bigone4u #racist

bigone4u #racist amren.com

In their haste to fabricate a case against Zim and thus lead a high tech legal lynching, the power elites have shown what an effed up country THEY have created. Nonwhite America is a country of corrupt black judges, illiterate nonproductive black youths, and lying Hispanic "citizens" who cannot and do not want to become Americans. The attempted lynching of Zim has to be a wake up call to any white person that white people are HATED by the power elites, not for the color of their skin but for the "content of their character," white honesty, intelligence, and productiveness. It's time to disempower the power elites by whatever means necessary.

62 comments

old comment by rikalous

@Anon:

You're such an idiot.
None of the things in this post are true, everything from the claim that the Zimmerman case was an "attempted lynching" to the claim that white people hate white people because of how awesome they are, is all bullshit.
I get it though, in your mind anybody who disagrees with you about anything is a pantomime villain who personifies all the bad things in the world.
How do you go through life with such a childish attitude?

Post 1601416 didn't say you thought whitey was hated for being too incredible, or that you're a pantomime villain. It did not, in fact, insult you in any way unless you consider predicting that you'd defend Zimmerman, as you've done for the past coupla days, an insult. I don't think you need to go on the warpath over that.

old comment by Anon

@rikalous:
It looks like you've misunderstood what I was saying, when I said "this post" I was referring to the comment that was submitted, the original quote, if you will, not your quote (I assume it was yours, anyway).
You've also misunderstood if you think I'm defending Zimmerman. I'm not defending him (why would I need to? He can simply point to the court verdict if he needs "defending"), I'm merely pointing out that a not guilty verdict was reached and that there is nowhere near sufficient evidence to overturn it.
If I'm defending anybody then I suppose it's the justice system, and I'm defending it in this instance because the verdict reached was the only sensible one given the evidence available.
The reason I'm arguing the point is simple:
The evidence being proposed for the miscarriage of justice scenario is based on a hideously bad understanding of the legal system along with ignoring huge amounts of evidence and expert testimony, in favour of what basically amounts to a conspiracy theory.
The reason I'm irked about that is that many of the posters here adopt a smug sense of superiority when mocking creationists and the like (who I abhor) and yet are extremely quick to use creationist tactics when their favourite conspiracy theory is being challenged.

@Ultimate Paragon:
I don't think there'll be a flame war, unless the same people insist that anybody who disagrees with their conspiracy theory "thinks black people are zombies", in which case it may get a little heated.

old comment by rikalous

It looks like you've misunderstood what I was saying, when I said "this post" I was referring to the comment that was submitted, the original quote, if you will, not your quote
Sorry for being unclear. I was trying to explain that, as far as I could tell, 1601416 wasn't actually saying that you were agreeing with bigone4u's post, just suggesting that you'd defend Zimmerman. I didn't think that merited calling whoever posted it a childish idiot.

(I assume it was yours, anyway).
It's not, actually. If it was, I would have referred to it as "my post."

the verdict reached was the only sensible one given the evidence available. I don't understand how saying that Zimmerman being declared not guilty was right doesn't constitute defending him. Maybe we've got a definition mismatch here?

old comment by Anon

@rikalous:
Oh OK, it wasn't your post, it's a little difficult becase he won't leave any kind of pseudonym on his comments and has been arguing about this case in another thread.
This post was one in which the accepted view seemed to be that if you agree with the court verdict you "think black people are zombies", so with that level of hysteria going around I just assumed that he was implying that I'd agree with bigone4u's post.

A bit of a definition mismatch, I guess, as agreeing that the court verdict was the only sensible one given the evidence seems to be taken as stating that Zimmerman is some kind of Batman-esque superhero.
In a less hysterical and polarized world the truth is a bit more complex, I don't think that neighbourhood watch programs are a good thing, and I certainly don't think that they should be as organised and pseudo-official as the one Zimmerman belonged to.
I also don't think that everything Zimmerman did was 100% righteous and wonderful, his desire to deal with the neighbourhood's recent spate of robberies led him to put himself in a position where the chance of a confrontation was higher than it needed to be, and this should have been left to the police.
That said, I don't think the evidence supports a verdict of murder or manslaughter, and I think that at the time of the shooting Zimmerman defending himself is the best fit to the evidence presented.
The response to this has been ludicrous conspiracy theories about how Zimmerman plotted to kill Martin and the judge plotted to get him off, all motivated by racism because "reasons".
The response to me pointing out how ludicrous that is was that if you agree with the court verdict you "think black people are zombies".
This is the same logic and tactics used by the conspiracy theorists and creationists that are submitted to this site, and makes a mockery of Rabbit of Caerbannog's "shiny mirror".

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"The response to this has been ludicrous conspiracy theories about how Zimmerman plotted to kill Martin and the judge plotted to get him off, all motivated by racism because 'reasons'."

See, holier than thou attitude combined with gratuitous use of strawmen. That's what I mean by you acting the same way you accuse others of acting. Passerby and other posters already pointed out the flaws with your arguments and you resort to screaming about conspiracies and putting the word reasons in scare quotes.

"This is the same logic and tactics used by the conspiracy theorists and creationists that are submitted to this site, and makes a mockery of Rabbit of Caerbannog's 'shiny mirror'."

Huh?

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"In no sane world did they point out the flaws in anything, they handwaved..."

Only handwaving I saw came from you, buddy...

"So no holier-than-thou and no strawmen."

No, that is a strawman. Trying to assert that the opposing side is alleging a conspiracy (untrue) or that the judge was racist (untrue). You're acting awfully smug for someone who's putting words in everyone's mouths. Hence I called you out on your attitude and strawmen. Instead of this site being some bastion of political correctness I think the more logical conclusion is that you're just some reactionary idiot who enjoys dismissing evidence against your opinions.

old comment by Cloning Blues

Well the OP's a whacko.

And joy. Anon is back. Here to annoy us all with his profound misunderstanding of the legal system, his inability to read what other posters have written (nobody at all in the last thread accused Zimmerman of first degree murder. My words were "provoked a confrontation that resulted in a death." Passerby used similar language), his utter hypocrisy, and his "reasons".

As for his claims that we have a smug sense of superiority...you know what? When we're talking about the likes of Vox Day, Wotan's Krieger, John C. Wright, and various other creationists, homophobes, racists, and reactionaries I do feel a sense of superiority. And I'm pretty comfortable with that. If Anon (who claims in various other posts to be progressively minded) doesn't feel superior to those people, then quite frankly, I'm a little worried.

old comment by Johnny Derp

@Cloning Blues
I'm going to have to defend Anon on that last bit. Honestly, some people on this site's comment section do come off as arrogant at times. You have every right to feel superior to the aforementioned assholes. However, the fact is that there are many people on this site who think that being religious is a sign of mental illness, use "conservative" as an insult, and generally act like some kind of liberal stereotype. I'm not pointing fingers, just making an observation. If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

When it comes to the Zimmerman case, I'm on the fence. I simply don't know who to trust when it comes to the details. I wish Trayvon hadn't died, but I'm not sure about the context of the case or Zimmerman's guilt. I think both sides have a point.

Just my two cents. I may or may not address any questions or concerns.

P.S. I would like to commend this site's commenters on their civility. By the standards of the internet, these "flame wars" are much more polite than average.

old comment by Anon

@Johnny Derp:
That's exactly what I've been saying for a while.

@Rabbit of Caerbannog:
The only strawman here is yours, pal:
I've never even suggested that anybody was claiming the judge to be racist.
There is no option but to "assert that the opposing side is alleging a conspiracy" when the opposing side is alleging a conspiracy, the judge apparently "rigged the jury instructions" in order to try to get Zimmerman off, in what sense is that not alleging a conspiracy?
This is the problem with this site, you're imposing very high standards of evidence and proof to those you disagree with, and then imposing no standards whatsoever on yourselves.
Two examples of this are:
1) A claim that the judge "rigged" the jury is accepted out of hand despite the judge having no motive to do so, and upon inspection of the instructions it's clear to see that no such thing was even attempted, let along achieved.
2) The medical tesimony from the trial regarding Zimmerman's injuries is rejected out of hand in favour of an invented scenario where Zimmerman was basically uninjured, all contrary to the physical evidence and medical expert testimony.

So in the first example you'll accept a claim of corruption on a member of the judiciary with no proof to back it up and obvious proof to discredit it, and in the second example you won't accept physical evidence and neutral expert witness testimony.

It's so clear to see that you standards only apply to others, you yourself can simply make things up and accept claims with no evidence, but when others do the same they're a fundamentalist? Give me a break! You're a hypocrite, and the sense of smug superiority alluded to by Johnny Derp is hardly becoming of a hypocrite.

old comment by Cloning Blues

@Johnny Derp

I think that on any website there are going to be individuals in the comment section who come off as arrogant or condescending. Trying to use those individuals to bash the site as a whole, or to contend that we're as bad as said fundamentalists, the way Anon has done, is intellectually dishonest.

As to the notion that we despise all religion, I can only speak for myself, and it's complicated. Are there many good religious people out there? Sure, and I have no issues with them. Do I still think the world would be better off without religion? Yes I do. I suspect many other posters share this view; those who go further and attack all religious persons have been called out by the rest of us.

Anon's a troll whose argument for Zimmerman's innocence boils down to "the trial says so" and the constant repition of phrases like "ZOMG racism", "howling for Zimmerman's blood," and his infamous "reasons", that try to portray anyone who has a problem with the verdict as a deluded, PC headcase. He conversely tries to portray himself as the one rational person on the site, which ironically means that he's guilty of the same sense of superiority he accuses us of having. I'd honestly suggest reading through his comments in previous threads, most notably the one from October that mentions Zimmerman, before defending him.

old comment by Cloning Blues

@Anon

Congratulations on not understanding what a conspiracy theory is. A conspiracy theory requires, surprise, surprise, a conspiracy. Not corruption, malice, or incompetence on the part of one judge. You can't have a conspiracy of one, so even if you think we're wrong, you're going to have to stop throwing that term around. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "it does not mean what you think it means."

In any case, we don't have our opinion for "resons". We have it for the the actual reasons that have been cited by Passerby, Rabbit of Caerbanog, and others. You may not find those reasons convincing yourself. You are entitled not to. However...

Even if you're right and we're wrong (which doesn't seem likely given your behaviour but let's play pretend for a moment) it doesn't make us conspiracy theorists. It doesn't make us fundamentalists. And it doesn't, despite all your efforts to the contrary, make you the one reasonable person on this evil, evil site. It makes you a stopped clock. And back in reality, where you are wrong, it just makes you a raving hypocrite. You can't accuse others of having a "smug sense of superiority" when that's the only emotion you consistently display.

old comment by Anon

@Cloning Blues:
You're missing the point here, I'm not referring to everybody on the site, I'm referring to certain regular posters, you included.
I like how you tried to repeat Rabbit's attempt at "I know you are but what am I?" without even realising that it'd already been covered.

I don't think you're in any position to complain about me saying "the trial said so" when your argument, by comparison is "nuh uh".
One argument has the weight of a court verdict reached by due process behind it, with all the consideration of evidence and expert input that a court verdict required.
The other is some guy on the internet saying "no".
Have a guess which has more credibility?
I think you misunderstand what "reason" means, it's used to denote an argument that consists of "I'm making a statment that I can't back up and I expect you to believe it purely because I say so", and is perfectly applicable to your argument.

Edit:
Although it may seem reasonable on the surface to say that the judge was a "conspiracy of one", that bears no resemblance to what you're actually saying, the evidence and expert testimony you're handwaving away all existed, so if you're claiming it to be untrue you are automatically claiming that it was fabricated for a purpose.
Just because you didn't state "OMG it's a conspiracy" doesn't mean that what you're claiming took place doesn't amount to a conspiracy, in this instance it clearly does, as your favoured scenario requires (at minimum) a corrupt judge, corrupt medical experts and fabricated photographs.
So hardly a "conspiracy of one" then, and even if it were purely the judge acting alone, you've still failed to provide a motive for that, let alone any proof.

It's OK though, conspiracy theories don't require proof, it's kinda how they work, so you're alright there.

old comment by Anon

@Johnny Derp:
My sentiments exactly, it's not everybody, it's not even the majority, it's just a vocal few.
Unfortunately that vocal few are all very regular posters, so they colour the impression of the site, and as nobody else seems willing to call them out on their unpleasant behaviour, I am more than happy to.
Especially when it centers around an issue about which they are objectively wrong. It's one thing to witness the sickening arrogance when they're right about something, but it really grates when they're wrong, and are actually guilty of many of the things they accuse others of.
There's one poster particularly (nobody who has posted here) who actually makes me feel a bit sick with his smugness and makes me wish I could punch him in real life, and that's quite something consider I've never exchanged so much as a line of dialogue with him.

So between you and I, I'm not a troll, obviously. I'm also neither judgmental nor arrogant, I reserve that purely for the smug creeps who deserve it, it's a reaction to their smug self-satisfaction and is in no way aimed at any other member of the site who is outside of the aforementioned group.

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"I'm attacking the claim that Zimmerman was motivated by racism, as far as I'm aware nobody has claimed the judge to be racist at any stage, nobody had even mentioned it until you did."

Or until your quote. But go on.

"I like that you've resorted to quote-mining in the attempt to take something out-of-context, though. It's an admission of failure."

Oh I'm sorry here's the full quote:

"The response to this has been ludicrous conspiracy theories about how Zimmerman plotted to kill Martin and the judge plotted to get him off, all motivated by racism because 'reasons'."

Which actually says the exact same thing: that people are accusing Zimmerman and the judge of a racist conspiracy. So not actually a quote mine and still a strawman. But continue to insist you're not saying what you've clearly said.

old comment by Anon

@Rabbit of Caerbannog:
I'll add a quote of my own here:
"The judge rigged the fucking instructions so the jurors didn't think they had any other choice but to acquit.".
Doesn't sound like accusing the judge of a mistake to me, sounds like accusing the judge of deliberately trying to influence the jury in order to change the verdict.
Looks like you were wrong about that one.
Nobody has directly stated that Zimmerman plotted to kill Martin, but the claim that he was stalking him with the intention to provoke a confrontation, which he then escalated to a shooting at the first opportunity basically amounts to the same thing, you're saying that he plotted to attack him and the shot him dead at the first sign of resistance.
So you were wrong about that too.

It's all irrelevant though, if you have such compelling evidence of Zimmerman's guilt then by all means file for a retrial. I'm not holding my breath though, your whole argument rests on ignoring the evidence in favour of what you wish had happened, and hoping that nobody will notice that it's 100% bullshit.

Do you not get embarrassed at being so thoroughly and consistently mistaken?

old comment by Cloning Blues

@Anon

Oh Anon. So we're objectively wrong now? Our argument doesn't require crooked medical examiners or anything like that. It requires an incompetent judge who allowed (for instance) testimony about Martin being suspended for smoking weed, but did not allow testimony about Zimmerman's previous violent behaviour and run-ins with the law. Again, Passerby nicely summarised the problems with the trial. You then ignored this while claiming it had all been "debunked elsewhere". You haven't made your own case at all, and your argument has never amounted to more than an insistence that if he was let off he must be innocent. You've claimed that this is totally different from the case of the OJ Simpson trial, but have failed to explain how.

Put simply Anon, if you've got a case, you haven't made it very well. And continuing to insult anyone who disagrees with you isn't helping. You're allowed to have an opinion. You're even allowed to be a jackass about it. What you can't do, is expect that decrying the site and accusing us of being just like the people we criticise, with no actual evidence, is going to do you any favours.

old comment by Anon

@Rabbit of Caerbannog:
Tell me again how "The judge rigged the fucking instructions so the jurors didn't think they had any other choice but to acquit." is merely accusing the judge of a mistake, I'd love to see you say something so stupid twice.
"That depends, have you stopped beating your wife? "
Uh, what? This explains a lot, you're clearly a crazy person.
Explains the disconnect from reality and the shifting sense of what constitutes "proof".
You'd best clean up a bit before you go to the court with all the evidence of Zimmerman's guilt though, I don't think they'll let you testify if you're dribbling all over yourself.

@Cloning Blues:
After all this time, you're still pretending to misunderstand how the burden of proof works? Really?
I'll condense it to six words, just like I did last time:
"Your claim, your burden of proof."

You're using the creationist tactic again, you're saying that "unless you 100% disprove every single aspect that my fevered imagination can fabricate I'm right by default".
Good job the courts don't see it that way.

old comment by

"Tell me again how 'The judge rigged the fucking instructions so the jurors didn't think they had any other choice but to acquit.' is merely accusing the judge of a mistake, I'd love to see you say something so stupid twice."

You ignored everything I said. Go back and read it again.

"Uh, what? This explains a lot, you're clearly a crazy person."

*facepalm* You're an idiot...

You asked me a loaded question:

"The traditional example is the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed."

It's getting to the point where you're not even a fun chewtoy. Please, pick up a fucking book; try actually learning about the Zimmerman case and learn a bit about logical fallacies while you're at it, kid.

old comment by Anon

@Rabbit of Caerbannog:
That wasn't something you were actually supposed to answer, silly child, it was a rhetorical question.

So how's filing for a retrial coming along?
That's what you're doing with all that incontrovertible evidence of Zimmerman's guilt, right?
Oh, you're not? That can't possibly be the case, you were so adamant that you had enough proof that you were willing to question either the integrity or competence of a judge, somebody with far more legal experience than you'll ever have, surely you wouldn't do such a thing purely on hearsay and wishful thinking?
Oh wait, of course you wouldn't, embarrassing yourself on an internet ofrum is one thing, but I doubt you'd be idiotic enough to do it in real-life.

@#1602754:
Yes and no, they're saying that he plotted to stalk him and initiate a confrontation, and then shot him at the first sign of resistance, so no, they aren't saying that exactly, but what they are saying is actually pretty close.

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"That wasn't something you were actually supposed to answer, silly child, it was a rhetorical question."

I understand, kid. Just thought it merited response ^_^

"So how's filing for a retrial coming along?
That's what you're doing with all that incontrovertible evidence of Zimmerman's guilt, right?
Oh, you're not?"

Are you done talking to yourself? Oh, you are? Good. At any rate I hope the Martins file a civil suit much like what happened after the O.J. Simpson verdict.

"That can't possibly be the case, you were so adamant that you had enough proof that you were willing to question either the integrity or competence of a judge, somebody with far more legal experience than you'll ever have, surely you wouldn't do such a thing purely on hearsay and wishful thinking?"

Appeal to authority, speculation about legal experience, etc etc. Yes, you can, in fact, criticize a judge for mishandling a case, allowing for negative evidence about Martin's character and allowing the jury to consider the Stand Your Ground laws as per the instructions. Kind of fundie-esque to think they're above a critique, no?

"Oh wait, of course you wouldn't, embarrassing yourself on an internet ofrum [sic] is one thing, but I doubt you'd be idiotic enough to do it in real-life."

...the hell are you even talking about anyway? You think I have power over the trial and those involved? Or some connection with the Florida court system? I mean I figured you didn't know much about the legal system but...damn.

old comment by Anon

@Rabbit of Caerbannog:
So you're not filing for a retrial then? Surely that'd be the thing to do if you had so much evidence?

I'm not sure you understand what the argument from authority is, to claim that the judge can't be wrong because she's a judge would be an argument from authority.
To say that the judge can in no way be suggested to be wrong in this individual instance is not the same thing.
You've failed to provide any reason for the judge being wrong other than a faulty understanding of both the facts of the case and the laws pertaining to the case.
This means your claim has no credibility.
I mean, for fuck's sake it'd take a mountain of doctored evidence for what you're saying to have taken place, and you've not even provided a motive for anybody doing that, let alone any proof!
It also means that the judges previous record of successful cases establishes her credibility as an expert.

So what we have is an expert vs a guy on the internet with a bad argument backed up by nothing.

"...the hell are you even talking about anyway? You think I have power over the trial and those involved? Or some connection with the Florida court system? I mean I figured you didn't know much about the legal system but...damn. "
No, I don't think you have any such thing, that's the point.

old comment by

@ Anon

Once again you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the most basic principles of the court.

Charges can not be made by a party with no connection the incident. It's why you can't sue somebody for running over a total stranger just because you heard about it. Organizations and individuals may back a lawsuit and provide legal representation with the consent of the plaintiff but apart from the state only an aggrieved party may press charges.

And you're questioning our understanding of legal precedent?

P.S. If you're going to pull that "I wasn't being literal" crap again keep in mind that you might want to tone it the fuck down when raving about things you obviously don't understand in the future on the off chance we might believe your backpedalling next time.

Really, if you're so damned sure of Zimmerman's somewhat physically impossible side of the story (which many of the experts you seem to think we think were in on some conspiracy to get the asshole off also called impossible before being dismissed) why don't you join up with those stupid cocksuckers trying to have Trayvon Martin posthumously charged with assault and breaking the laws of physics?

I'm not even sure I'm being sarcastic about that even though I just explained why that's an excercise in futility and/or idiocy.

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"So you're not filing for a retrial then? Surely that'd be the thing to do if you had so much evidence?"

What part of "You can't do that" don't you understand?

"No, I don't think you have any such thing, that's the point."

You have no point.

"I'm not sure you understand what the argument from authority is, to claim that the judge can't be wrong because she's a judge would be an argument from authority."

Which is what you did with the whole "he's a judge with more legal experience than you'll ever have etc etc."

"You've failed to provide any reason for the judge being wrong other than a faulty understanding of both the facts of the case and the laws pertaining to the case.
This means your claim has no credibility."

Except what I and everyone else said. Those points still stand no matter how much you ignore them. It's cute that you think you know something about our legal system though.

"I mean, for fuck's sake it'd take a mountain of doctored evidence for what you're saying to have taken place..."

No, no it wouldn't. I said they introduced evidence about Martin's negative character traits and allowed jurors to contemplate the Stand Your Ground law. Those were two specific problems I had and neither require doctored evidence, you raving loon.

"So what we have is an expert vs a guy on the internet with a bad argument backed up by nothing."

I'm sorry, but the only person with a bad argument backed by nothing is you. Strawmen aren't an argument. Snide remarks about "ZOMG racism" and "reasons" aren't arguments. Ignoring what Passerby and Cloning Blues said aren't arguments, and frankly you're getting tiresome. After a certain point one might think you'd give up already : P

old comment by Anon

@#1602914:
No problem, just make your evidence available to Martin's parents or the state.
Oh wait, you don't have any.

@Rabbit of Caerbannog:
See above.
Also, SYG was not invoked by the defense, so that's irrelevant at best.
What Passerby and Cloning Blues said don't constitute an argument, they constitute handwaving away evidence and expert testimony, accusing a judge of perverting the course of justice with no evidence to back it up, and substituting their own highly improbably narrative in place of a court verdict purely because they wish that their version of events was plausible.
I'd originally have thought you'd have given up around the time the court verdict proved you wrong, but you seem to have sustained yourself this far merely on confirmation bias, so I hardly think you're going to stop now.

I will, however, continue to enjoy pointing out that your claims have no validity, and that your arguments in favour of them become more desperate and pitiful the longer you continue.

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"No problem, just make your evidence available to Martin's parents or the state.
Oh wait, you don't have any."

Nice backpeddling, bro. But at least you revealed how little you know about the legal system.

"Also, SYG was not invoked by the defense, so that's irrelevant at best."

Um, who said the defense invoked it? It was a jury instruction...

"I'd originally have thought you'd have given up around the time the court verdict proved you wrong..."

How did the court verdict prove anyone wrong? We said we disagreed with it.

"I will, however, continue to enjoy pointing out that your claims have no validity, and that your arguments in favour of them become more desperate and pitiful the longer you continue."

Uhhh...right. And you do this by ignoring what people say, attacking strawmen and lobbing false accusations of quote mining. But if that's what you enjoy then by all means continue ^_^

old comment by Rabbit of Caerbannog

"So we're back to the part where you insist that 'nuh uh' constitutes an appropriate challenge to a court verdict.
Still waiting for this 'evidence' to be produced."

Yeah, see that mountain of doctored evidence you keep asking for is a strawman. No one has asserted anything of the sort, but rather, for example, the two problems with how the judge handled the case that I already mentioned. And which you keep ignoring. Nuh uh indeed...

Next time I suggest trying not to debate people with a grasp of the U.S. legal system. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to demand a retrial for O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and John Hinckley. Because apparently random people can just do that : P

old comment by Cloning Blues

@Anon

"file for a retrial"? You keep saying this. On what planet do you live, where someone unconnected to the case can file for a retrial? I mean, how far removed from reality do you have to be to think this is an option. You told me once in an earlier debate that you believed OJ Simpson was guilty. Why didn't you file for a retrial. No statute of limitations on murder, after all.

I mean, do you even understand concepts like [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy double jeopardy]]? Or how hard it is to get a retrial even when it doesn't apply?

You accuse us of being arrogant and superior, while demanding to know why we haven't done something that is legally impossible for us to do.

bigone4u #racist amren.com

62 comments

Confused?