Wow... you are one limited mind... Have fun with that.

You got to be kidding me. YOu and your ilk toss that racist word all over the place over this trial, and then when I ask you to comment on it, you got this very well thought out response. Classic you. When in doubt, insult.

Seriously, still? He's been acquitted. It's over.

"No white was involved in the Zimmerman/Martin trial, so how can whites be 'racist' over a case that doesnot involve one of them?"

You're fucking kidding me, right?

You're right. I've failed, I've lost this debate... the very second I sunk so low as to use a mild insult in direction of one who's tossed more than many in my direction, my whole point became moot.
Damn I suck at internet debates! (and I actually kinda mean that... I just lack the kind of wit required to give the impression of being the cleverest fuck on the forum).

And for thinking that the relevance of this trial is over because the guy was acquitted... well... I just don't know what to say to that. It's guess it's true that there is no system of law in the world that makes it possible to appeal a decision, so you're right: a verdict does mean we shouldn't discuss the meaning or relevance of a case any further.

And no, ghug... he was not kidding you. Thing is, he understands what racism is, and you don't.

It's called beating a dead horse, Cachimbo. The jury acquitted him. Nothing can change that now. It's over.

And it was never all that relevant to begin with, but rather the product of intense media coverage. You could find dozens of sadder legal cases. Some even with white guys involved. This thing just blew up due to political and media pressure which made the prosecutor charge Zimmerman with second degree murder when, regardless of what may have actually happened that night, there was never enough evidence for a conviction.

This is over. Pick another tragedy to project these social grievences on if you must. There are plenty out there.

The law has spoken.

Justice has many more voices. If we were to abandon ideas every time the system judges them wrong, we would be far more retarded than we already are.

But maybe you and I disagree on that as well.

"The law has spoken. Justice has many more voices. If we were to abandon ideas every time the system judges them wrong, we would be far more retarded than we already are."

That's a more chilling statement than you realize. Sure, courts can give unjust verdicts. That may have happened here. The evidence doesn't support that, but there's a lot we don't know so it's ridiculous to be so rabidly pro-Zimmerman like a lot of people here are. But judgement based on popular opinion is no justice at all, and I find it hard to believe that the people still chanting "Justice for Trayvon" and using pictures of him when he was 14 rather than 17 are interested at all in what actually happened.


Again, though, it's over. The Martin family will have to live with this tragedy forever, obviously, but so do thousands of families. This thing got blown way, way out of proportion and we as a society need to step back, cool down, and move on.

That's not exactly what I meant Invictus. I meant that you can recognize that the law has done what it had to do and still want to discuss whether or not it should have. You can recognize the legitimacy of a verdict and still think about whether or not it's the kind of verdict we want in the future.

If you want to have an idea of where I'm coming from on this, you can read on legal positivism, especially H.L.A. Hart's.

The whole point is that the law and its doings can be recognized as legitimate while simultaneously a community is brought to recognize that this particular facet of its legal system may benefit from being changed (through validated and also legitimate processes, not through riots and the like).

Well, you can think whatever you want. I just mean it's a waste of time at this point, sound philosophical arguments notwithstanding.

cachi, you are not a bad guy, really, but I counted how many times in one thread you used the word 'racist',.and I forgot how many times it was, but you use it as a crutch for many things when you disagree with something you assume is racist.

I am still mind-boggled how people can think Whites can be racist in a hispanic murdering a black SYG trial. You can call Zimmerman a 'white-hispanic' all you want, but he is no more white than Obama (literally), and I have never heard anyone ever call obama a "White/African-American'

You can not just make up words to suit your purpose/agenda, and then when someone does not agree with you, call them a racist.

Most people on here agree, The verdict was at it should be. Where the diversion in opinions exist, is the law itself.

Even you have admitted, yes, the correct verdict was reached, even though you hate the law itself. I can accept that, but when you run your racist strawmen arguements out there, that is where you and I part ways, because, I think GZ was justified in shooting him, based on the evidence. If GZ was being pummeled, the fact he could not fight (as one person on here said, a 'lame ass fighter") does not play into this. that does not make me racist. It just means, in that exact same situation, I am pulling the trigger also. Thats all it means.

Also, the Media stirs the pot sooooo much on this stuff, and makes it out to be racist far too often, when in reality, race often does not play into it, but it keeps the racial divide high and strong.

Autumn Pasquale. Google this poor child, why did THIS not make the news? She was 12.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Officer-Suspect-in-boy-s-murder-in-Houston-is-1613310.php

how about this young man, a whole 11 years old? Blow torched to death by a black woman, and the news in the first report tried to say it was a 'white pedo' who did it. See my point? The media is making this shit worse by not reporting the TRUTH. Report the facts, not opinions. Let the chips lay where they fall.

"Wow... you are one limited mind... .." Says the moron who thinks only his point of view is correct, even though it stands in stark contrast to the facts. Ha ha ha...God what a MORON you are Cach...You and you ilk...lol

Have fun with that, assclown!

"That's a more chilling statement than you realize."
What chilling is the Liberal thought police that want to convict people on what they magically think is in someone's mind. The left wing radicals in this country believe in Conviction-Before-Trial, they believe in Guilt-By-Media-Coverage, they believe in mob rule and evidence be damned.
The most chilling thing abuot all this is how far off the deep end the bleeding heart liberals have gone on this one...but the thing is, I truly can't understand why. This isn't a black-white issue - AT ALL, except in the minds of those that require there to be racial "injustice' in everything in order to do this: Validate their white superiority complex, in which they, the noble White Liberal, will save the Black Man from this horrible unjust society...

Funny, I would have thought a black man from a broken home in the White House, a black man as Attorney General, high offices across the Federal Government held by black men and minorities, including the Supreme Court...I would have thought that all this incredible progress would convince the Noble White Liberal that when the Republican passed Civil Rights legislation many years ago, and the results of such are evident today in this great country full of successful minorities in *every* facet of life and business...I would have thought that the Noble White Liberal would be proud.

I guess their still pissed that it took Republican to pass civil rights legislation, and pissed that maybe someday the Noble White Liberal will no longer be needed -- that the "minorities" will someday realize just how fucking insulting it is to have all these Noble White Liberals telling them how little they can success on their own without the Noble White Liberal to give them what they are too stupid or ill-equipped to do on their own (which is the view of the Noble White Liberal...)

Stressed... I think you have me confused with someone else. Though I've thought it many times, I don't believe I've explicitly called people racists. And if I have, i doubt it's as often as you seem to think.

cachi, you have done it enough, although you are not the worst offender of it, but you are not innocent of it.

However, agree or disagree with the Media playing politcis with this shit, and stirring the proverbial pot?

The media *specifically* editted the 911 calls to make it appear Zimmerman was racially motivated...

Let me quote myself:
"You can recognize that the law has done what it had to do and still want to discuss whether or not it should have. You can recognize the legitimacy of a verdict and still think about whether or not it's the kind of verdict we want in the future.

If you want to have an idea of where I'm coming from on this, you can read on legal positivism, especially H.L.A. Hart's.

The whole point is that the law and its doings can be recognized as legitimate while simultaneously a community is brought to recognize that this particular facet of its legal system may benefit from being changed (through validated and also legitimate processes, not through riots and the like)."

Now, this sort of reflection can take many forms. Invictus seems to think that it can only be philosophical. I rather think that it can also, and more significantly, be political. In fact, that was the point I was trying to make: talking publicly about this issue and the problems it helps us be aware of is a fantastic opportunity for a political community to grow, change, adapt, and elect to determine their institutions in a way that better reflects the values it means to embrace.

On that front, one has to recognize that the media, all of them, are legitimate actors on the political scene.

Now, do I agree with the way things are being spun by certain pundits? No. And that's true on all sides of the fence.
Do I think it's wrong for the media to explore these questions? No. But I do wish they were more responsible in doing so. And again, that's true on all sides of the fence.
It strikes me that we're sadly ill equipped, on the level of political representation and intelligent media, to face such troubling questions.

Do right wingers ever get tired of twisting the truth about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It is true, it was a bipartisan effort. But the Republicans that voted for that in 1964 would have either never been part of the modern Republican Party, or they would have been run out years ago (which is what happened).

Read about the Southern Strategy from Nixon, and ask what party the racist hack Strom Thurmond joined when his own party ditched the Dixiecrats.

There is a reason that the Southern states are Republican strongholds... the Republican party now is the standard bearer for what is left of the racist fucks we called Dixiecrats.

Maryin history of violence: While it was inadmissable in court, there is no denying sweet little Trayvon Martin was well acquainted with violence and had a history of fighting in school, including suspensions for fighting. The little THUG had a violent nature...and attacked an adult. Sorry you silly libs....truth hurts, doesn't it.

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/george-zimmerman-pre-trial-hearing/65639/

Poor Jackie....has to twist the truth to defend the perverted Democrat party, that only found civil rights in their blood After Republicans pushed it through.

Poor poor Jack. What color is the sky in your world?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/spooner-darius-simmons-shooting-trial-170359879.html

More Media BS. Trying to compare this, which I 100% think this man is insane and needs put in jail forever, to Zimmerman.

Why oh why, must the media continue with their constant race-baiting?!?!?!?!? They are out of their freaking mind with it.

I do not see very much at all similar to the two cases. That crazy old white bastard needs to be exterminated, if the facts of that story are all true, as it seems there are plenty of witnesses, in the daylight hours.

Jack proving my point for me, appreciate it bud.

Ok, let me show you how wrong you are (standard, really).

The law was proposed in 1964, President Johnson gave a speech saying the best possible eulogy would be a speedy and rapid passing of this civil rights legislation.

Normally, with a Mississippi Senator chairing the Judiciary, the bill would die in committee. The response: Senate Majority Leader Mansfield (D-Montana), bypassed the committee.

The Southerners staged a filibuster (Lead by aforementioned racist shithead Strom Thurmond).

The voting came down to the liberal wings of both parties trumping the conservative wings (back then, you could have a liberal Republican, and a conservative Democrat).

In the following years, the conservative Democrats (read:Dixiecrats for the most part), came over to the Republics (Case in point, Strom Thurmond).

I reiterate: If there is a party that is home to the remnants of the racist southerners, it resides in the Republican Party. See Southern Strategy.

Or just, you know, stop foaming at the mouth and read a little history.

Quick American history question (and keep in mind that this is coming from a Canadian... a French one at that!):

To what part of the States was the Democrat party most associated to until the 1960s?

Relatedly: what party was, until then, considered to be the most liberal and open to progressive ideas?

Let's see if you can think this one out Krellin. Don't forget to use the power of the internet if your history classes are too much of a blur for you to answer these questions.

Right... well... that's another way to do it Jack! lol

Not exactly the same point, but certainly not without connections to the one I was making.

The end point is, regardless of party, the liberals of this country passed the Civil Rights, and the conservatives stood against it.

I mean, can anybody imagine Nelson Rockefeller being able to actually run for office in the modern Republican party? Hell, I think Goldwater couldn't do it these days (he wouldn't be willing to bow down before the religious right)

Is this the same democrTs that the kennedy adn gore families are from pre 60s?

Fdr was a democrat and by many counts a liberal. Certainly long prior to the civil rights era.

I read your part how each party had liberals but was just curious on the other part

So both parties passed the civil rights act.then?