Topics

[Background Info Over]

I'm sure some here are familiar with the recently decided 'George Zimmerman vs. State' case. George allegedly followed Trayvon as he was cutting between houses. He called the non-emergency number because there were a large amount of break-ins recently and George didn't recognize Trayvon from that neighborhood. The fact that it was raining and that Trayvon was wearing a big hoodie added to George's suspicion.

The ultimate result was a scuffle between the two of them that ended in George fatally shooting Trayvon in the chest. The defense suggests that Trayvon blind-sided George after George got out of his car to keep track of Trayvon's position in the neighborhood. The prosecution suggests George followed Trayvon all the way to the point of confrontation, and Trayvon was defending himself.

Background Info Over

There were multiple witnesses claiming Trayvon was on top, and multiple claiming he was on bottom. Audio experts disagreed on who's voice shouted for help. Some said Trayvon, some said George. Georges parents said George, Trayvons parents said Trayvon. The only person on earth who knows what truly happened that night is George Zimmerman and he described himself as innocent. From a Judge's point of view, you cannot assume he is lying to save his own skin. So we have a he said she said situation with the only person in any real position of non-ignorance is George and he said he's innocent.

This trial should never have even happened. He got the verdict he deserved. On the 4th of July, 11 murders took place including a man and his infant child. Who the hell is investigating that, making T-shirts about that, starting wikipedia pages about that. No one. It should not have gotten the coverage it did. George Zimmerman's life is ruined as a result. Trayvon's family was unsatisfied in believing it was their own son's fault and went to media all over the place and made this whole thing a big disaster.
14 minutes ago · Like · 1

Just sayin.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

I found it in another discussion forum I was in and found it really enlightening. It's not solid evidence, but it does make some very good points about the viability of 'fossil records' and how reasonable evidence can be ignored if it contradicts already well established beliefs.

Your thoughts?

I'm doing stand up comedy.

With puns. So thank god for the No Pun Intended thread.

I recently was enlightened to the philosophy of Gorean Slavery. How? I met a slave.


Now, read about it, because I'm not about to go on in detail about what it is.... and tell me what you think.


I found it heartbreaking, that people actually accept that lifestyle.

My birthday was on the 21st (of september), and it's now been an entire month of being 15.


I don't feel any different.

Looks like griffin.

I saw him, and my mind exploded. I went to the hospital for 3 days, and now I'm back.

In case you haven't already heard. Steve Jobs died of cancer today.

I've got 125$ Saved up from my birthday last week (It was the 21st)

I'm looking into getting a Remington 597 .22 rounds. Is anyone here experience with the Remington or guns in general? I won't really be hunting much. Maybe just shooting ground squirrels near bristol when I have the time to drive out there.

I don't. So please tell me what was just said to me.

Prithee allow thine ears to unfold and my bottle to uncork,
Pour vernacular of century's past into thine ears so I may,
And absorbent will be the true quality of thou's brain.

For 'tis not the mere manner of speech that doth be repeated,
But parallel there must be the muse and the art,
For if neither exists, thou's research of language,
Is but for naught.

In your opinions, what was the civil war REALLY fought over? If you had to pin it down to one thing.


(It was not slavery, I'm throwing this out right now. less than 10 percent of southerners had ANY slaves. And the emancipation proclamation stated all slaves were freed in states that seceded from the union. Why would seceded states listen to Abraham Lincoln? They wouldn't. It was a political move. And if they came back to the union they kept their slaves.)


I believe it was fought over Abraham Lincoln being elected. He had 40% of the votes and won. Why? Because the south didn't even consider him a candidate and didn't think he should have won. He wasn't even an option in many southern states. Just the 2 other guys that got 30 percent.

I am here to speak about yes, Abortion.

The argument for abortion seems to be something alone the lines of: "Its none of your business, it is the mother's choice."

And, while I have not actually talked about this topic that much, why is a fetus not legitimately considered a life? It is just in its early stage of development.

Secondly, if a woman didn't want to have a baby, why was she having unprotected sex? (Yes, I realize the circumstances of rape can go against this but that doesn't make it untrue. Because not all abortions are rape abortions. Only 1 in 100 are.)

Do any of you forumers have a child? You probably don't, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friend's child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?

And, while it is always a choice in abortion does the baby have no say in it? Who knows who he could grow up to be!

Also, it isn't like you have to keep the child if you legitimately aren't ready to be a parent, there are adoption options. (No Rhyme Intended).

I haven't thought heavily on the topic or else I would have more, but as for now that is my statement.


PS: How is abortion legal, but things like this can happen? http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/07/02/miscarriage-face-prison-time-for-murder/

I heard on the radio that it was being pushed for Fast Food restaurants to accept food stamps.

Do you agree that fast food restaurants should accept food stamps? Why or why not?


I am against it. Fast Food is a luxury. It, while being good, is quite expensive and *not* a legitimate use for someone who is getting free stuff from the government.

I might hear the argument "Well poor people like fast food to!" but even so, it isn't like these people live off of their food stamps. If they want a treat of sorts they should use their real money to do it, not government money.


Your thoughts?

I think that Clasher235 explained it best in saying:

"There are rarely 2 people of the same party elected in a row because everyone thinks the new president will solve all their problems, but when he doesn't do all of the amazing things he/she said he/she would, everyone swaps parties thinking that the other candidate will solve their problems."

That is generally why I figure a republican will win in 2012. That and I think Obama's race had a very strong influence on the ratings. He was not in the senate for a particularly long time either.

But, all that aside I want to know: Do you think Obama will be re-elected? Or will a republican candidate (Such as Michelle Bachmann) be elected instead? Why do you feel this way?

I was on a community discussion thread named "Explain your Avatar"

I didn't include my first comment but it was "If anyone recognizes my avatar I will love them forever."

I got no replies, but then this happened.

Cowbell.


Yes, I said it.

Anyone heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arx_Fatalis


There. Now you've heard of it.

Post your total time logged in.


3 days, 17 hours, and 45 minutes.

Could someone explain to me the basic beliefs of a Republican/Democrat?

No Bias please. Nothing in the form of "Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich" or "Democrats want to kill babies" or something ignorant like that.

[Note: This thread works under the assumption that fast food is under attack by the legal system. If you entirely disagree with this, I would prefer you not post about it because thats not what I want to argue about.]

Note: This thread works under the assumption that fast food is under attack by the legal system. If you entirely disagree with this, I would prefer you not post about it because thats not what I want to argue about.



Recently I have heard some disturbing news that I think may lead to an ultimate ban on fast food.

A law has recently been released in New Jersey (Or was it New York?) that, although not targetted towards McDonalds in its own right, illegalized the selling of Happy Meals. (It was a trans-fat law)

Now, if you look at the evolution of the "seatbelt" law, one might think that they are not going to stop releasing these laws little by little. In the 1960s being caught without a seatbelt you would get little more than a pat on the nose, now you get a 200 dollar ticket.


Now, as stated I do not want to argue about whether or not this is actually going to happen, but if you agree that it SHOULD happen.



I personally think that this is completely unfair, and that the government should not be watching over our shoulders to keep us from eating unhealthy things such as McDonalds.


Your Thoughts?