Administrators Naomi Posted March 28, 2012 Administrators Share Posted March 28, 2012 Sigh... those democrats.. LOL If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 Timeline: The Trayvon Martin shooting here's a time line, its interesting that it took 1 month for the police to say that Zimmerman claimed being attacked? why? Its also interesting that Zimmerman had originally said that he was following him, but yet now his lawyer is saying he didn't?: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...-sanford-police phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Originally Posted By: olger Sigh... those democrats.. LOL Wow. The Republicans dodged a bullet there. They surely would have been the target of the Demos if Zimmerman was a Republican. I can hear the headlines now. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Timeline: The Trayvon Martin shooting here's a time line, its interesting that it took 1 month for the police to say that Zimmerman claimed being attacked? why? Its also interesting that Zimmerman had originally said that he was following him, but yet now his lawyer is saying he didn't?: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...-sanford-police There are many reasons why all information is not released to our satisfaction. Just because we might want to know - does not mean that it will always happen just as we might desire. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I don't recall saying that at all. Its a loaded question that easily leads one to think that an implication is being made. I have no idea why he was shot. I don't think anyone but the dude that shot him knows that. I am pretty sure that he will not really be very forth coming with that information either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yeah, if we must have a proletariat uprising ;-) to get rid of the parasites in DC – then I’ll fire the first shot, err, I mean – cast the first stone. Then we can install the Alaskan. “OMG! that woman owns a G-U-N!—and shoots moose, fishes, and went to Idaho for her higher education, etc. Did you see the picture of her in those rubber hip-waders? And her children...!” “Gd love her and her family!” --jasd Well, McKinley didn’t go to school at all, and Abe only – 18 months. Sheesh, better a little Red Schoolhouse than that riffraff Harvard, Yale, Columbia, et al – is sending to DC. “Criminy, I tell you, there’re 61, uhh, no, uhh, 67 - mebbe 68 States in the People’s Republic of Amerika, yes?” –jhames joys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted March 28, 2012 Members Share Posted March 28, 2012 There are many reasons why all information is not released to our satisfaction. Just because we might want to know - does not mean that it will always happen just as we might desire. Sorry I don't buy that for one minute. If Zimmerman had reported this in the beginning and the police had of mentioned it, it might have had a different effect on how people received it. But to wait till all the complaints from family and friends, than say oh ya by the way martin attack zimmerman. That just looks like where changing our story whenever we need to, to cover our #$%'&. No I don't need everything done a certain way, but seems like at each turn the story changes to accommodate what the police need it to say. By the way they are now investigating the Sanford PD! phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 >>If Zimmerman had reported this in the beginning and the police had of mentioned it, it might have had a different effect on how people received it.<< What is Zimmerman not going to report? The officers on the scene as well others would have required an extensive explanation of the incident. The police went to Travis Martin's place the next day and showed him a photo of his son and the scene of the shooting. Police seldom share the particulars of an incident with whoever - especially a shooting. They will usually hold as much as possible back until the investigation is complete. The question obtaining would be: was there an investigation of the shooting (of course, there always is), and was it still ongoing? People do not always receive things as might be expected. The examples lie in Los Angeles where there were extensive riotings and killings where everything was done by the book - judicially speaking. Sometimes, it is more gratifying to hoot and to hollar than to solemnly think or dwell upon a matter - especially if it is being ginned-up by rabble rousers. That is not to say that it is not always unfortunate and sad that someone is killed - no matter the circumstances - even Hitler. I would have dearly liked to have heard his side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I don't recall saying that at all. Its a loaded question that easily leads one to think that an implication is being made. I have no idea why he was shot. I don't think anyone but the dude that shot him knows that. I am pretty sure that he will not really be very forth coming with that information either. Why, in your mind, wouldn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I don't recall saying that at all. Its a loaded question that easily leads one to think that an implication is being made. I have no idea why he was shot. I don't think anyone but the dude that shot him knows that. I am pretty sure that he will not really be very forth coming with that information either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SivartM Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Have you considered the possibility that perhaps it would be good to not assume that anyone is guilty untill all of the facts are in. Is this still the USA and when did we stop believing a person innoncent until proven guilty? "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde�Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." - Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 28, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'm going to do what Woody is advocating (but not exemplifying) and just wait this one out, rather than join this increasingly unedifying discussion. Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'm going to do what Woody is advocating (but not exemplifying) and just wait this one out, rather than join this increasingly unedifying discussion. Victory. Finally someone is willing to do as I have been trying to promote. Thanks Bravus. Appreciate it. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 >>rather than join this increasingly unedifying discussion.<< Don't take me wrong, but I've seen you use take this tack on more than several occasions. Matter-of-fact, it seems to be taking the form of a siggy. It seems a gentle softball of a putdown of others who're a bit more impassioned re the matter than an Aussie may be. Sometimes hardball is the name of the game... If I were to suggest: I'd say, a la Nike - "just do it" - without commenting upon everyone's inability to edify... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: Your call has been to wait for the trial: so why keep on smearing one side? You want others to suspend judgement, how about showing the way? I should ask - which side started smearing which side. Zimmerman has been crucified. And all my calls to not prejudge have fallen on deaf ears. My purpose is simply to point out that we do not have the facts and that there is another side to consider. At some point the Zimmerman attacks had to be answered. The lynch mob mentality was just too strong to go unanswered. Woody, I am a hundred percent for you on this issue. Presumption is what was wrong with those who brought the women who was allegedy caught in adultry to Jesus. In fact, it was presumption that caused the death of Jesus. Is presumption a sin? Yes, if it is not the truth of the matter. See Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 28, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 28, 2012 >>rather than join this increasingly unedifying discussion.<< Don't take me wrong, but I've seen you use take this tack on more than several occasions. Matter-of-fact, it seems to be taking the form of a siggy. It seems a gentle softball of a putdown of others who're a bit more impassioned re the matter than an Aussie may be. Sometimes hardball is the name of the game... If I were to suggest: I'd say, a la Nike - "just do it" - without commenting upon everyone's inability to edify... ;-) I am fully aware that stating that I find the discussion unedifying and that I will take no further part in it is itself a statement. It is why I do it. I do not post without thought for the effects and the content. My intention is to encourage others to reconsider their own participation. It is, of course, a matter for them what course of action that reconsideration urges on them, but I think it's worth doing now and then. And passion I'm all for, when properly expressed and directed. My objection is not to passion but to denigration (heh) of others. It's possible to be passionate while edifying: it's what I try to do, and while I do not reach perfection it's that goal more than any Aussie reserve that I hope becomes a 'siggy'. Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Originally Posted By: jasd >>rather than join this increasingly unedifying discussion.<< Don't take me wrong, but I've seen you use take this tack on more than several occasions. Matter-of-fact, it seems to be taking the form of a siggy. It seems a gentle softball of a putdown of others who're a bit more impassioned re the matter than an Aussie may be. Sometimes hardball is the name of the game... If I were to suggest: I'd say, a la Nike - "just do it" - without commenting upon everyone's inability to edify... ;-) I am fully aware that stating that I find the discussion unedifying and that I will take no further part in it is itself a statement. It is why I do it. I do not post without thought for the effects and the content. My intention is to encourage others to reconsider their own participation. It is, of course, a matter for them what course of action that reconsideration urges on them, but I think it's worth doing now and then. And passion I'm all for, when properly expressed and directed. My objection is not to passion but to denigration (heh) of others. It's possible to be passionate while edifying: it's what I try to do, and while I do not reach perfection it's that goal more than any Aussie reserve that I hope becomes a 'siggy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rich Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: Why is that hard for some to understand? It's because there is an agenda out there to make it look that our nation is a terrible racist nation. And at every turn and opportunity - these people try to drag down our citizens. Yes there is racism. But it is not racism at every corner as some want it protrayed. Some despicable politicians are fanning the flames by making this a political issue - LONG before all the facts are out. One politican called Martin an innocent black man killed for being black. May I ask - where does he get this idea? And why is he speaking before the evidence has been presented? As Richard wrote, Xactly. But after reading what Martin wrote or 'tweeted', the words used are NOT words an American English teacher would write--they are, to put it bluntly, gang words- black gang words at that. And just where or how did Martin find the funds to pay for gold teeth at his age, and just why were those teeth capped gold in the first place? Isn't 17 a little young to be having tooth decay problems? The sad thing is, that this case will probably be used as a political ploy to take away the right of self defense (2nd Amendment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 >>I am fully aware that stating that I find the discussion unedifying and that I will take no further part in it is itself a statement. It is why I do it.<< Then you are aware that it sounds like a self-serving bowl of sand, yes? You may have better stated yourself as wishing that we be more reflective of other's feelings and bring the conversation up a notch. "Truth is important" - no matter how perceived or taken. Advocating less than truth is advocating deceptiveness and pusillanimity - that is, timidity, and is an unworthy thrust in any serious discussion. I would agree that truths might oughta have their edges dulled should those engaged in their dialectical discourse be seated upon velvet cushions sharing pomegranate wine in each other's homes. However, forums are ordinarily designed for Truths, per se; that is, driving to the crux of the matter. Are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 28, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 28, 2012 Hang on jasd. You said 'Sometimes hardball is the name of the game...' But now you want to complain about my tone. I call it like I see it. Deal. Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 >>From what I can tell, you seem to be saying that black people are irrational, irresponsible brutes.<< Why?—because I flat-out implied that a 70% illegitimacy rate for children born to our black population is irresponsible behaviour? You don’t call a 70% illegitimacy rate irresponsible? Don’t know where you get “brutes” from my post. I strongly implied irresponsibility – not brutishness. That’s reserved should mention be made of the violence exhibited by the young black. >>Welcome to the 21st century, my friend, where some of us would like to help the socioeconomically disadvantaged out of their situation by removing the factors that limit them (such as racism), unlike those who think that if we stop talking about racism it will go away.<< You believe that a socioeconomic problem disappears because you do a soft-shoe shuffle around it? Hey, SivartM, I don’t know you – but you post well and I respect what you’ve to say; however, it is as you say – it is the 21st century. Time enough to leave excuses behind. We cannot afford to mush-mouth antisocial behaviour any longer. We’re in ‘retrograde’ as a society – and it’s time to quit with the “me so victim” mentality. We all rise with the tide and we all go down with the tide – we will diminish together. Per “racism” – is a reality check. I’ve never seen so much racism as when I observe the seemingly ubiquitous angry black male. To him I say, “Chill guy, we all got problems. Different mebbe, but problems. You want respect, you give respect – and quit complainin’ alla time. You got issues with this guy killed here and that guy over there, but hey, you got any idea how many white boyz died so you can have the opportunity to go to Harvard and become POTUS? (more'n all those who died fighting all the other wars this nation was ever involved in - put together) An’ you ain’t never said Thanx for that, yes? Just ‘give me reparation for my great-great-great-great grandpa’ who was down for the struggle’." Tell the truth, 90% blacks better people than me; however, I gotta bear the tribulation of the constant drumbeat of cracker this, honky that, whitey this and that? Let it go. Just let it go. You don’t need it, and whitey sure nuff don’t. Whitey be tired of that ****. >>Black people are in the 1%? If you mean that the majority are, you've got to be joking.<< Hey, SivartM, you gotta pay attention to what you read. Quote: Quote:jasdincluding blacks who are some of the most well-off – the one-percenters. [ed.jasd] The one-percenters are the well-off. >>We may have a black president, but white people still run most of the country.<< Sheesh, it’s their country!—who else gonna be runnin’ it? I’m part original native American Indian – and it doesn’t even cross my mind that this country isn’t de facto and de jure owned and run by the Anglo. Law of conquest – the same everywhere. Always been. I’m thankful for whatever opportunity that falls from the table. Sheesh. Reality. Be happy this country can elect a black president. I only wish he were conservative and held the Constitution in higher esteem – and didn’t spend us into economic servitude – but that would serve whitey right, eh? Dubya didn’t spend nearly so much and he had two HOT wars he was funding. >>Race is an issue because of people like you who want to make it a non-issue. Race is an issue because you are protecting racists by trying to divert attention, and trying to minimize the problem.<< You have an open sore you clean it, dress it, and move on. Picking at the scab will infect and destroy. DESTROY. The most liberal Europeans, the Swedes, are racists – who are constructing gated communities as fast as they can put them up – and their women are beginning to wear – a la Medieval Europe – failsafe chastity belts. Why? Everybody are racists, even the best Xtian, the best Buhhdist, the best Muslim, etc are. Only masochists are not. Fact of life. The thing to keep in mind is: to what degree?—as excess is not bearable. >>Minorities, including black people, still experience daily discrimination.<< I’m a minority; that is, literally socially and legally, as I have AmIndian and Oriental blood. Not whining. Whining is too déclassé. >>I can see it in this thread quite clearly. You are not helping minorities by taking the attention off of them and putting it back onto the white people who will fix everything.<< The age that saw the white man ‘fixing’ everything is past – for the immediate future. The white man is being judged by Gd – and it will be horrifying in its severity. Fill your pantry – and bury it in buckets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 >>But now you want to complain about my tone.<< You misread me. Not a complaint, Bravus, an observational advisement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I am very concerned how some on this forum continue to feel that those of us who would like to see the FACTS of the case - are racists.It's a real shame that we can't look at this in a calm fashion and believe the best in those that want to learn what happened. My purpose from the beginning has been to try to open the mind of those minds that are closed before the facts are out. I have no idea what happened. And none of the rest of you know. They say there is a 'fog of war' and this is kinda what we experience here. But to push the 'race card' before one knows - is just irresponsible. Like Bravus - I've tried to retire from this issue before the end of the trial which is most certain to come. Folks - just because it is on TV - yes even your favorite pet channel - does not mean it is true. Let's wait till the man has his day in court before throwing out racist comments. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 How about listing what we can agree upon with this event? I suspect we can agree that it is: 1.) A tragedy 2.) A shame 3.) Unfortunate 4.) A terrible loss 5.) Alarming 6.) Concerning 7.) All around loss for both of those concerned. Okay - your turn. Do you think you could add some thoughts that would be agreed upon and that are non-inflammatory? May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 29, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 29, 2012 Righto, you want to see the *facts*? Here's one: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/29/where_are_zimmermans_injuries/ You've been taking Zimmerman's *claim* about his injuries as though it was *fact*. Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts