had a long history of violence and criminality).
Click to expand...

Please tone it down.
Thank you.

Name Calling or general rude behavior is no longer acceptable in the Cafe, We are adults which means that we should be able to debate without resorting to name calling. Warnings will be given out if users fail to act appropriately.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
Please tone it down.
Thank you.

Name Calling or general rude behavior is no longer acceptable in the Cafe, We are adults which means that we should be able to debate without resorting to name calling. Warnings will be given out if users fail to act appropriately.
Click to expand...
i'm confused. desertdude is indeed a cowardly racist, so i don't see how that's a putdown. not even he would object to the label.

but calling a teenager with no record or history of violence a "violent criminal" and a "thug" is just a series of transparent dog whistles and outright lies, everyone knows this.

as far as the white supremacy label goes, it fits. desert dude has often complained that title II of civil rights violates his first amendment "right of association". since title II ended to denial of service to blacks in this nation, we can only assume that he means he has a right to not associate with blacks, AKA white separatism.

they're not separating because they think they're inferior or equals, ya know.

desert dude was even once a member of RIU's 'white nationalist and white separtists' group, version 3.0. white separatism, white nationalism, and white supremacy are nothing but a distinction without a difference.

as long as we have members like that around here smugly asserting falsehoods about the races they so clearly feel superior ro, it's gonna be real difficult for me to tone it down. just a heads up.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
Please tone it down.
Thank you.

Name Calling or general rude behavior is no longer acceptable in the Cafe, We are adults which means that we should be able to debate without resorting to name calling. Warnings will be given out if users fail to act appropriately.
Click to expand...
My compliments to our moderators!

Consider yourself warned, Buck. Continued incivility on your part will result in more such warnings!!
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
GreatwhiteNorth said:
Please tone it down.
Thank you.

Name Calling or general rude behavior is no longer acceptable in the Cafe, We are adults which means that we should be able to debate without resorting to name calling. Warnings will be given out if users fail to act appropriately.
Click to expand...
i got a warning for calling buck a racist.
i mentioned net tax consumers he assumed that meant black people...i called him racist for that....which he is for it...and got a warning.

not a polite request...a delete ban warning.

could yall have a meeting or something and get on the same page please?
 
travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I don't think Trayvan cares (given his "condition") so it doesn't really count as an insult or incivility.
Click to expand...
Someone cared. The post is gone.
twostrokenut said:
i got a warning for calling buck a racist.
i mentioned net tax consumers he assumed that meant black people...i called him racist for that....which he is for it...and got a warning.

not a polite request...a delete ban warning.

could yall have a meeting or something and get on the same page please?
Click to expand...
Is it a one and done warning?
 
Last edited:
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
Someone cared


Is it a one and done warning?
Click to expand...
no trav it wasnt..buck might have gotten that one also as he just got done calling me welfare trailor trash or some such...completely unprovoked by me.

it was an economic discussion...havs and have nots that sorta thing.

i said there is really only two classes..tax contributers and tax consumers...buck turned that black somehow...i said thats fucked and racist...got the warning.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
My compliments to our moderators!

Consider yourself warned, Buck. Continued incivility on your part will result in more such warnings!!
Click to expand...
i don't consider it uncivil when you knowingly joined a white nationalists and white separatists group.

i do, however, consider it uncivil for you to call someone with no criminal record or history of violence whatsoever a "thug" and a "violent criminal". you have to use those thinly veiled dog whistles because if you came out and said what you actually meant, you couldn't continue your thin veneer.

do you really think you're fooling anyone anymore, even yourself?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
i mentioned net tax consumers he assumed that meant black people...i called him racist for that....which he is for it...and got a warning.

not a polite request...a delete ban warning.

could yall have a meeting or something and get on the same page please?
Click to expand...
let's see the posts.

because as i recall, the last and only time you mentioned net consumers and net contributors was when you made an uncited, unattributed, completely ad hoc (that means pulled right out of your ass) claim that net contributors were most against obamacare.

you could never cite the claim over the course of several days, so you did your normal thing where you devolved into a pile of unintelligible gibberish, ellipses abuse, and ad hoc claims.

i pointed out how the south, who no one disputes is quite opposed to obamacare as a whole, is the biggest welfare mooch this nation has seen in that they take way, way more federal taxes than they contribute. that applies especially to your regressive and ignorant home state of south carolina, which is one of the biggest welfare mooches in the union.

you never ever did cite that claim of yours, either.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i don't consider it uncivil when you knowingly joined a white nationalists and white separatists group.

i do, however, consider it uncivil for you to call someone with no criminal record or history of violence whatsoever a "thug" and a "violent criminal". you have to use those thinly veiled dog whistles because if you came out and said what you actually meant, you couldn't continue your thin veneer.

do you really think you're fooling anyone anymore, even yourself?
Click to expand...
You don't consider lies and propaganda uncivil? I think Putin has a job for you in the Ukraine.
 
killemsoftly

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
let's see the posts.

because as i recall, the last and only time you mentioned net consumers and net contributors was when you made an uncited, unattributed, completely ad hoc (that means pulled right out of your ass) claim that net contributors were most against obamacare.

you could never cite the claim over the course of several days, so you did your normal thing where you devolved into a pile of unintelligible gibberish, ellipses abuse, and ad hoc claims.

i pointed out how the south, who no one disputes is quite opposed to obamacare as a whole, is the biggest welfare mooch this nation has seen in that they take way, way more federal taxes than they contribute. that applies especially to your regressive and ignorant home state of south carolina, which is one of the biggest welfare mooches in the union.

you never ever did cite that claim of yours, either.
Click to expand...
wot he said.
I always find it amazing that these 'conservative' states are the biggest welfare queens in the lower 48. if they got what they claimed they want -less fedl govt- they would see a significant drop in living standard. perhaps some prez should do that: turn off the teat. then they'd have to vote democrat to get big govt. that would be hilariouous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top