tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post5307298531952947598..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: George Zimmerman: Obama Turned Americans Against MeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22341249382516246552015-04-04T17:36:26.044+02:002015-04-04T17:36:26.044+02:00Yes, but I never said Nugent shouldn't have sa...Yes, but I never said Nugent shouldn't have said that. Get it now!!!Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73979884027304777852015-04-04T00:30:41.401+02:002015-04-04T00:30:41.401+02:00Here’s another way to maybe get through to you:
H...Here’s another way to maybe get through to you:<br /><br />Have you ever taken exception to something that, oh… say… Ted Nugent has said?<br />TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-29193477314663953962015-04-04T00:29:05.966+02:002015-04-04T00:29:05.966+02:00"He shouldn't have said that"
is di..."He shouldn't have said that"<br /><br />is different than:<br /><br />"He should be forbidden from being able to say that"<br /><br />Get it now?TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4146535649148262602015-04-03T17:41:33.868+02:002015-04-03T17:41:33.868+02:00No TS it goes back to SS's comment that the pr...No TS it goes back to SS's comment that the president should have said nothing. I disagree and believe he has the right to speak. Just what is it Zimmerman thinks the president said that inferred his guilt? Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-75322908555793060142015-04-03T02:30:42.732+02:002015-04-03T02:30:42.732+02:00Nope, you still don't get it. What power do I...Nope, you still don't get it. What power do I have to violate Obama's right to free speech? You just said you agree with me that levying criticism is a protected act- not a violation of the rights of others. And that's all I did. Actually, I didn't even say that, but I do agree with the sentiment that Obama stirred up trouble rather than taking the opportunity to cool things down.<br /><br />Obviously if the press couldn't criticize the president's words, then there would be no freedom of press.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-66372778388660420172015-04-03T00:23:44.771+02:002015-04-03T00:23:44.771+02:00"I agree with what you just said, but you and... "I agree with what you just said, but you and SS don't think that includes the president, so explain your hypocrisy on this point. "<br /><br /> The President gets to have all of the individual freedoms that we also enjoy Jack. However, there is a reasonable expectation of him hopefully advocating for supporting the investigative process and not making statements that could possibly show bias or favoritism. For example, in my opinion, he did pretty well in this regard during the events in Ferguson. Though I didn't follow things terribly closely.<br /> Zimmerman obviously feels that the Presidents statements affected him and those around him during the investigation and trial and is within his rights to say so. <br /> With him being the center of attention and having wanted posters with his picture on it distributed, its possible that the Presidents comments might have gotten lumped in with more extreme statements from others, though it doesn't seem to me that he thinks that. <br />ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-57371275738321119792015-04-02T18:36:30.038+02:002015-04-02T18:36:30.038+02:00No TS, you have me wrong. I agree with what you ju...No TS, you have me wrong. I agree with what you just said, but you and SS don't think that includes the president, so explain your hypocrisy on this point. Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-18974236963969318612015-03-30T08:50:50.954+02:002015-03-30T08:50:50.954+02:00Seemingly just as many ifs as the other scenario p...Seemingly just as many ifs as the other scenario presented, though the burden of proof to convict just wasn't met and the jury acquitted. ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-91514214745231304782015-03-30T08:37:34.071+02:002015-03-30T08:37:34.071+02:00Yeah, it might have been, but that's a lot of ...Yeah, it might have been, but that's a lot of ifs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-78361072894285139902015-03-29T19:36:32.500+02:002015-03-29T19:36:32.500+02:00I'd like you to answer that, Mike.
I'll d...I'd like you to answer that, Mike.<br /><br />I'll do the same on the other end. The narrative painted by the "justice for Trayvon" crowd is that he was minding his own business, got chased by Zimmerman, Zimmerman started the fight, and the shot him when he started to lose. If that's what happened, it is <b>not</b> valid self-defense, and is manslaughter at the least.<br /><br />Now you do the same. If he was walking back to his car when Trayvon jumped him, beat on him for at least 40 seconds, and knocked his head into the sidewalk at least once, is that valid self-defense?TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-54082317842944724632015-03-29T19:29:01.593+02:002015-03-29T19:29:01.593+02:00You really just don't get the concept of right...You really just don't get the concept of rights.<br /><br />Criticizing someone is part of free speech. It is a protected act. It does not violate someone's rights. You have it backwards.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-11565024301712339432015-03-28T19:33:10.477+01:002015-03-28T19:33:10.477+01:00Then why are you and SS condemning Obama for sayin...Then why are you and SS condemning Obama for saying anything?Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-64498476120738161892015-03-28T16:20:01.534+01:002015-03-28T16:20:01.534+01:00Are you saying it can't be self-defense becaus...Are you saying it can't be self-defense because he got out of his car earlier? Remember, his account is that he was walking back to his car when he was jumped. If that were true (which I know you believe it isn't), would that make it valid self-defense? It's a pretty simple question.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-40808446245759088762015-03-28T15:44:11.097+01:002015-03-28T15:44:11.097+01:00Mikeb,
You dodged TS's question.
As for your...Mikeb,<br /><br />You dodged TS's question.<br /><br />As for your response to me, How exactly did Zimmerman initiate the conflict? Did he throw a punch? Did he pick a fight some other way? Or did he start a fight by merely asking "who are you and what are you doing here?"<br /><br />The last option there seemed to be the prosecution's theory in the parts of the trial I saw (though they never offered a unified theory of the crime) and it doesn't actually rise to the level of starting a fight.SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90864459337642248442015-03-28T12:51:09.027+01:002015-03-28T12:51:09.027+01:00TS, George shouldn't have gotten out of his ca...TS, George shouldn't have gotten out of his car.<br />SJ, George initiated the confict.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-55043242910653203522015-03-27T23:48:15.641+01:002015-03-27T23:48:15.641+01:00"I never said he was."
So then where ha..."I never said he was."<br /><br />So then where has Obama "lost his right to free speech"? <br /><br />"Seems it's OK for you that people criticize Obama for just speaking, yet, you criticize Obama for the same thing, just speaking."<br /><br />Just read my post above yours. It answers this perfectly.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-37866993114619760672015-03-27T22:50:46.088+01:002015-03-27T22:50:46.088+01:00"He is not calling for obsma's arrest,&qu...<i>"He is not calling for obsma's arrest,"<br />I never said he was.</i><br /><br />It's <i>you</i>, Jack, <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/03/george-zimmerman-obama-turned-americans.html?showComment=1427384865916#c1281958257443538693" rel="nofollow">who asked</a>, "Since when has the president lost his right to free speech?" <br /><br />The answer is that he hasn't. If he had, his words would lead not only to criticism, but to his arrest and prosecution. You can criticize me viciously all day, and I'll never claim that in doing so you're violating my freedom of speech.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-51453246955617950542015-03-27T18:20:11.033+01:002015-03-27T18:20:11.033+01:00"He is not calling for obsma's arrest,&qu... "He is not calling for obsma's arrest,"<br />I never said he was. <br />Seems it's OK for you that people criticize Obama for just speaking, yet, you criticize Obama for the same thing, just speaking. <br /><br />"Should a high ranking public official make a comment regarding the potential guilt or innocence before the grand jury even made a decision?"<br />Obama never made a comment about Zimmerman's guilt, or innocence. And yes high ranking officials make those kind of statements all the time. <br /><br />"And of course, the photos of these injuries can be found quite readily."<br />That only proves he was in a physical altercation. It in no way proves Martin started the fight. Again, maybe Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman. <br /><br />You guys ARE criticizing Obama for speaking, fine, but Obama can say what he wants, he never talked about Zimmerman's innocent, or guilt. It's amusing you accept whatever Zimmerman says as if it's gospel, and never question his intent when he ignored what authorities told him (don't need to follow him) and followed Martin. What was Zimmerman going to do to Martin when he followed him, or caught up to him, after Zimmerman was told not to follow him? There is certainly some questions about Zimmerman's intent since he was told not to follow Martin. The only one who could counter Zimmerman's statements, is dead. Zimmerman got off because there was a lack of evidence to prove the charges, not because there was evidence that Martin did anything wrong. Dead men tell no tales, so it's advantageous to make sure he is dead. Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59920638968138657822015-03-27T17:02:30.541+01:002015-03-27T17:02:30.541+01:00". . . and initiates a confrontation, illegal...". . . and initiates a confrontation, illegally, he cannot claim self-defense if the tables are turned on him."<br /><br />He can "initiate a confrontation" all he wants and it doesn't affect whether what follows is self defense or not. What a person cannot do is initiate a conflict, either through physical violence or use of "fighting words," and then claim self defense later.SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90800310870389439332015-03-27T16:41:02.417+01:002015-03-27T16:41:02.417+01:00MikeB: “But, when an armed guy pursues an unarmed ...MikeB: “But, when an armed guy pursues an unarmed one and initiates a confrontation, illegally, he cannot claim self-defense if the tables are turned on him.”<br /><br />Ok, but Zimmerman’s account is that Martin initiated the confrontation while he was walking back to his car, sucker-punched him, then got on top of him and pounded his head into the concrete. My question is, if Zimmerman’s account is correct, is that legitimate self-defense? <br />TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-56874400061385690452015-03-27T16:36:19.271+01:002015-03-27T16:36:19.271+01:00Mike: “We have the right of free speech to critici...Mike: “We have the right of free speech to criticize someone else for exercising their right to free speech.”<br /><br />The criticism <b>is not for exercising their right</b>. The criticism is for what they are saying. Ever hear the phrase “I may not like what you have to say, but I’ll defend your right to say it”? I can criticize what a public official (or anyone else) says, and you can in turn criticize my criticism, and I can criticize your criticism of my criticism… yes, it is quite “circular” as you called it. That is what free speech is. Criticizing what someone says isn't any more anti-first amendment than saying “I don’t like the new iPhone” is anti-capitalism.<br />TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-44168852163648984912015-03-27T16:34:52.461+01:002015-03-27T16:34:52.461+01:00We have the right of free speech to criticize some...<i>We have the right of free speech to criticize someone else for exercising their right to free speech.</i><br /><br />That's not at all how I read TS's comment. Criticizing what someone says is <b>not</b> a violation of his or her right to free speech. You and I criticize each other's words with some frequency, and neither of us has <i>ever</i> violated the other's right to free speech.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-69775916754710223192015-03-27T15:55:22.291+01:002015-03-27T15:55:22.291+01:00It's only a scratch Doc! I'll be better!
...It's only a scratch Doc! I'll be better!<br /><br />Yeah, of course. If a big tough guy with a build like Trayvon Martin runs you down, pins you to the sidewalk and starts pounding your head into the concrete, by all means, shoot. There is no moral obligation to plead for your life.Flying Juniorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02098313953658606206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9901072192985178712015-03-27T14:53:44.685+01:002015-03-27T14:53:44.685+01:00Do you have an actual problem with what TS said, M...Do you have an actual problem with what TS said, Mike? Was he actually wrong somewhere? Or are you just implying that there's something wrong with his reasoning since you don't like what he's said?SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-49817493634254842752015-03-27T10:57:34.976+01:002015-03-27T10:57:34.976+01:00TS. now that's quite a circular twist you'...TS. now that's quite a circular twist you've got going there. We have the right of free speech to criticize someone else for exercising their right to free speech.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.com