S8ET6

person of color, person of colour - (formal) any non-European non-white person copied and pasted directly from the link that you provided. (That includes Asians, Indians, Native-Americans, so on and so forth)

Volvo Not Running Bullshit on which of my statements? I said "almost", didn't I ?

Rmorse, I intentionally used the term "People of Color" in my post to avoid the possibility that I was speaking only about the "black man" I find it incredibly amusing that you seem to assumed I am only arguing on behalf of the "black man"

Alain,it seems that you're trying to apply logic to what is more of an emotional issue; Remember over the past year when guys would make negative comments to you regarding the Mormon Faith? Over time, you became so sensitive to it that you were able to tell from the tone of posts when another rift was coming. I even remember an occasion where you posted (I'm paraphrasing) "I see where this conversation is going, and I'm not going to allow this to become a Mormon bash again." The onus was on you to inform us that you were offended. Likewise, you can't determine if someone behaved in a racist manner... the onus is on the person who felt that they experienced racist behavior towards them to speak up. For example, when OJ was acquitted there were ALOT of white people who felt the sting of racism that day Also, consider that you can teach your kids to avoid religious persecution just by having them NOT identify with their faith. People in the LGBT community can avoid persecution just by denying their identities if they so choose, but people of color can never escape their identifying marker. (Michael Jackson tried hard though, didn't he?) Another thought... we don't need to prove Zimmerman a racist in order for this case to be drenched in racism. Finally, I'm cosigning on the last two lines of Scumcity14's post.

I stand corrected... sorry. Alain, I'm playing devil's advocate here... Why shouldn't it be about race? Especially when race = power in America... From the 17th and 18th century people of color were stripped of their heritage and history, subjected to slavery, and/or having their land(s) taken from them or being raped, beaten and murdered for having the audacity to questioning authority. In the 19th century people of color were denied the right to vote and to fight for their country, placed in internment camps, red-lined, raped, beaten and murdered for having the audacity to question authority.. In the 20th century,people are still subjected to being red-lined, having their land taken from them (foreclosure crisis), placed in internment camps (Gitmo), and raped, beaten or murdered for questioning authority (I think that we all agree in this thread that (if nothing else) Trayvon Martin questioned Zimmerman's authority, which ultimately lead to his murder). To me, the simple answer to your question is this: This is about race because almost everything is about race in America. But, since you're rejecting the notion that this is ALL about race, then perhaps you can explain some of these potentially racial elements :: - When Zimmerman 1st saw Trayvon he associated Travon's behavior with that of suspicious activity instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt that he may have recently moved to the neighborhood and was lost? - I know that it was reported that there had been a rash of break-ins, but I never read that a description of the perp was provided to the public by the police. So why did Zimmerman automatically zone in on Trayvon possibly being a suspect as opposed to someone from a different age group or racial group? Furthermore, why did he feel empowered to stop and interrogate Trayvon? - Why, during his 911 call, did he use them term "them/they" instead of "this guy" or "this kid"? (Historically, them/they has been used as a euphemism for people of color. i.e "They only get scholarships due to meet a quota." Individually, each could be explained away, but collectively they do seem to point to Martin being profiled. You do realize that most acts of racial intolerance are done covertly, not overtly and because of that, people typically will draw upon their personal experiences to define whether someone's behavior is racist or not.. My Final Springer thought: Here's an analogy for you... If you were investing in commodities you would be very concerned with the trends. Whether calls or puts, day trading or a longer term investor - you would want to know which direction the market is going, correct? Now, sometimes you may do some in depth analysis to see "why" the market is performing the way it is... but, even then, more times than not, you're probably doing that in order to gauge when the trend will shift in the direction with which you will profit. Although their actions may influence it, no one investor is in a position to control the market forever. To me, racial issues in America are like this hypothetical commodities market and each racial group is like one of the individual commodities that this "market" is comprised of. Individuals, like you, me and others who've posted in this thread, etc... ,are the "investors" who are trying to understand the direction of this market, Some individuals may see the trend line from a micro point of view, and declare that the "market" is going in a "bad" direction due to "racist" behavior. Others may take a Macro point of view and say that things have gotten better over time, that this is a momentary blip, and we are trending toward equality. Then you've got the group(s) who are just trying to influence the market (by quoting "skreet peoples law" or having "tea parties", "Klan rallys", etc...) in order to profit from it.

Chuck, why do you walk around expecting to be assaulted?

Alain, I think that the root issue, both at the Macro and Micro level, is power. And historically in the South, power has been a black or white issue. This case, for all intents and purposes is a black and white issue - both literally and figuratively - but, ironically, Zimmerman (Hispanic) isn't categorized as either of those races. He may self-identify with one or more races, but the media has painted him as a white guy. (Side note: I think that the overwhelming silence of the Hispanic community on this issue is deafening) I moved to the south in 1994 just before the Olympics and lived there for seven years. Back then. there was a big marketing push in NC, SC, GA, Fl, and Alabama for the "New South" - the implied message to the people who had participated in the great migration of the 20s, 30s and 40s was "come on back home - we'll treat you fairly now." However, that didn't prove to be the case. There was still issues. Red flags such as the flying of the Rebel flag on the State capitals, the whole hanging chad fiasco, and the James Byrd murder individually appeared to be isolated incidents, but now, looking back, might have been leading indicators... Fast forward to the election of Obama, (which NOBODY saw coming as recently as four years prior) and all of a sudden there's one subset of Americans screaming that this proves racism is dead while another faction is demanding the return of "their America". Now, after this last election, it's clear that the balance of power is shifting - and this case is nothing more than a political arrow in the quiver of both groups and individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome of the aforementioned power shift. Ultimately, I think that the principles involved will become pawns used to further agendas. You know... it's funny how times change ...50 years ago Malcom X had a "Stand your Ground" ideology - yet he was considered a militant. Perhaps he was a visionary (and more like Chuck afterall)

Alain, I didn't mean that he had a license to kill (past tense) - I meant that going forward, he has a license to kill (current tense). And I say that because he's probably paranoid (as I would be if I were in his shoes) that everyone is out to kill him. And IF he were to profile, shoot and kill someone again, he could use the "stand your grand" defense again, and it'll seem a-lot less sketchy the next time around due to all of the death threats (either implicate or implied) that he's receiving. As for me, I'm on the fence on this subject... did my "reaction" seem otherwise to you? Seriously, if so, how?

Alain, I think that the uproar isn't just due to an unjust verdict - the trial just happened to be the final opportunity for some sense of... fairness in the justice process. Some of the talking points that I've seen/read are: - If the skin complexion of the parties had been reversed, would T. Martin have been profiled? Shot? - If the skin complexion of the parties had been reversed, would Zimmerman have been allow to remain free or would he have been arrested on the spot or shortly there-after? - Why wasn't Zimmerman even found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter? He could have avoided this "life threatening" situation by standing down, or running away (BTW, I thought that I read somewhere that Zimmerman had actually trained in MMA fighting styles. If so, a strong argument could be made that he had the necessary skillset in hand to hand combat to properly defend himself and that the use of a gun would have constituted "excessive force". Oh, I forgot... this is Florida that we're talking about... part of the new south) - Then there are the comparisons between the murders of T. Martin, Medger Evers and Emmitt Till that I've seen posted

Left? My understanding was that this incident occurred in the marital home that they shared... and that this wasn't the first of such abusive incidents between the husband and the wife, so even if she HAD left, the odds are that he would have eventually abused her again. I agree. The problem with applying your logic to this incident is that she didn't use deadly force - she got 20 years for firing warning shots into the ceiling So... are you saying that it would have been better for her defense (legally as well as literally) to have multiple guns? One hidden in each place that she feared the next abusive incident might occur (i.e 1 in the car, 1 in the bedroom, 1 in the water-tank of the toliet,etc...)? But, I digress... back to Zimmerman who has just been promoted from neighborhood watch to 007 because he was just granted a license to kill. I mean, he's been found innocent of the charges. He's currently in hiding because of death threats from the general public. At this point, he can shoot as many fuckers as he wants and just claim that because they were acting suspicious, and he's received so many death threats he feared for his life. The legal precedent was established during Zimmerman V. Florida

Wait.. whut? I guess that the logic used to justify a conviction was something along the lines of: "She left the dangerous situation to go get a firearm - and if she truly feared for her life then she shouldn't have returned back to the dangerous situation." Is that correct? Or are you saying that she's in jail now because she didn't plead correctly?

I was gonna mention this case and ask the VS legal "experts" why she wasn't afforded the same protection under "stand your ground" as Zimmerman appeared to have benefited from... can someone please explain that to me?

I'd be surprised if he's around to celebrate the 1st anniversary of this verdict

Wow... Chuck, here's a contract opportunity for ya... cause Zimmerman is going to need your military super powers to keep him alive going forward

I agree, but in this case, I don't think that he could afford to miss his mark because he'd be bouncing off of trees left and right.

Post some pics of the head & valves

Edit: posted in wrong thread

I'm in Illinois Alain.

I exercised my early voting option last week. I was asked if I wanted to cast my vote traditionally or electronically. I decided to vote electronically while my wife voted the regular way. They gave me a regular ballot, which I then had to run through a scanner twice before it could read it and display it on a touch screen monitor. Then I touched the screen to vote, touched it to navigate to each section of the ballot and touched again to indicate that I was done. At that point, the machine colored in my choices on the ballot and spit the completed ballot back out to me. I then had to insert it into an envelope and put it in the ballot box. The while process took about 10 minutes longer than voting the traditional way. If this is what electronic voting is going to be like then they can keep that crap

I'm not a Mormon but I believe that kids are better off with a full time at home parent as opposed to two full time working parents. And I agree that you could argue the above point, however, having worked in dozens of schools - both public and private - over the past ten plus years, I think that a greater argument can be made that her job would be much EASIER if more parents decided to forgo the two income lifestyle. At least during the formative years.

And...they're off !! The race is on now. As impressed as I was with Ryan, Biden's age and experience really came into play tonight. I couldn't help but get a father/son dynamic while watching this one. I fully expected Ryan to be called a young whipper-snapper or something. The $64000 question is why wasn't Obama as assertive as Biden? I don't need to see anymore of his shy, "awe shucks" smile. That crap may have worked the first time, but man up and get passionate about this election.

It's true that Obama had minimal foreign policy experience when he was elected... Because of that, I was really suprised when he received the nomination. I really expected Hillary to get it, because she would've had Bill in her hip pocket as an unoffical advisor/cabinet member. I thought McCain had a solid chance until he selected Palin. Once he did that, people started looking at him through the prism of "what if he died?" And Obama got a bump simply because he appeared healthier and more likely to survive his term. I'm really interested in seeing the republicans strategy and tactics for the vice presidential debate. It's true that Obama had minimal foreign policy experience when he was elected... Because of that, I was really suprised when he received the nomination. I really expected Hillary to get it, because she would've had Bill in her hip pocket as an unoffical advisor/cabinet member. I thought McCain had a solid chance until he selected Palin. Once he did that, people started looking at him through the prism of "what if he died?" And Obama got a bump simply because he appeared healthier and more likely to survive his term. I'm really interested in seeing the republicans strategy and tactics for the vice presidential debate.

Ok, I've been following this dialog... And yes, I voted for Obama - and no, I am not financially better off now than four years ago... But, I blame that moreso on the Republicans whose primary goal over the last four years was to make Obama a one term president and basically tanked the economy in order to meet that objective. To take the nation to the brink of defaulting on international debt - in order to accomplish their goal - is the epitome of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face. However, the main disappointment that I have with Obama is, I guess, what got him elected. I can understand trying to work across the aisle in year one of his presidency, but by year two it was pretty obvious that he was going to get no cooperation from the republicans during the remainder of his term. So, how he could be stupid enough to waste the leverage that he had at the time with a democratically controlled house and senate is beyond me. If I were in that position, I would have been like "Fuck it! If you guys want me to be a one term president, then I'm passing anything and everything I can." Worse case, he would have been in the same "can I get re-elected" boat that he's in now. Now, I think that the dynamics have changed in the sense that if he is re-elected, everyone knows its his final term, and things WILL get accomplished in Washington over the next four years because both parties will need to position themselves for success during the 2016 election. (Actually, I think that logic applies to whom ever gets elected). So, in my minds eye, this election boils down to a choice between Mitt's strength in business vs Obama's strength in foreign policy - and if I'm right in assuming that the BUSINESS of government will finally resume regardless of who is president, then I want the guy with the most experience in foreign policy in charge for the next four years.

Willard? I didn't know Mitt's birthname was Willard. I guess the shows how closely I've been following the RNC primaries.