All Things Related To Riots Or Other Civil Unrest MOD ALERT

Of you're an American you're on team America. You don't stab a teammate in the back. You don't disrespect your teams emblems. Stuff like that. Or you're no longer part of the team.

 

It is a good thing this team has this fancy little thing called a constitution that lets its teammates voice and express their opinions freely as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. If no one is being harmed in the process and if the flag wasn't stolen then you are well within your rights as an American to burn the flag.

Quit comparing religion to patriotism, they're two completely different things.

Is it treason to speak out against President and his administration, and is it treason to express your first amendment right?

It's clear that I am arguing against people who hate America and the Constitution.

 

What the heck is 'team America?" People who think like you? That is, who think exclusively in metaphorical slogans?

You are not entitled to set the standards for being American, fortunately.

BTW, the NAZIS were big on that 'stabbed in the back' metaphor. Said those people Hitler hated 'stabbed Germany in the back' and that's why they lost WWI. Well, haters gonna hate, but the German example says you have to watch out for them, because they can do huge damage. The lesson is that the Nazis, who's propaganda was all about defending Germany from the "un-Germans" among them, basically brought about the utter destruction of Germany.

 

[video=youtube;DOEIruwzf54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOEIruwzf54[/video]

 

Only SCROTUS thinks that flagburning is a Constitutional right. We, the people, think it is treason, and that is all that matters in a free country. Saying that an outrageous and humiliating insult to the vast majority of Americans is harmless is the kind of twisted thinking that believing the Supreme Court is a Supreme Being leads to.

 

We should allow Trayvestites to burn Florida's flag, as long as they aren't in Florida, where the will of the state's people supersedes outsiders' idiocy.

 

"We the people" you mean the same people who declared that Flag Burning is a Constitutional right. Quit trying to use the constitution when it completely defeats your position on the matter.

 

No no no. By "we the people" he means himself. He claims the right to do whatever he wants. It's right there, where he says "We, the people, think it is treason, and that is all that matters in a free country" (emphasis added). So the law doesn't matter. The Supreme Court doesn't matter. The Constitution itself doesn't matter. What he thinks is all that matters.

All hail PrometheusBound!

 

The truth seems to hurt you pal. I accept the jury verdict even though I disagree with it. You and the other GZ lovers keep trying to defend GZ even though he has been found not guilty.
Did 'justice' win in the OJ case IYO? Try to be honest.

 

You're not talking about us, the people. You're referring to a small group of wannabe House of Lords elitists who drafted an anti-democratic manifesto behind closed doors way back in the 18th Century. Flagburning is overwhelmingly not what we, the people, want. We never voted to give up our authority to nine clowns with gavels and gowns, but Constitutionazis get a kick out of forcing it down our throats. Real Americans don't lick the boots that kick them.

 

I'm sorry you didn't get the 'black riot' you were hoping for.

 

Thank you for your sympathy.

Maybe next time.

 

What would you call what happened in LA/Hollywood.........?

 

They were not the full-scale riots (ie. excuse to shoot black people) that the racists were hoping for.

Those poor racists.

 

Not "full-scale riots"........LMAO.......what exactly is the demarcation line between "full-scale riots" and "not full-scale riots".......is it that no white people were beaten to death yet?

 

strawman.......................and quite a stretch to boot

 

seems that the racists are the ones screaming for a proven innocent's blood.....................since they didn't get the verdict they feel they should have, now they are fomenting rebellion.............stop and think about the gobal ramifications of civil war on this continent.............
Be sure to realize that I waited for the verdict. I accepted that fact that it could have gone either say and would have accepted that verdict. Personally, I have no statement other than the facts presented at trial. The prosecutor and the judge both tried to enfluence the outcome and it still came in NOT GUILTY.

 

I dispute this narrative. Public discussion seems reasonable, no screaming.

BTW, trials do not prove anyone innocent. Acquittals simply indicate the state did not prove the defendant guilty. Think of the verdict as "not proven," instead of "not guilty." Not that I question the verdict. The jury has spoken, and that's that. They sat through the trial, I didn't. My main issue from the beginning was that the police and DA seemed to have dropped the case. There needed to be a trail.

My feeling is that George started a fight, and should have been found on manslaughter, but it was up to the jury.

Still, I'm left a little bugged, sense of justice wise, by this appreciation of how things work:

1. Shoot someone dead.
2. No witnesses, so it's your word against nobody's.
3. Claim self-defense and you walk.

 

There was..............including whites and hispanics attacked by gangs of blacks, wildings in Long Beach, burning of private businesses, dragging people out of cars and throwing rocks and concrete at passing cars in LA.

 

What "truth" hurt me? The truth, the evidence, was quite clear from the get-go. Martin committed a felony assault and lost his life in the process. The shooting was a justifiable homicide. The defense provided no proof otherwise and tried to convict him on made up "what if's". And until the black community teaches it's young black males that a life of crime and engaging in violent acts can put you in jail or cause you to lose your life there will be more Trayvon Martins.

 

In an affirmative defense they do, he admitted he shot and killed Martin. The prosecution could not prove otherwise and in particular in this case as O'Mara noted were there an "innocent" checkbox it most certainly would have been used here.

We don't put people on trial or even arrest them unless there is probable cause to do so. There never was here, even the former prosecutor after reviewing the evidence said there was no charge here. And there was no evidence produce after that to refute that. At the most it should have been presented to a grand jury which I am sure would have come up with the same conclusion.

Your feelings are divorced of the facts and the evidence there is no evidence Zimmerman started a fight and is absurd to claim since he knew the police would be arriving at any second and were he to strike Martin he would be arrested.

No that is not the case and as the recent articles on SYG in Florida show most do NOT walk who claim self-defense. But in this case it was quite clear Zimmerman was recieving a severe beating including having his head slammed against concrete which is prima facie evidence of imminent serious bodily harm. He had every right to defend himself.

 

You think truth and evidence are the same thing? Please.

 

Right. Skittles and hoodies are an evil scourge that has plagued the black community for years. When will they wake up? Right bluesguy?

Like that OJ case where Nicole Brown brought about her own demise by simply.............??? The real danger is people who think like you do IMO. You, like GZ, assume that anyone who is black is automatically who 'engage in a life of crime' and violent acts even though there is no proof in this case that supports your 'colored' twist.

 

From me..........The truth seems to hurt you pal. I accept the jury verdict even though I disagree with it. You and the other GZ lovers keep trying to defend GZ even though he has been found not guilty.
Did 'justice' win in the OJ case IYO? Try to be honest.

Where is the strawman? Was GZ found not guilty? Are you and others still trying to 'defend' him even though the case is over? Don't use terms that you do not understand.

 

You poor Reginald Denny wimps.