·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Oh, George.
Oh, George.Follow
So once every decade you find a legitimate example? 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Was I wrong in this thread to point out that Git's assumption about the information in the article in question was wrong?
I don't know, I'm not going to litigate a 10 year old thread. Let's assume you were correct. That's 1 correct example in 10 years of posting. How many times would you estimate you've made similar claims?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
This was an incredibly clear case of an article written specifically to make people believe one thing, even when all the facts said the exact opposite.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I think the more interestIng question is "Did he just comb through 10yrs of post to find an example or did he save that example 10 years ago as proof?"
Just as Planned.
I'm hoping this means the forum search function is fixed.
Sure, I could do a search and check but this way I get to retain hopeful optimism rather than risk crushing reality.
Sure, I could do a search and check but this way I get to retain hopeful optimism rather than risk crushing reality.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/02/us-usa-georgezimmerman-boxing-idUSBREA1101520140202
So, the man who claimed "self-defense" against a teenager is now open for celebrity boxing and apparently has a history in boxing.
So, the man who claimed "self-defense" against a teenager is now open for celebrity boxing and apparently has a history in boxing.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
The resurrection of this thread was timely.
Florida is trying it's Stand Your Ground law again as the trial begins for Micheal Dunn.
Dunn, a 47 year old white guy with a concealed gun got into an argument with a some black teens in an SUV over the music volume when their two vehicles were parked side-by-side at a convenience store. Dunn, 'feeling threatened' shoot into the SUV multiple times killing one and wounding another kid.
Dunn claims he was verbally threatened and that Davis, the deceased kid, was waving a gun around. There were no guns found in the SUV or on any of the teens.
STORY.
It will interesting to see how this goes.
Florida is trying it's Stand Your Ground law again as the trial begins for Micheal Dunn.
Dunn, a 47 year old white guy with a concealed gun got into an argument with a some black teens in an SUV over the music volume when their two vehicles were parked side-by-side at a convenience store. Dunn, 'feeling threatened' shoot into the SUV multiple times killing one and wounding another kid.
Dunn claims he was verbally threatened and that Davis, the deceased kid, was waving a gun around. There were no guns found in the SUV or on any of the teens.
STORY.
It will interesting to see how this goes.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Florida is one ****** up place...
I find most amusing similarity about this most recent case and the Trayvon Martin case is that the 'entitled responsible gun toting white adult' instigated the encounter.
Bunch of weanies.
Bunch of weanies.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
Well sure not if cartoons are your main thing.
I think Dunn will end up in jail. There are some similarities with the Martin-Zimmerman case, but in this instance there were lots of eye witnesses, no physical confrontations and Dunn left the scene of the crime. He'll be found guilty of some sort of murder, but still his defense is going to be Florida's rather unique law that grants someone the right to 'murder' based simply on feeling threatened.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 4:16pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
I think Dunn will end up in jail. There are some similarities with the Martin-Zimmerman case, but in this instance there were lots of eye witnesses, no physical confrontations and Dunn left the scene of the crime. He'll be found guilty of some sort of murder, but still his defense is going to be Florida's rather unique law that grants someone the right to 'murder' based simply on feeling threatened.
Other than a gun being involved, there's no other similarities at all. Well, no other relevant similarities. They did both occur on planet Earth, so there's that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Other than a gun being involved, there's no other similarities at all. Well, no other relevant similarities.
Well, both in the same jurisdiction, that's relevant.
Both claiming the same defense, that's relevant
Both men shooting men, that's relevant.
Both involve defendants who are monumentally racist terrified cowards who felt empowered by handguns because they live in a culture of fear and entitlement. That's REALLY relevant.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 7:08pm by Smasharoo
Well, both in the same jurisdiction, that's relevant.
Both claiming the same defense, that's relevant
Both men shooting men, that's relevant.
Both involve defendants who are monumentally racist terrified cowards who felt empowered by handguns because they live in a culture of fear and entitlement. That's REALLY relevant.
Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 7:08pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Other than a gun being involved, there's no other similarities at all. Well, no other relevant similarities.
Well, both in the same jurisdiction, that's relevant.
Well, both in the same jurisdiction, that's relevant.
Not in terms of the cases "being similar". Hundreds of cases occurred in the same jurisdiction, yet we don't say they are similar because of that.
Quote:
Both claiming the same defense, that's relevant
Given we're talking about the similarities or differences between stand your ground cases, that's kinda circular, isn't it?
Quote:
Both men shooting men, that's relevant.
But not "similar" though. One involved a shooter firing at one person. The other involved the shooter firing at multiple people. In one, the shooter was in a car, in the other he was not. In one the victim was in a car. In the other he was not. In one, the shooter was lying on his back on the ground. In the other, he was not. In one, the victim was in the process of physically assaulting the shooter. In the other he was not. In one the shooter called the police before the shooting occurred and then waited for them to arrive afterwards. In the other, the shooter never called the police, and fled the scene afterwards.
There are vast differences between the two shootings. Far far more differences than similarities.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Either way, I'm interested. But then I listened to Allegory and Timelordwho discuss statistics for two hours the other night.
Seems to me having the white guy initiate the confrontation with the black guy, then white guy killing black guy while claiming stand your ground is all the similarity you need,
I take back what I said slightly. There is a mild amusement in watching people play Defend The White Guy, but only very mild. Like salsas made in the Midwest mild.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Gbaji wrote:
Other than a gun being involved, there's no other similarities at all. Well, no other relevant similarities. They did both occur on planet Earth, so there's that.
I'll bite...Both are "Stand your ground" cases that involve a dead unarmed person in the same state.
There are similarities, but there's also some notable differences.
1: Zimmerman ain't white.
2: Zimmerman isn't racist. ( according to the FBI and everyone that ever knew him).
3: Zimmerman got his *** whooped before ******** his pants and pulling a gun.
Zimmerman may be a piece of ****, but this comparison just lessens what a monumental fugazz this Dunn guy is.
1: Zimmerman ain't white.
2: Zimmerman isn't racist. ( according to the FBI and everyone that ever knew him).
3: Zimmerman got his *** whooped before ******** his pants and pulling a gun.
Zimmerman may be a piece of ****, but this comparison just lessens what a monumental fugazz this Dunn guy is.
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
Not in terms of the cases "being similar". Hundreds of cases occurred in the same jurisdiction, yet we don't say they are similar because of that.
We, speakers of the English language, do, actually. Fortunately for us all, you aren't the arbiter of what words mean. :( Sorry. I guess that similar to quail. Right?
We, speakers of the English language, do, actually. Fortunately for us all, you aren't the arbiter of what words mean. :( Sorry. I guess that similar to quail. Right?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Gbaji wrote:
Other than a gun being involved, there's no other similarities at all. Well, no other relevant similarities. They did both occur on planet Earth, so there's that.
Not only planet earth - but Florida. Both the dead victims are young black men. Both escalated because a person with a gun felt compelled to stick his nose in another's business putting himself in a situation where he felt 'threatened'. Both were senseless and stupid.
Yeah, Zimmerman isn't a true white guy - but he had enough people fooled.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
But not "similar" though. One involved a shooter firing at one person. The other involved the shooter firing at multiple people. In one, the shooter was in a car, in the other he was not. In one the victim was in a car. In the other he was not. In one, the shooter was lying on his back on the ground. In the other, he was not. In one, the victim was in the process of physically assaulting the shooter. In the other he was not. In one the shooter called the police before the shooting occurred and then waited for them to arrive afterwards. In the other, the shooter never called the police, and fled the scene afterwards.
Yes, there are also differences, good work. Did you mean "they aren't identical"? Because that would be true. They're similar. Vastly more so than almost every other two murder cases will be. So, on balance: similar.
The important part, however, is when you're told to either defend or not defend white shooting guy here. Have you not hear yet? I'm eager for you to receive your opinion about this case and let us know.
Yes, there are also differences, good work. Did you mean "they aren't identical"? Because that would be true. They're similar. Vastly more so than almost every other two murder cases will be. So, on balance: similar.
The important part, however, is when you're told to either defend or not defend white shooting guy here. Have you not hear yet? I'm eager for you to receive your opinion about this case and let us know.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
lolgaxe wrote:
I take back what I said slightly. There is a mild amusement in watching people play Defend The White Guy, but only very mild. Like salsas made in the Midwest mild.
Still, it's better than the stuff that's made in New York City.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Debalic wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I take back what I said slightly. There is a mild amusement in watching people play Defend The White Guy, but only very mild. Like salsas made in the Midwest mild.
It's not so bad if you go to a real Mexican restaurant, and the mobile lunch trucks. You know, the ones with the Koreans in the kitchen doing the cooking.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
xantav wrote:
Seems to me having the white guy initiate the confrontation with the black guy, then white guy killing black guy while claiming stand your ground is all the similarity you need,
If you are inordinately obsessed with race, I suppose so (all the more ironic in that a Latino shoots a black kid and you've been told that you're supposed to interpret things in a white vs black context, so you do so without question). But for those of us who look at people's actions and not their skin color, there are vast differences.
Stop obsessing over race. Look at the facts of the cases and you'll see they are nothing alike.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 293
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Oh, George.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC