Spoiler alert. Along with a lot of photos and other objective, “on the ground” facts, it does also present a “bias[ed] opinion (h/t to Anon for that concept).
OK! The stand your ground law, from what I understand is that a person has a right to protect themselves.
1. Zimmerman says he was protecting himself from the attack of Martin.
2. The police to Zimmerman to stop following Martin.
3. If Zimmerman is following Martin and has a gun on him, why doesn’t Martin have a right to stand his ground?
4. If Martin was “assaulting” Zimmerman to the point where Zimmerman shots him, why isn’t Martin allowed to stand his ground against Zimmerman who was following him with a gun?
That is not self-defense, because Zimmerman was following Martin and Zimmerman had a gun and Martin was standing his ground against a total stranger.
mike t.
From my understanding of the Florida “stand your ground” law, it would appear that Zimmerman is not eligible for protection under that law. His actions, on the whole, were not simply defensive. He was taking proactive steps that made this situation worse. Disregarding the police dispatcher who told him he didn’t have to follow is one example, i.e. he wasn’t “standing his ground”, he was “advancing his ground.”
Trayvon absolutely has the right to stand his ground and defend himself as well. But what was he defending himself from? Being followed? I didn’t know that we have the right to knock someone down and pound their head on the pavement because they were following us. As for Zimmerman shooting Trayvon, what was he supposed to do? Let himself be beaten to unconsciousness, or worse?
I’ve heard the 9-1-1 call as CNN analyzed it and, yes, it does sound like Zimmerman used the word “coons”, an obvious racial slur (assuming the recording is authentic). I’ve also seen the video of Zimmerman being brought to jail. Much ado is made of the fact that you don’t see blood all over his clothes or on the back of his head. That video isn’t of the highest quality and the police reportedly took him to the hospital for treatment before jail which is standard procedure. So, Zimmerman’s wounds (if he actually had any) would have been cleaned up. Eventually, his medical treatment records will come out and they’ll either support or controvert Zimmerman’s story.
Bottom line? The examination of this incident has been made worse by agenda-driven grandstanding on multiple fronts. As flawed a person as Zimmerman allegedly is and despite his poor judgement, I don’t think he’s a cold-blooded murderer. People intent on killing someone for no reason usually don’t summon the police first. Are his actions sufficiently negligent or reckless to justify some other charge? Quite possibly. More facts would be nice.
I don’t fault Obama for his “if I had a son” comment. I took it as him trying to empathize with the family and humanize their side of this. Would’ve been nice if he had denounced the NBBP bounty on Zimmerman, though. Rev. Jackson did.
OFF Topic,
Roland, I might occasionally comment over at Badger if it was not such a burdensome process. I have enough passwords to keep track of. You might want to consider making it as easy as it is for you to comment here. Interesting reads there.
Take your case to Patrick…it’s his world, I just blog in it. 😉
Thank you, and appreciate your POV. The computer said my comment was too short, not intended but here are a few more words to satisfy the machine. Peace and I am so sad that someone with your innate intelligence is smoking cigs. Addictions are a study that I am familiar with. Been there in a number of ways that need not be addressed here.
Roland, well said.
Thanks, Zach. Personally, I’m sick of people trying to make this story an indicator of wider social ills. The reality is that millions of people wear hooded sweatshirts all the time and they aren’t out committing crimes or getting gunned down for it. By and large, Neighborhood Watch programs empower folks who believe crime is a problem and are trying to be constructive, not misguided vigilantes. Millions of people own and carry guns, but they aren’t out their playing Dirty Harry. In 2011 in Milwaukee alone, about 60 black males were shot and killed, mostly by other black males. In Wisconsin, you’re far more likely to be killed by a white male who is driving drunk than shot by one.
One man’s misunderstanding or abuse of the “stand your ground” law doesn’t mean the law is bad. There is a concept in law enforcement called “officer created jeopardy.” It refers to a situation the officer puts themselves in that leaves them little or no choice but to use deadly force to escape. For example, the officer steps in the path of suspect’s car out of some misguided notion he will stop the suspect. When the suspect hits the gas and rushes the car toward him, he draws his gun and fires at the driver. Was the officer in jeopardy? Yeah, but he put himself there.
Sounds a little like what we have here? Zimmerman either confronted Trayvon or got confronted by Trayvon. Either way, he allegedly starts getting his butt kicked by Trayvon thereby leaving himself with the choice of “keep getting my butt kicked VS. shoot this kid.” The problem for Zimmerman is he had no substantive reason to think Trayvon was in the process of committing a crime that necessitated Zimmerman take action. Also, Zimmerman isn’t bound by duty, trained or authorized by his community to take action. His suspicions possibly justified a call to police, but nothing more at that point. If Zimmerman confronted me at night, I might have a “who the f**k are you” attitude too.
As more of this story comes out, I might change my mind…but if they don’t charge him, they are sanctioning vigilantism.
no matter how things happened in the end….911 operator told him not to follow. HE DID ANY WAY!!! which escalated the entire situation to what it ended to be.
The tragic lost life of a 6’3″ football player can never be recovered. The victim had his nose broken,cuts on the back of his head and grass stains on his back! Trevon Martin was old enough to put George Zimmerman on his back! He was old enough to take a bullet! TREYVON MARTIN GOT JUSTICE!!!!!!
Years ago, I was living in Southeast Los Angeles, a largely working class Latino part of Los Angeles. I was traveling one day by bus through South Central Los Angeles, a largely black and Latino part of Los Angeles.
I had to transfer buses at a certain point, so I got off one bus to wait for another in an area which was by and large black, not an unusual thing for me to do. Anyway, there I was, waiting for my bus at the front of a group of people, the rest of whom were black.
The bus pulled up to the bus stop, right in front of me. The door opened, and up at the top of the three steps into and out of the bus was an elderly black woman, clearly terrified of taking those three steps down. I stepped forward, reached up and she took my hand, and I guided her down the steps. When she reached the street, she looked into my eyes for just a moment, her expression slightly quizzical, at first, and then she just smiled. It wasn’t a matter of black or white. It was just a gracious and pleasant interaction between two people.
Given her age, I suspect that the elderly black woman had experienced her share of discrimination and bigotry over the years. Given what I felt at the moment that she looked into my eyes, I also suspect that what transpired between us made a difference in how she looked at the world.
I think that the reaction of the black community to Trayvon Martin’s murder is understandable for a variety of different reasons, not the least of which is the discrimination and bigotry it has historically experienced.
It would say something to the black community about America if Americans of all racial backgrounds stood in solidarity with them regarding Trayvon Martin’s murder.
It isn’t a black or white thing, just the right thing.
I, for one, intend to stand with them.
Standing with them does not mean you have to throw all the white Americans under the bus. Just remember that.
I’m not doing that, Anon, and you know it.
Time for you to go back and read all of the to be found at the links which I’ve provided.
And maybe search your soul a little bit. You’re obvious and clueless sense of white privilege is starting to worry me, not to mention piss me off.
Zuma,
No offense, but I don’t follow the links you have posted from DKos or anywhere as you have mostly neglected to mention your specific point that the link is supposed to, intended to, support. Ordering (asking) anyone of any political persuasion to go read a link without being a bit more clear about your view on the subject is a bit disingenuous. You’d be more successful with explaining a bit more the specific point you wish others to glean from your links. And please tell me what good your piss me off comments do to further any discussion.
This was entirely meant as constructive criticism. That is an encouraging and positive meaning. i.e. I’m not ragging at you.
Still not interested in your lectures, Church Lady.
“This was entirely meant as constructive criticism.”
(Nonquixote aka The Church Lady in action in years past)
One more word, Church Lady, and its on.
Now, go bother someone else.
If I had not seen through the church crap about 45 years ago I’d have thought you were referring to me. What’s on, you don’t have anything but some links that nobody cares to follow? Oh rage on, KIA. (to be fair to others following, that means Know it All, not Killed in Action). I don’t want to be accused of confusing the issues.
A bit disingenuous, is that SO threatening to your ego? And you are an attorney? LOL and followed by ROTFLOL, didn’t want to scare the cat.
Nice to see how very wide your world view is, really. Peace Bro.
It’s all about context, Church Lady. That you’re willing to shoot your sanctimonious, smarmy mouth off without understanding the context of my remarks to Anon doesn’t surprise me, nor does your inability to understand why I would post links to articles simply because I found them edifying. In any event, it just isn’t my responsibility to explain the things that having a stick stuck so far up your ass keeps you from understanding.
Church Lady, it’s high time that you got over yourself, and STFU. Save your lectures for someone who thinks your self-absorbed musings matter.
“It’s on”, you self-absorbed, sanctimonious, but apparently culturally clueless, scold means that I will come after every single one of your sanctimonious, self-absorbed, self-important pronouncements in the event that you can’t “unclench”, let go of your neurotic obsession with me, and give everyone here, including me, a break from your bullsh*t.
Do yourself, and everyone else here, a favor, and pretend for once in your dried up husk of a life, stop your incessant hectoring. I’m not interested, nor is anyone else.
“Better to be thought the [sanctimonious, self-important bee-yatch] than to speak and remove all doubt.”
For the record, Church Lady, it’s your self-important and sanctimonious attitude, not your actual church attendance, that garners you the Church Lady label.
Further reading (since this video was first available) says this video was after law enforcement took him to the hospital. Stands to reason things might not be what they appear.
I’ll give credit where credit is due. Roland stated his point objectively. Nuff said.
“It’s on”, you self-absorbed, sanctimonious, but apparently culturally clueless, scold means that I will come after every single one of your sanctimonious, self-absorbed, self-important pronouncements in the event that you can’t “unclench”, let go of your neurotic obsession with me, and give everyone here, including me, a break from your bullsh*t.
ZB, I am so sorry that you took such offense to my politely asking that you simply explain what points your numerous links are supposed to be supporting, at my 7:28 PM yesterday. I understand that explaining things is tougher than name calling and derision, and is tougher than threatening people that they might piss you off if they don’t agree with you or immediately understand your pov as you did at 6:28 PM above, yesterday.
It is apparent that you cannot tell the difference between a friendly suggestion (my 7:28 PM yesterday) and a scold. I don’t purposely follow you around this site. It is simply difficult to read anything here without your paltry threats to others getting in the way. Can people here expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one? That is a rhetorical question. Oh, sorry, no link to point you to, to understand that.
@ The Church Lady
The Church Lady: “ZB, I am so sorry that you took such offense to my politely asking that you simply explain what points your numerous links are supposed to be supporting, at my 7:28 PM yesterday.”
Zuma: Look, Church Lady, at the risk of explaining my self to someone to whom I feel absolutely NO responsibility to explain anything, here are a couple of verbal tidbits for you to chew on in that uptight, tight-ass psyche of yours:
First, a general observation, Church Ladies are ALWAYS “polite”, aren’t they? Their “politeness” is a thin veil for the cauldron of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou bullshit lurking just below the surface, just as it is for you. For someone like you, Church Lady, “politely asking”, “constructive criticism”, hectoring, sanctimonious, self-important scolding is all one and the same thing.
[Although, given your sanctimonious, holier than thou, know-it-all, stick-up-your-ass, Church Lady sensibilities, I suspect that you lack the capacity to do so, there is something you need to wrap your brain around, Church Lady, and it is this. The person who is so enthusiastically clapping you on the back, and saying, “Gawd, YOU’RE brilliant”, is you. There is a difference, Church Lady, in actually being an intellectual legend, and in being one in your own mind.]
Now, more specifically, regarding Anon, I had previously made certain points to him and directed him to relevant links. Despite your apparently not having read my previous comments, you offered “constructive criticism” about my purported “need” to offer context in connection with my telling Anon that he or she needed to go back and look at the cited links, and, further, linked, and extrapolated, that “constructive criticism” to my having independently posted links of general interest for the perusal of anyone reading through the comment thread.
You insinuated yourself into a conversation I was having with Anon without taking the time to realize that a context for the comment of mine to Anon with which you took issue ALREADY had a context which didn’t require further explanation. While you may not have understood that, Anon would have, not that that stopped you from bringing your unsolicited, clueless, sanctimonious, holier than thou, know-it-all, stick-up-your-ass Church Lady bullshit into it.
Being The Church Lady, you may have thought yourself entitled to an “explanation”. The reality is, your self-important Church Lady expectations notwithstanding, you weren’t, and I didn’t feel the need or responsibility to provide one.
The Church Lady: “I understand that explaining things is tougher than name calling and derision, and is tougher than threatening people that they might piss you off if they don’t agree with you or immediately understand your [point of view] as you did at 6:28 PM above, yesterday.”
Zuma: It really isn’t “tougher explaining things than name-calling and derision”, nor is it “tougher than threatening people that [sic] piss you off if they don’t agree with you”.
As I said above, I just don’t feel the need, or see a responsibility, to explain myself to a sanctimonious, self-important, holier-than-thou, know-it-all Church Lady bee-yatch like you.
In any event, I’m more than happy to let the totality of my comments here at Blogging Blue speak for me, just as I am more than happy to let yours speak for you. There is a reason, Church Lady, why I keep posting links to our various exchanges.
The Church Lady: “It is apparent that you cannot tell the difference between a friendly suggestion (my 7:28 PM yesterday) and a scold.”
Zuma: See above.
The Church Lady: “I don’t purposely follow you around this site.”
Zuma: Sure you do.
The Church Lady: “It is simply difficult to read anything here without your paltry threats to others getting in the way.”
Zuma: Pure bullsh*t. Your self-serving characterization of things notwithstanding, the truth is that YOU and your unseemly, Church Lady obsession with me is what “[gets] in [YOUR] way”.
The Church Lady: “Can people here expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one?”
Zuma: As long as you keep stalking me with your unsolicited, know-it-all Church Lady sanctimony, probably.
The Church Lady: “That is a rhetorical question.”
Zuma: Thank you, Church Lady. Your “wisdom” is truly staggering.
The Church Lady: “Oh, sorry, no link to point you to, to understand that.”
Zuma: Again, Church Lady, thank you. Your unwarranted, pursed lips, stick-up-your-ass, “well, ISN’T that special” Church Lady condescension is duly noted. Now, just stick it up your ass, huh [well, assuming that you can get something else up their alongside the stick and your head]?
__________________________________________
Once again, Church Lady, consider this as constituting a simple request that you try to control your obsession with me, and stop stalking me.
Dealing with a Church Lady pissant like you has grown more than a little tiresome, and I’ve really got better things to do. I’m off to minister to the needs of my brain cancer-stricken girlfriend.
Try to honor my request this time.
In plain and simple terms, F*CK OFF. I’m truly not interested in what you have to say, nor is anyone else.
More self-important, know-it-all, stick-up-her-ass sanctimony from [Blogging Blue’s very own] Church Lady, nonquixote:
The Church Lady: “Can people here expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one?”
Zuma: Let’s be honest, Church Lady. This part of your comment should actually have read: “Can [I] expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one?” No one else here really cares. THIS is YOUR obsession.
So, anyway, Church Lady, this is the second of, well, who’s counting, right? (*laughing*) I mean, beside you? (*laughing*)
The Church Lady’s first self-important, sanctimonious, know-it-all appearance here at Blogging Blue:
Congratulations, Church Lady. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving, self-important, uptight bee-yatch.
Number five (I wanted to keep the count “odd”, in your honor).
This is what I meant, Church Lady, when I said that, with ONE more word out of you directed at me, “It’s on.”
This isn’t a “fight” that I asked for. You initiated it, just as you did the “fights” in the comment threads following the “Empty Threat of the Week” and “Callie Otto: A Letter to the Editor and to Senator Ron Johnson” posts.
I’ve asked you to stop, and you have arrogantly and condescendingly refused to. Your choice. If you continue to stalk me, what you’ve seen here is what will frame your existence here at Blogging Blue.
If need be, I will file a formal complaint with Zach, rather than get caught up in Zach unilaterally giving us both a lecture for a “fight” for which you alone are responsible as a part of his ongoing and understandable effort to police what takes place at Blogging Blue.
So, just. . .”walk”. . .away.
As I’ve said previously, I’m more than happy to let the totality of my comments here at Blogging Blue speak for me, just as I am more than happy to let yours speak for you, and there is a reason, Church Lady, why I keep posting links to our various exchanges.
I didn’t initiate this, but I will finish it.
DO we need to resort to name calling? It seems you should be able to get your points across without the names.
Actually, Zach, I do think so. It’s a strategic decision on my part.
Given her “white glove”, Emily Postian sensibilities, and given her inability to “quit me”, it seems an entirely appropriate and effective stratagy to make her go away.
It worked once before. I see no reason why it won’t prove effective this time. I’m not happy about employing it now, but she just won’t go away.
Look, Zach, I’ve had good, intelligent, substantive “give and take” with people like Locke, ForgotMyScreenName and Nemo over time, and they’re conservatives. [N]onquixote is a progressive for God’s sake, and, given that, there’s just something seriously weird about her fixation on me, not to mention the things which she fixates on
Snark, caustic, biting satire, and yes, even some name-calling, is a part of the “robust political discourse” that the Supreme Court talked about in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. [N]onquixote doesn’t get that.
Tell her to back off, and it all becomes academic.
That said, I know you’re probably a bit uncomfortable with the situation, and, given my respect for you, I’ll probably back off a bit anyway. The thing is, I didn’t ask for this “fight” with nonquixote. She initiated it, and keeps unilaterally initiating things with me with her unforced sanctimony and condescension, even after I’ve repeatedly told her to “just let it go.”
Condescension is one of the “tools” in my “toolkit”. I don’t mind dealing with it, but it does get messy.
If nonquixote would just bugger off, this could all just go away, but she doesn’t seem inclined to. Given that, I’m going to have to defend myself in the way that I think is best.
My techniques have worked with trolls/flamethrowers like Notalib, Orlin Sellars and James Booth. The weirdness of using them against someone who, by all accounts, appears to be a progressive, notwithstanding, they will [eventually] work with nonquixote. They worked once before. She backed off for awhile. And, then, recently, here, she came at me, again. Unless she goes away, again, I’ll probably have to “dawg” her some more.
Having said all that, and, in the event that she shuts up, I have just one more comment to post here in order to put everything into context. It will be in the nature of a relatively short comment about the things of which “robust political discourse” is comprised, about how I use them and how people, other than nonquixote, tend to enjoy the way that I use them.
Catch ya later.
@ Zach
I was reading a story about Mitt Romney, and it occurred to to me that there was one other aspect of the concept of “name-calling” that I had failed to mention in my first reply, the use of a “name” to communicate a substantive point.
As you know many of the wingnuts around here, like Notalib, Orlin Sellars, Smokey and Angry Andy have been known to throw some fairly ugly insults at progressives here.
What first drew The Church Lady’s ire was a comment that I posted in the “Empty Threat of the Week” comment thread that suggested that Angry Andy’s support for Shirl Barre could have been predicted by virtue of a comment he had previously posted wherein he said that “unlike all you candy ass libs, I know what it means to serve my country”. [Veteran Steve Carlson took PARTICULAR issue with that part of Angry Andy’s remark.]
The Church lady accused me of “baiting” Angry Andy (“pobrecito”). In truth, I was using Angry Andy’s words own words to illuminate who he was, and to illuminate the knee-jerk and ad hominem attack-laden nature of the wingnut. And therein lies the problem that someone like The Church Lady presents.
I welcome the Angry Andys of the world, the Notalibs, the Orlin Sellars, the Smokeys. When they parade their ignorance in front of us, often relying on strictly ad hominem attacks, they illuminate who they are. It would be “progressive malpractice” not to help, would it not? (*wink*)
But, in The Church Lady’s world, in highlighting Angry Andy’s own ignorant words, I was “baiting” him, and she sanctimoniously “called me on the carpet” for it therein and started stalking me across Blogging Blue looking for new opportunities (the links appear above) to lecture me about “proper decorum” in political discourse. And avail herself of those opportunities, she did. Well, all I can say is that I call her The Church Lady for a reason.
Which brings me to my real point about “name-calling”.
The adjectives that I used to describe The Church Lady’s behavior were strong, no doubt about it, but they served to “explain” and “illuminate” The Church Lady moniker, The Church Lady metaphor, if you will. And, The Church Lady metaphor was, and was intended to be, substantive shorthand for describing The Church Lady’s behavior. It was also intended to mock her, and hold her up to ridicule, in an effort to make the price of her unforced sanctimony too high for her to want to continue it.
So, how does Mittens Romney fit into all of this, you ask? Pretty simply.
Of late, “Etch-A-Sketch” has been used as substantive, metaphorical shorthand for Mittens. Similarly, with nonquixote, I used the Dana Carvey/”Church Lady” metaphor as satirical, substantive, metaphorical shorthand for the unfortunate, supercilious and misplaced sanctimony that nonquixote brought to bear in standing in judgment on how I choose to participate in the “robust political discourse” here.
I don’t “name-call” without reason, or without a substantive point to be made, or a substantive purpose to be achieved, unlike the Notalibs, Orlin Sellars, Smokeys AND Angry Andys of the world.
When you walk like The Church Lady, talk like The Church Lady, and sanctimoniously judge like The Church Lady, you just might be The Church Lady, and it is eminently fair to say so, especially when The Church Lady, with her uptight, “white gloves” sanctimony, stalks you.
If nonquixote aka The Church Lady wants to be perceived as something other than The Church lady, she will need to behave differently. I hope that she does.
@Zach, will all due respect to the “strategic” blogging necessities of calling someone a “sanctimonious, self-important bee-yatch” and telling them to “F*CK OFF”…how are the rantings of “Zuma Bound” any different than those of “mickey/gus”?
Point taken.
Thanks for the support, Zach.
You’re welcome.
And though you were being sarcastic, I’ll note that you’ve enjoyed a tremendous amount of latitude here when it comes to your comments, especially in regards to your tendency to resort to name calling.
There was no sarcasm there, brother.
Take care.
Has Zuma made any crank calls lately?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he had.
“Erudite”, and hypocritical, as always, Roland.
Wait until The Church Lady comes after you with her sanctimony. We’ll see if you think “bee-yatch” and “F*ck off” are inappropriate.
In any event, she ain’t saying sh*t now, so, preach on, bigmouth.
Now that I think about it, I guess you would know a thing or two about self-important and high-minded sanctimony.
Try to remember something Roland, the person patting you on the back so enthusiastically, and saying, “Attaboy” to ya, is you.
In any event, ya still need to lose the photo.
Where did I say anything was inappropriate? Zach is free to decide what is or isn’t appropriate for his blog. I asked Zach for a comparison. He understood my point. You are Bizzaro Mickey…politically opposite viewpoint delivered with identical obnoxiousness. That’s all.
Peace, Zuma Dude.
Roland, you’re nothing more than a self-important overcompensating, pompous windbag whose ass I kicked the last time we encountered each other, doing nothing more here than acting out because of it.
Zach understood what you meant by the reference. So did I. And it was bullsh*t, an unjustifiable and unflattering comparison that served only one purpose, fucking with me, however unjustifiably. That Zach went along with it is his cross to bear. It doesn’t make the reference any less full of shit.
Look, your feelings got hurt last time. Get over it. And get over yourself.
Roland, you’re a poseur, a “piggish”, pseudo-tough guy poseur who thinks he’s Marlon Brando in “Waterfront”.
What are ya? Like 5’5″? Packing what, four, five inches? Pot-bellied, right? Probably a motorcycle cop, too, huh?
In any event, you need to stop overcompensating, “dude”, not to mention acting out. Just let it go, and accept the fact that some people are more intelligent than you.
“Bizarro Mickey”?! (*laughing*) Right back at ya, big boy.
And LOSE the stupid photo icon.
Obama’s cool. You definitely aren’t, no matter what you tell yourself.
What? There’s a Bizarro World counterpart for all of us?
You, too, John.
Appreciate the support.
And none here, either, Zach.
I guess ya kind of missed the point of what I said above, or didn’t fully appreciate it. So be it.
Given recent events in this comment thread, it seems appropriate to address the nature of the “robust political discourse” which the Supreme Court of the United States touched on, in dicta, in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
The comment thread following the “Pure Republican Hypocrisy” post of Jeff Simpson’s is a particularly apt example of that “robust political discourse”.
It is a good example of the “rough and tumble” of political discourse. It is also a good example of how energizing, engaging, and entertaining that “rough and tumble” can be.
The entire comment thread is worth reading, but the following comments are particularly noteworthy (I would have provided true links to each of the following but for the ever-vigilant Blogging Blue “spam” filter which just didn’t seem to like the idea – kind of ironic, not to mention funny, that a series of links to Blogging Blue comments was considered “spam”, but I digress):
Comment number 93683, authored by Rich, is particularly noteworthy inasmuch as it speaks to why the “rarefied, sanctimonious, Emily Post-ian air” which nonquixote aka The Church Lady “breathes” is antithetical to how energizing, engaging and entertaining true “robust political discourse” actually is, and should be:
Rich wrote: “Hey ZB, if you’re done here, there’s a couple of trolls over on the newest MacIver post that could use a little of your special brand of TLC.
I’ll grab some popcorn”.
And, with that, Church Lady, I bid you, “Good day”. I SAID, “Good DAY!!!” [h/t to Fez from “That 70’s Show”]
So, “unclench”, huh, Church Lady? It’s all good.
@ Zach
Well, (*laughing*), I guess it wasn’t THAT short, huh?
No racial slurs heard on the 911 tape…and the 911 tape was edited by the media to make Zimmerman look racist.
Outrage: by FreeMan
Heartless murderer portraying good citizen
in a florida community
currently receive immunity
no justice
just us
discrimination of a black nation
arouse devastation
racial profile
vicious slaying of Trayvon
a young child
white America
black America
something has to give
how many must die
in order to live
awake kings and Queens
it’s time to lead
not mislead
our own brothers
kill each other
every day on street corners
we just as bad
if we don’t change
hurting inside
subjected to pain
color lines rooted too deep
uphold peace
violence must cease
this 2012 not 1912
stand for Justice
and Justice you receive.
@ Anon
In case you’re interested, here is another take on Trayvon Martin:
http://marinadedave.com/journal/2012/3/22/the-tragedy-of-trayvon-martin.html?currentPage=2#comments
Spoiler alert. Along with a lot of photos and other objective, “on the ground” facts, it does also present a “bias[ed] opinion (h/t to Anon for that concept).
OK! The stand your ground law, from what I understand is that a person has a right to protect themselves.
1. Zimmerman says he was protecting himself from the attack of Martin.
2. The police to Zimmerman to stop following Martin.
3. If Zimmerman is following Martin and has a gun on him, why doesn’t Martin have a right to stand his ground?
4. If Martin was “assaulting” Zimmerman to the point where Zimmerman shots him, why isn’t Martin allowed to stand his ground against Zimmerman who was following him with a gun?
That is not self-defense, because Zimmerman was following Martin and Zimmerman had a gun and Martin was standing his ground against a total stranger.
mike t.
From my understanding of the Florida “stand your ground” law, it would appear that Zimmerman is not eligible for protection under that law. His actions, on the whole, were not simply defensive. He was taking proactive steps that made this situation worse. Disregarding the police dispatcher who told him he didn’t have to follow is one example, i.e. he wasn’t “standing his ground”, he was “advancing his ground.”
Trayvon absolutely has the right to stand his ground and defend himself as well. But what was he defending himself from? Being followed? I didn’t know that we have the right to knock someone down and pound their head on the pavement because they were following us. As for Zimmerman shooting Trayvon, what was he supposed to do? Let himself be beaten to unconsciousness, or worse?
I’ve heard the 9-1-1 call as CNN analyzed it and, yes, it does sound like Zimmerman used the word “coons”, an obvious racial slur (assuming the recording is authentic). I’ve also seen the video of Zimmerman being brought to jail. Much ado is made of the fact that you don’t see blood all over his clothes or on the back of his head. That video isn’t of the highest quality and the police reportedly took him to the hospital for treatment before jail which is standard procedure. So, Zimmerman’s wounds (if he actually had any) would have been cleaned up. Eventually, his medical treatment records will come out and they’ll either support or controvert Zimmerman’s story.
Bottom line? The examination of this incident has been made worse by agenda-driven grandstanding on multiple fronts. As flawed a person as Zimmerman allegedly is and despite his poor judgement, I don’t think he’s a cold-blooded murderer. People intent on killing someone for no reason usually don’t summon the police first. Are his actions sufficiently negligent or reckless to justify some other charge? Quite possibly. More facts would be nice.
I don’t fault Obama for his “if I had a son” comment. I took it as him trying to empathize with the family and humanize their side of this. Would’ve been nice if he had denounced the NBBP bounty on Zimmerman, though. Rev. Jackson did.
OFF Topic,
Roland, I might occasionally comment over at Badger if it was not such a burdensome process. I have enough passwords to keep track of. You might want to consider making it as easy as it is for you to comment here. Interesting reads there.
Take your case to Patrick…it’s his world, I just blog in it. 😉
Thank you, and appreciate your POV. The computer said my comment was too short, not intended but here are a few more words to satisfy the machine. Peace and I am so sad that someone with your innate intelligence is smoking cigs. Addictions are a study that I am familiar with. Been there in a number of ways that need not be addressed here.
Roland, well said.
Thanks, Zach. Personally, I’m sick of people trying to make this story an indicator of wider social ills. The reality is that millions of people wear hooded sweatshirts all the time and they aren’t out committing crimes or getting gunned down for it. By and large, Neighborhood Watch programs empower folks who believe crime is a problem and are trying to be constructive, not misguided vigilantes. Millions of people own and carry guns, but they aren’t out their playing Dirty Harry. In 2011 in Milwaukee alone, about 60 black males were shot and killed, mostly by other black males. In Wisconsin, you’re far more likely to be killed by a white male who is driving drunk than shot by one.
One man’s misunderstanding or abuse of the “stand your ground” law doesn’t mean the law is bad. There is a concept in law enforcement called “officer created jeopardy.” It refers to a situation the officer puts themselves in that leaves them little or no choice but to use deadly force to escape. For example, the officer steps in the path of suspect’s car out of some misguided notion he will stop the suspect. When the suspect hits the gas and rushes the car toward him, he draws his gun and fires at the driver. Was the officer in jeopardy? Yeah, but he put himself there.
Sounds a little like what we have here? Zimmerman either confronted Trayvon or got confronted by Trayvon. Either way, he allegedly starts getting his butt kicked by Trayvon thereby leaving himself with the choice of “keep getting my butt kicked VS. shoot this kid.” The problem for Zimmerman is he had no substantive reason to think Trayvon was in the process of committing a crime that necessitated Zimmerman take action. Also, Zimmerman isn’t bound by duty, trained or authorized by his community to take action. His suspicions possibly justified a call to police, but nothing more at that point. If Zimmerman confronted me at night, I might have a “who the f**k are you” attitude too.
As more of this story comes out, I might change my mind…but if they don’t charge him, they are sanctioning vigilantism.
no matter how things happened in the end….911 operator told him not to follow. HE DID ANY WAY!!! which escalated the entire situation to what it ended to be.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078912/-The-Rest-of-Zimmerman-s-911-Call
The tragic lost life of a 6’3″ football player can never be recovered. The victim had his nose broken,cuts on the back of his head and grass stains on his back! Trevon Martin was old enough to put George Zimmerman on his back! He was old enough to take a bullet! TREYVON MARTIN GOT JUSTICE!!!!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079338/-Zimmerman-s-05-arrest-Resisting-offices-Obstructing-justice-a-felony-sentence-Anger-Managemet
Years ago, I was living in Southeast Los Angeles, a largely working class Latino part of Los Angeles. I was traveling one day by bus through South Central Los Angeles, a largely black and Latino part of Los Angeles.
I had to transfer buses at a certain point, so I got off one bus to wait for another in an area which was by and large black, not an unusual thing for me to do. Anyway, there I was, waiting for my bus at the front of a group of people, the rest of whom were black.
The bus pulled up to the bus stop, right in front of me. The door opened, and up at the top of the three steps into and out of the bus was an elderly black woman, clearly terrified of taking those three steps down. I stepped forward, reached up and she took my hand, and I guided her down the steps. When she reached the street, she looked into my eyes for just a moment, her expression slightly quizzical, at first, and then she just smiled. It wasn’t a matter of black or white. It was just a gracious and pleasant interaction between two people.
Given her age, I suspect that the elderly black woman had experienced her share of discrimination and bigotry over the years. Given what I felt at the moment that she looked into my eyes, I also suspect that what transpired between us made a difference in how she looked at the world.
I think that the reaction of the black community to Trayvon Martin’s murder is understandable for a variety of different reasons, not the least of which is the discrimination and bigotry it has historically experienced.
It would say something to the black community about America if Americans of all racial backgrounds stood in solidarity with them regarding Trayvon Martin’s murder.
It isn’t a black or white thing, just the right thing.
I, for one, intend to stand with them.
Standing with them does not mean you have to throw all the white Americans under the bus. Just remember that.
I’m not doing that, Anon, and you know it.
Time for you to go back and read all of the to be found at the links which I’ve provided.
And maybe search your soul a little bit. You’re obvious and clueless sense of white privilege is starting to worry me, not to mention piss me off.
Zuma,
No offense, but I don’t follow the links you have posted from DKos or anywhere as you have mostly neglected to mention your specific point that the link is supposed to, intended to, support. Ordering (asking) anyone of any political persuasion to go read a link without being a bit more clear about your view on the subject is a bit disingenuous. You’d be more successful with explaining a bit more the specific point you wish others to glean from your links. And please tell me what good your piss me off comments do to further any discussion.
This was entirely meant as constructive criticism. That is an encouraging and positive meaning. i.e. I’m not ragging at you.
Still not interested in your lectures, Church Lady.
“This was entirely meant as constructive criticism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewQzi4RhGQ&feature=related
(Nonquixote aka The Church Lady in action in years past)
One more word, Church Lady, and its on.
Now, go bother someone else.
If I had not seen through the church crap about 45 years ago I’d have thought you were referring to me. What’s on, you don’t have anything but some links that nobody cares to follow? Oh rage on, KIA. (to be fair to others following, that means Know it All, not Killed in Action). I don’t want to be accused of confusing the issues.
A bit disingenuous, is that SO threatening to your ego? And you are an attorney? LOL and followed by ROTFLOL, didn’t want to scare the cat.
Nice to see how very wide your world view is, really. Peace Bro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewQzi4RhGQ&feature=related
It’s all about context, Church Lady. That you’re willing to shoot your sanctimonious, smarmy mouth off without understanding the context of my remarks to Anon doesn’t surprise me, nor does your inability to understand why I would post links to articles simply because I found them edifying. In any event, it just isn’t my responsibility to explain the things that having a stick stuck so far up your ass keeps you from understanding.
Church Lady, it’s high time that you got over yourself, and STFU. Save your lectures for someone who thinks your self-absorbed musings matter.
“It’s on”, you self-absorbed, sanctimonious, but apparently culturally clueless, scold means that I will come after every single one of your sanctimonious, self-absorbed, self-important pronouncements in the event that you can’t “unclench”, let go of your neurotic obsession with me, and give everyone here, including me, a break from your bullsh*t.
Do yourself, and everyone else here, a favor, and pretend for once in your dried up husk of a life, stop your incessant hectoring. I’m not interested, nor is anyone else.
“Better to be thought the [sanctimonious, self-important bee-yatch] than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Now, off you go, Church Lady (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewQzi4RhGQ&feature=related). Haunt somebody else.
To bring everyone else here up to speed, Blogging Blue’s very own Church Lady, Nonquixote, first appeared here:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/empty-threat-of-the-week/
and here:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/empty-threat-of-the-week/
AND here:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/callie-otto-a-letter-to-the-editor-and-to-sen-ron-johnson/
For the record, Church Lady, it’s your self-important and sanctimonious attitude, not your actual church attendance, that garners you the Church Lady label.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_Lady
Your sanctimony and your obsession with me really do tend to blind you to the simplest concepts, don’t they?
AND here:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/callie-otto-a-letter-to-the-editor-and-to-sen-ron-johnson/
Agreed Roland.
Further reading (since this video was first available) says this video was after law enforcement took him to the hospital. Stands to reason things might not be what they appear.
I’ll give credit where credit is due. Roland stated his point objectively. Nuff said.
ZB, I am so sorry that you took such offense to my politely asking that you simply explain what points your numerous links are supposed to be supporting, at my 7:28 PM yesterday. I understand that explaining things is tougher than name calling and derision, and is tougher than threatening people that they might piss you off if they don’t agree with you or immediately understand your pov as you did at 6:28 PM above, yesterday.
It is apparent that you cannot tell the difference between a friendly suggestion (my 7:28 PM yesterday) and a scold. I don’t purposely follow you around this site. It is simply difficult to read anything here without your paltry threats to others getting in the way. Can people here expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one? That is a rhetorical question. Oh, sorry, no link to point you to, to understand that.
@ The Church Lady
The Church Lady: “ZB, I am so sorry that you took such offense to my politely asking that you simply explain what points your numerous links are supposed to be supporting, at my 7:28 PM yesterday.”
Zuma: Look, Church Lady, at the risk of explaining my self to someone to whom I feel absolutely NO responsibility to explain anything, here are a couple of verbal tidbits for you to chew on in that uptight, tight-ass psyche of yours:
First, a general observation, Church Ladies are ALWAYS “polite”, aren’t they? Their “politeness” is a thin veil for the cauldron of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou bullshit lurking just below the surface, just as it is for you. For someone like you, Church Lady, “politely asking”, “constructive criticism”, hectoring, sanctimonious, self-important scolding is all one and the same thing.
[Although, given your sanctimonious, holier than thou, know-it-all, stick-up-your-ass, Church Lady sensibilities, I suspect that you lack the capacity to do so, there is something you need to wrap your brain around, Church Lady, and it is this. The person who is so enthusiastically clapping you on the back, and saying, “Gawd, YOU’RE brilliant”, is you. There is a difference, Church Lady, in actually being an intellectual legend, and in being one in your own mind.]
Now, more specifically, regarding Anon, I had previously made certain points to him and directed him to relevant links. Despite your apparently not having read my previous comments, you offered “constructive criticism” about my purported “need” to offer context in connection with my telling Anon that he or she needed to go back and look at the cited links, and, further, linked, and extrapolated, that “constructive criticism” to my having independently posted links of general interest for the perusal of anyone reading through the comment thread.
You insinuated yourself into a conversation I was having with Anon without taking the time to realize that a context for the comment of mine to Anon with which you took issue ALREADY had a context which didn’t require further explanation. While you may not have understood that, Anon would have, not that that stopped you from bringing your unsolicited, clueless, sanctimonious, holier than thou, know-it-all, stick-up-your-ass Church Lady bullshit into it.
Being The Church Lady, you may have thought yourself entitled to an “explanation”. The reality is, your self-important Church Lady expectations notwithstanding, you weren’t, and I didn’t feel the need or responsibility to provide one.
The Church Lady: “I understand that explaining things is tougher than name calling and derision, and is tougher than threatening people that they might piss you off if they don’t agree with you or immediately understand your [point of view] as you did at 6:28 PM above, yesterday.”
Zuma: It really isn’t “tougher explaining things than name-calling and derision”, nor is it “tougher than threatening people that [sic] piss you off if they don’t agree with you”.
As I said above, I just don’t feel the need, or see a responsibility, to explain myself to a sanctimonious, self-important, holier-than-thou, know-it-all Church Lady bee-yatch like you.
In any event, I’m more than happy to let the totality of my comments here at Blogging Blue speak for me, just as I am more than happy to let yours speak for you. There is a reason, Church Lady, why I keep posting links to our various exchanges.
The Church Lady: “It is apparent that you cannot tell the difference between a friendly suggestion (my 7:28 PM yesterday) and a scold.”
Zuma: See above.
The Church Lady: “I don’t purposely follow you around this site.”
Zuma: Sure you do.
The Church Lady: “It is simply difficult to read anything here without your paltry threats to others getting in the way.”
Zuma: Pure bullsh*t. Your self-serving characterization of things notwithstanding, the truth is that YOU and your unseemly, Church Lady obsession with me is what “[gets] in [YOUR] way”.
The Church Lady: “Can people here expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one?”
Zuma: As long as you keep stalking me with your unsolicited, know-it-all Church Lady sanctimony, probably.
The Church Lady: “That is a rhetorical question.”
Zuma: Thank you, Church Lady. Your “wisdom” is truly staggering.
The Church Lady: “Oh, sorry, no link to point you to, to understand that.”
Zuma: Again, Church Lady, thank you. Your unwarranted, pursed lips, stick-up-your-ass, “well, ISN’T that special” Church Lady condescension is duly noted. Now, just stick it up your ass, huh [well, assuming that you can get something else up their alongside the stick and your head]?
__________________________________________
Once again, Church Lady, consider this as constituting a simple request that you try to control your obsession with me, and stop stalking me.
Dealing with a Church Lady pissant like you has grown more than a little tiresome, and I’ve really got better things to do. I’m off to minister to the needs of my brain cancer-stricken girlfriend.
Try to honor my request this time.
In plain and simple terms, F*CK OFF. I’m truly not interested in what you have to say, nor is anyone else.
More self-important, know-it-all, stick-up-her-ass sanctimony from [Blogging Blue’s very own] Church Lady, nonquixote:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/callie-otto-a-letter-to-the-editor-and-to-sen-ron-johnson/
@ The Church Lady
The Church Lady: “Can people here expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one?”
Zuma: Let’s be honest, Church Lady. This part of your comment should actually have read: “Can [I] expect three or four or eight comments from you to this one?” No one else here really cares. THIS is YOUR obsession.
So, anyway, Church Lady, this is the second of, well, who’s counting, right? (*laughing*) I mean, beside you? (*laughing*)
The Church Lady’s first self-important, sanctimonious, know-it-all appearance here at Blogging Blue:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/empty-threat-of-the-week/
Number three, if you’re keeping score, Church Lady.
More self-important, know-it-all, stick-up-her-ass sanctimony from [Blogging Blue’s very own] Church Lady, nonquixote:
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/14/callie-otto-a-letter-to-the-editor-and-to-sen-ron-johnson/
Number four.
Who knew that The Church Lady aka nonquixote had her own Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_Lady
Congratulations, Church Lady. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving, self-important, uptight bee-yatch.
Number five (I wanted to keep the count “odd”, in your honor).
This is what I meant, Church Lady, when I said that, with ONE more word out of you directed at me, “It’s on.”
This isn’t a “fight” that I asked for. You initiated it, just as you did the “fights” in the comment threads following the “Empty Threat of the Week” and “Callie Otto: A Letter to the Editor and to Senator Ron Johnson” posts.
I’ve asked you to stop, and you have arrogantly and condescendingly refused to. Your choice. If you continue to stalk me, what you’ve seen here is what will frame your existence here at Blogging Blue.
If need be, I will file a formal complaint with Zach, rather than get caught up in Zach unilaterally giving us both a lecture for a “fight” for which you alone are responsible as a part of his ongoing and understandable effort to police what takes place at Blogging Blue.
So, just. . .”walk”. . .away.
As I’ve said previously, I’m more than happy to let the totality of my comments here at Blogging Blue speak for me, just as I am more than happy to let yours speak for you, and there is a reason, Church Lady, why I keep posting links to our various exchanges.
I didn’t initiate this, but I will finish it.
DO we need to resort to name calling? It seems you should be able to get your points across without the names.
Actually, Zach, I do think so. It’s a strategic decision on my part.
Given her “white glove”, Emily Postian sensibilities, and given her inability to “quit me”, it seems an entirely appropriate and effective stratagy to make her go away.
It worked once before. I see no reason why it won’t prove effective this time. I’m not happy about employing it now, but she just won’t go away.
Look, Zach, I’ve had good, intelligent, substantive “give and take” with people like Locke, ForgotMyScreenName and Nemo over time, and they’re conservatives. [N]onquixote is a progressive for God’s sake, and, given that, there’s just something seriously weird about her fixation on me, not to mention the things which she fixates on
Snark, caustic, biting satire, and yes, even some name-calling, is a part of the “robust political discourse” that the Supreme Court talked about in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. [N]onquixote doesn’t get that.
Tell her to back off, and it all becomes academic.
That said, I know you’re probably a bit uncomfortable with the situation, and, given my respect for you, I’ll probably back off a bit anyway. The thing is, I didn’t ask for this “fight” with nonquixote. She initiated it, and keeps unilaterally initiating things with me with her unforced sanctimony and condescension, even after I’ve repeatedly told her to “just let it go.”
Condescension is one of the “tools” in my “toolkit”. I don’t mind dealing with it, but it does get messy.
If nonquixote would just bugger off, this could all just go away, but she doesn’t seem inclined to. Given that, I’m going to have to defend myself in the way that I think is best.
My techniques have worked with trolls/flamethrowers like Notalib, Orlin Sellars and James Booth. The weirdness of using them against someone who, by all accounts, appears to be a progressive, notwithstanding, they will [eventually] work with nonquixote. They worked once before. She backed off for awhile. And, then, recently, here, she came at me, again. Unless she goes away, again, I’ll probably have to “dawg” her some more.
Having said all that, and, in the event that she shuts up, I have just one more comment to post here in order to put everything into context. It will be in the nature of a relatively short comment about the things of which “robust political discourse” is comprised, about how I use them and how people, other than nonquixote, tend to enjoy the way that I use them.
Catch ya later.
@ Zach
I was reading a story about Mitt Romney, and it occurred to to me that there was one other aspect of the concept of “name-calling” that I had failed to mention in my first reply, the use of a “name” to communicate a substantive point.
As you know many of the wingnuts around here, like Notalib, Orlin Sellars, Smokey and Angry Andy have been known to throw some fairly ugly insults at progressives here.
What first drew The Church Lady’s ire was a comment that I posted in the “Empty Threat of the Week” comment thread that suggested that Angry Andy’s support for Shirl Barre could have been predicted by virtue of a comment he had previously posted wherein he said that “unlike all you candy ass libs, I know what it means to serve my country”. [Veteran Steve Carlson took PARTICULAR issue with that part of Angry Andy’s remark.]
The Church lady accused me of “baiting” Angry Andy (“pobrecito”). In truth, I was using Angry Andy’s words own words to illuminate who he was, and to illuminate the knee-jerk and ad hominem attack-laden nature of the wingnut. And therein lies the problem that someone like The Church Lady presents.
I welcome the Angry Andys of the world, the Notalibs, the Orlin Sellars, the Smokeys. When they parade their ignorance in front of us, often relying on strictly ad hominem attacks, they illuminate who they are. It would be “progressive malpractice” not to help, would it not? (*wink*)
But, in The Church Lady’s world, in highlighting Angry Andy’s own ignorant words, I was “baiting” him, and she sanctimoniously “called me on the carpet” for it therein and started stalking me across Blogging Blue looking for new opportunities (the links appear above) to lecture me about “proper decorum” in political discourse. And avail herself of those opportunities, she did. Well, all I can say is that I call her The Church Lady for a reason.
Which brings me to my real point about “name-calling”.
The adjectives that I used to describe The Church Lady’s behavior were strong, no doubt about it, but they served to “explain” and “illuminate” The Church Lady moniker, The Church Lady metaphor, if you will. And, The Church Lady metaphor was, and was intended to be, substantive shorthand for describing The Church Lady’s behavior. It was also intended to mock her, and hold her up to ridicule, in an effort to make the price of her unforced sanctimony too high for her to want to continue it.
So, how does Mittens Romney fit into all of this, you ask? Pretty simply.
Of late, “Etch-A-Sketch” has been used as substantive, metaphorical shorthand for Mittens. Similarly, with nonquixote, I used the Dana Carvey/”Church Lady” metaphor as satirical, substantive, metaphorical shorthand for the unfortunate, supercilious and misplaced sanctimony that nonquixote brought to bear in standing in judgment on how I choose to participate in the “robust political discourse” here.
I don’t “name-call” without reason, or without a substantive point to be made, or a substantive purpose to be achieved, unlike the Notalibs, Orlin Sellars, Smokeys AND Angry Andys of the world.
When you walk like The Church Lady, talk like The Church Lady, and sanctimoniously judge like The Church Lady, you just might be The Church Lady, and it is eminently fair to say so, especially when The Church Lady, with her uptight, “white gloves” sanctimony, stalks you.
If nonquixote aka The Church Lady wants to be perceived as something other than The Church lady, she will need to behave differently. I hope that she does.
@Zach, will all due respect to the “strategic” blogging necessities of calling someone a “sanctimonious, self-important bee-yatch” and telling them to “F*CK OFF”…how are the rantings of “Zuma Bound” any different than those of “mickey/gus”?
Point taken.
Thanks for the support, Zach.
You’re welcome.
And though you were being sarcastic, I’ll note that you’ve enjoyed a tremendous amount of latitude here when it comes to your comments, especially in regards to your tendency to resort to name calling.
There was no sarcasm there, brother.
Take care.
Has Zuma made any crank calls lately?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he had.
“Erudite”, and hypocritical, as always, Roland.
Wait until The Church Lady comes after you with her sanctimony. We’ll see if you think “bee-yatch” and “F*ck off” are inappropriate.
In any event, she ain’t saying sh*t now, so, preach on, bigmouth.
Now that I think about it, I guess you would know a thing or two about self-important and high-minded sanctimony.
Try to remember something Roland, the person patting you on the back so enthusiastically, and saying, “Attaboy” to ya, is you.
In any event, ya still need to lose the photo.
Where did I say anything was inappropriate? Zach is free to decide what is or isn’t appropriate for his blog. I asked Zach for a comparison. He understood my point. You are Bizzaro Mickey…politically opposite viewpoint delivered with identical obnoxiousness. That’s all.
Peace, Zuma Dude.
Roland, you’re nothing more than a self-important overcompensating, pompous windbag whose ass I kicked the last time we encountered each other, doing nothing more here than acting out because of it.
Zach understood what you meant by the reference. So did I. And it was bullsh*t, an unjustifiable and unflattering comparison that served only one purpose, fucking with me, however unjustifiably. That Zach went along with it is his cross to bear. It doesn’t make the reference any less full of shit.
Look, your feelings got hurt last time. Get over it. And get over yourself.
Roland, you’re a poseur, a “piggish”, pseudo-tough guy poseur who thinks he’s Marlon Brando in “Waterfront”.
What are ya? Like 5’5″? Packing what, four, five inches? Pot-bellied, right? Probably a motorcycle cop, too, huh?
In any event, you need to stop overcompensating, “dude”, not to mention acting out. Just let it go, and accept the fact that some people are more intelligent than you.
“Bizarro Mickey”?! (*laughing*) Right back at ya, big boy.
And LOSE the stupid photo icon.
Obama’s cool. You definitely aren’t, no matter what you tell yourself.
What? There’s a Bizarro World counterpart for all of us?
You, too, John.
Appreciate the support.
And none here, either, Zach.
I guess ya kind of missed the point of what I said above, or didn’t fully appreciate it. So be it.
Anyway, I have appreciated the latitude given.
Later.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079557/-Orlando-Sentinel-Forensic-voice-identification-expert-says-screaming-is-not-George-Zimmerman-s
Given recent events in this comment thread, it seems appropriate to address the nature of the “robust political discourse” which the Supreme Court of the United States touched on, in dicta, in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.
The comment thread following the “Pure Republican Hypocrisy” post of Jeff Simpson’s is a particularly apt example of that “robust political discourse”.
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/19/pure-republican-hypocrisy/
It is a good example of the “rough and tumble” of political discourse. It is also a good example of how energizing, engaging, and entertaining that “rough and tumble” can be.
The entire comment thread is worth reading, but the following comments are particularly noteworthy (I would have provided true links to each of the following but for the ever-vigilant Blogging Blue “spam” filter which just didn’t seem to like the idea – kind of ironic, not to mention funny, that a series of links to Blogging Blue comments was considered “spam”, but I digress):
/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93613
/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93615
/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93652
/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93654
/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93657
/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93659
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/19/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93681
http://www.bloggingblue.com/2012/03/19/pure-republican-hypocrisy/comment-page-3/#comment-93683
Comment number 93683, authored by Rich, is particularly noteworthy inasmuch as it speaks to why the “rarefied, sanctimonious, Emily Post-ian air” which nonquixote aka The Church Lady “breathes” is antithetical to how energizing, engaging and entertaining true “robust political discourse” actually is, and should be:
Rich wrote: “Hey ZB, if you’re done here, there’s a couple of trolls over on the newest MacIver post that could use a little of your special brand of TLC.
I’ll grab some popcorn”.
And, with that, Church Lady, I bid you, “Good day”. I SAID, “Good DAY!!!” [h/t to Fez from “That 70’s Show”]
So, “unclench”, huh, Church Lady? It’s all good.
@ Zach
Well, (*laughing*), I guess it wasn’t THAT short, huh?
Oy! Who knew? (Think Mel Brooks as the 2000 year-old man when you read that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Year_Old_Man and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLqLHWDg5E)
(*laughing*)
Peace out.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/01/1078914/-If-Trayvon-Martin-had-been-white-and-George-Zimmerman-were-black
No racial slurs heard on the 911 tape…and the 911 tape was edited by the media to make Zimmerman look racist.
Outrage: by FreeMan
Heartless murderer portraying good citizen
in a florida community
currently receive immunity
no justice
just us
discrimination of a black nation
arouse devastation
racial profile
vicious slaying of Trayvon
a young child
white America
black America
something has to give
how many must die
in order to live
awake kings and Queens
it’s time to lead
not mislead
our own brothers
kill each other
every day on street corners
we just as bad
if we don’t change
hurting inside
subjected to pain
color lines rooted too deep
uphold peace
violence must cease
this 2012 not 1912
stand for Justice
and Justice you receive.