Should Obama call for restraint and calm in the Trayvon Martin case?

M

miles

Guest
Yes, but will he?

I'm hoping he does, but I'm not counting on it.
 
Let's see here, you were bitching yesterday that President Obama commented on the case at all, and today you're bitching that he won't call for "restraint and calm"....

there's simply no pleasing bitches like you, Miles Ben Zonah. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: This is miles' 183rd thread with "Obama" in the title.
 
Last edited:
We need Al Sharpton to work the crowds into a frenzy by claiming this is a racially motivated hate crime.

At best, he may get a riot started, at the very least, he may get 10 more peeps watching him on MSNBC.
 
A child was murdered...

its nice to see people talking about Obama and Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and the Latino community, and the liberal media

.. instead of talking about .. ya know, that child, that was murdered.
 
A child was murdered...

its nice to see people talking about Obama and Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and the Latino community, and the liberal media

.. instead of talking about .. ya know, that child, that was murdered.

We dont know that any child was murdered, we know Treyvon Martin was shot dead after he attacked George Zimmerman.

Try and control your hysteria.
 

Classic deflection....The fringe right cannot fight the impulse to counter one outrageous action by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why can't they respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then -- if there's another indecency later -- react to that too, and on its own terms?

Instead, the fringe right insists on reducing everything....EVERYTHING.. to a revenge drama.

Each offense is "balanced" by reference to some previous offense by some undefined "them" who supposedly once did something even worse in the past.

Therefore, we get "Rush Limbaugh? But....but....Bill Maher!" and now "George Zimmerman? But...but...Kansas City...gasoline!!" from the fringe right here on the GB.
 
Classic deflection....The fringe right cannot fight the impulse to counter one outrageous action by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why can't they respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then -- if there's another indecency later -- react to that too, and on its own terms?

Instead, the fringe right insists on reducing everything....EVERYTHING.. to a revenge drama.

Each offense is "balanced" by reference to some previous offense by some undefined "them" who supposedly once did something even worse in the past.

Therefore, we get "Rush Limbaugh? But....but....Bill Maher!" and now "George Zimmerman? But...but...Kansas City...gasoline!!" from the fringe right here on the GB.

Miles follows the Saul Alinsky playbook to the letter.
 
We dont know that any child was murdered, we know Treyvon Martin was shot dead after he attacked George Zimmerman.

Try and control your hysteria.

Whether you think Zimmerman thought he was justified or not is different then questioning if that child was murdered.

A boy was walking home from the store, carrying a can of tea and a bag of candy, and now he is dead. He was murdered.
 
Classic deflection....The fringe right cannot fight the impulse to counter one outrageous action by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why can't they respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then -- if there's another indecency later -- react to that too, and on its own terms?

Instead, the fringe right insists on reducing everything....EVERYTHING.. to a revenge drama.

Each offense is "balanced" by reference to some previous offense by some undefined "them" who supposedly once did something even worse in the past.

Therefore, we get "Rush Limbaugh? But....but....Bill Maher!" and now "George Zimmerman? But...but...Kansas City...gasoline!!" from the fringe right here on the GB.

Eat a twinkie, you seem to be spazzing out. Must be your brown guilt.
 
there's too little sympathy for man who substituted fire arm-induced bravado for reasonable behavior.

he's the victim here, dammit.

that other kid, the dead one--since he did not have a gun--had a duty to retreat.
 
You don't know that all he was doing was walking home with a can of tea and a bag of skittles, that's the problem. It's not obvious to the police that this guy walked up to a "child" carrying a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles and executed him. There must be more to the story.

Sure there is a story, it's all black and white.
 
there's an eye witness that says so, where is there an eye witness to the contrary?

No there isn't.

The eyewitness did not see what happened before. So it is very reasonable that Martin was only defending himself, which under Florida law he is entitled to do.
 
You don't know that all he was doing was walking home with a can of tea and a bag of skittles, that's the problem.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is, in fact, all that Martin was doing. I'm quite surprised that a gun nut like you hasn't advocated that Martin should have been armed to protect himself.
 
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is, in fact, all that Martin was doing. I'm quite surprised that a gun nut like you hasn't advocated that Martin should have been armed to protect himself.

I've thought the same thing. If Martin, a minor, was legally able to own a gun, he'd be alive right now.
 
Back
Top