eym_sirius

Yes - "trying to wrote" can be a challenge. Just out of curiosity -- did you read the title of the thread? Knowing that the perspective was going to be different, why do you even enter into the conversation, considering someone with a different outlook from yours to be carrying a chip on his shoulder? Is it possible that people might want to consider alternative points of view that run counter to the media presentation of events? That said - We're just talking here! If you don't enjoy someone presenting alternative points of view and engaging in discussions - ignore my posts! How difficu

You think that reality show stars are actors? I don't care a thing about NFL football players, either, but I can figure out that they were not born into the NFL! Of course professional athletes have to train rigorously for their sports and actors (as opposed to reality stars) work diligently for years to hone their craft. There are exceptions in some cases, but my point is that there are no exceptions in the case of royalty. It's not that I'm "not interested" in the royals. I find the whole thing about "Better Than You Because of Royal Birth" to be the result of enablers who, instead of genu

Point taken about the discrepancy in the terms, NC.

You're response was well-considered and wonderfully articulate. Thanks, SB!

There simply IS no other way, except a path to citizenship. Nobody wants to say it, but there's no way that our present law enforcement, court system, and corrections facilities can process 12 million undocumented people. I've said for years that it's a logistical impossibility! I think that American Businesses like the status quo and a path to citizenship is a path to civil rights in the workplace. I'm not sure that some of the large American businesses have the best interests of these workers at heart.

I understand that Great Britain has its antiquated traditions and that they have interwoven those traditions into their government. I'm asking why we Americans play along with any degree of interest at all in a system that treats people WITH regard to their background and NOT to their merits or character! Why are we not capable of higher thought than to make the comparison of people who rise to prominence due to merit (actors, athletes) with those whose prominence is gained from birth (aristocracy)? I'm saying that the concept of an aristocracy (a birthright to nobility) is fundamentally a

I'm not understanding the interest of the media, therefore the interest of the general public, in Britain's royalty. Isn't the concept of "royal birth" in direct contradiction to our own ideology that "all men are created equal"? Under what set of circumstances do we ignore that basic tenet of democracy and put someone in another country on a pedestal because of his/her birth? Why are Great Britain's Royals deserving of their station and why do they deserve the media attention in countries that profess to believe in equality? So do you or do you not believe in "all people created equal"

There's really no comparison, regarding the risk, between touching a surface you come in contact every day and submerging your body in warm e.coli contaminated water. A small bit of that water, at least, will come into direct contact with the mouth, eyes, ears, and nose! Any of those contaminations can have serious health implications/risks - a lot more than opening the office door in the morning. However, it's a personal choice and if some extra stomach viruses are worth taking communal pool dips, then enjoy. I'll not experience the loss of nasal epithelial tissue regarding the matter!

The "two verdicts" was a reference to the verdict in the OJ case AND the verdict in the Zimmerman case (the things being compared). There were, by the way, two verdicts in the Zimmerman case - separate "not guilty" verdicts on the second-degree murder charge and on the manslaughter charge.

The only reason that the racists automatically believe the Zimmerman narrative is because that narrative conforms to their own prejudices about ethnicity. Of course Trayvon was acting like he was "on something" and was looking for burglary opportunities, right? Because, according to the racist handbook -- that's what young black men do! The suggestion is even being made that Zimmerman did the community a favor by ridding itself of a budding burglar, despite the reality that there's absolutely no evidence that on the night of his death, Trayvon was doing anything but drinking tea, eating skittl

We're talking about what it means to be innocent vs. judged "not guilty" of the specific crime(s)for which he/they were charged. Try to focus. There IS a difference between the two verdicts. In the OJ case -- the jury said that there was a reasonable doubt that it was, in fact, OJ who killed them! There's no doubt in Zimmerman's case. I can't imagine anyone so lacking in reasoning skills that they get "innocent" out of "he did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a justifiable homicide". The prosecution only had to show that the Zimmerman-related sc

There is to be, in a court of law, a presumption of innocence until the jury renders the verdict. After that time, the court of public opinion can reach whatever conclusion it deems appropriate. Was OJ innocent? Of course not. That opinion is mine and has no effect on Simpson's freedom. It's my opinion that OJ couldn't have murdered his ex-wife and be, in fact, innocent. You're saying that even if he in fact murdered his wife, he's --- innocent - what you call an "entitlement" to that continued presumption?? NO - He was found "not guilty", which only means that the prosecution didn't mean

There's a reason that I usually have you on ignore, MrsH - your inability to follow a train of thought to a logical conclusion. Here's a training exercise for you: Was OJ innocent? Did he REALLY not kill his ex-wife and her friend? Of course he killed them and was therefore not innocent. He was also "not guilty". When you're able to process both terms at once and apply them to the same individual, you will have made sufficient progress in cultivating cohesive thought patterns. If Johnny Cochran declared OJ "INNOCENT" -- what does that mean? It means nothing. He was not innocent, he was fou

Actually your advice is neither friendly nor practical. Like your (for lack of a better term) peer group, you don't have a clue either. A lot of it is due to relatively poor comprehension levels compounded by a bigoted viewpoint that allows no progress into new century paradigms. I understand that you don't understand my point of view. Just consider that most of the country is not in the Regressive camp with you.

I never said that. I said that Zimmerman's attorney was insisting that the jury had found him innocent. My point was that no one knows if he committed a crime or not, only that there was insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - Therefore "not guilty" (as opposed to "guilty"). Why is it so difficult for some of you to understand that the court of public opinion is under no obligation regarding a presumption of innocence? Only in a court of law is a presumption of innocence necessary. This (a local message/discussion board) isn'

Would you PLEASE point that phrase out to me in the Constitution? Thanks!

The trial is over with, so I'm not really sure how our statements here would retroactively apply to the Trayvon Martin case. My point, if you care to review, was that Zimmerman may or may not have committed a crime. The "not guilty" verdict was a decision by the jury that the prosecution had not met the requisite standard of proof. It in no way implied that Zimmerman is to be considered, by the "court of public opinion" to be innocent. Hey, you're a "newsjunky" and mentioned "lynch mobs" -- Do you know when the last recorded mob lynching was in GA??? If you don't know - wanna guess?

I don't know how to break this to you -- We're not in a court of law. The standard for the court of public opinion has a different set of metrics! Sorry -- I forgot -- you're conceptually challenged and need an example for comparison/contrast. O.J. Simpson - Not guilty and certainly not innocent.

Research shows that we are all mixed heritage/ethnicity. But you're probably asking about my skin tone. I'd say somewhere between Lily-White and Dark-Chocolate Brown. Not sure what that has to do with anything. I certainly don't have any reciprocal personal curiosity!

Wow - Your racism runs deeper than your paranoia! They are likely related issues and the answer to your considerable personal problems with people who are different from you will not be resolved on a message board. "These little bastards"??? Of course it's paranoia! When you think that there is a chance that someone will rob you while you're cutting the lower 40 or taking your morning "Constitutional" -- Yeah, you're paranoid and when you stereotype, prejudge, and villify a WHOLE RACE due to your personal bigoted view of society (in case you weren't at all self-aware) you're the kind of racis

It could have been. It also could have been that Z tackled him to hold him for police. No one saw that part of the confrontation, and since Z killed the other person, the survivor provided the only narrative which was at best, concocted/designed to provide the basis for self-defense. Now if Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by tackling Trayvon (because WE DON'T KNOW what the truth is about the fight initiation), would you agree that Trayvon gets the right to defend himself against the aggressor according to your understanding of self-defense? Who believed that "homey" thing and pi

Your paranoia does run deep, doesn't it? Out of curiosity -- from whom are you protecting yourself while in the bathroom or while cutting your grass? Then you're saying Trayvon was innocent? That seems to be a step in the right direction toward enlightenment for you!

You don't know if Zimmerman did anything illegal or not. You don't know if Trayvon did anything illegal or not. The finding was "not guilty", meaning that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not being able to prove a crime is different from whether or not a crime was, in fact, committed. Zimmerman shot to death the only witness to all of the events, other than himself. So Zimmerman got to tell the story however he wanted to. Zimmerman, it's important to note, was not found "innocent", even though his attorney keeps saying that.

Sorry - I didn't see your original post about black children being killed in Chicago and other big cities! I would have commented about it if I knew that it meant that much to you! Let's see what we can do about lowering the number of homicides in big cities! What's the major instrument of death in these cases? Let's start by eliminating THAT! To remain topical, though -- Could it coincidentally (or not) be the same instrument of death in the Trayvon Martin case? If so, then we're onto something!