HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » WOW. Nails it.

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:25 PM

WOW. Nails it.

92 replies, 16723 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply WOW. Nails it. (Original post)
WilliamPitt Feb 2013 OP
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #1
libtodeath Feb 2013 #2
1gobluedem Feb 2013 #3
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #4
baldguy Feb 2013 #8
Moostache Feb 2013 #17
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #37
lunatica Feb 2013 #5
arely staircase Feb 2013 #11
ashling Feb 2013 #30
progressoid Feb 2013 #6
patrice Feb 2013 #7
dballance Feb 2013 #9
Moonwalk Feb 2013 #12
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #70
Moonwalk Feb 2013 #89
Moonwalk Feb 2013 #10
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #13
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #22
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #35
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #42
Solly Mack Feb 2013 #14
Blue4Texas Feb 2013 #15
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #16
leftynyc Feb 2013 #21
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #28
leftynyc Feb 2013 #31
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #41
tiredtoo Feb 2013 #77
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #18
Nay Feb 2013 #29
HomerRamone Feb 2013 #19
left on green only Feb 2013 #46
thucythucy Feb 2013 #51
gademocrat7 Feb 2013 #20
blackspade Feb 2013 #23
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #24
slackmaster Feb 2013 #25
Hoyt Feb 2013 #26
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #27
Flatulo Feb 2013 #32
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #72
Flatulo Feb 2013 #74
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #87
Flatulo Feb 2013 #88
Hamlette Feb 2013 #33
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #36
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #34
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #38
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #39
Rex Feb 2013 #40
TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #43
MH1 Feb 2013 #44
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #45
FormalObserver Feb 2013 #47
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #48
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #50
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #52
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #53
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #54
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #55
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #56
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #57
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #58
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #59
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #61
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #60
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #62
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #63
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #64
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #65
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #67
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #86
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #66
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #68
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #69
Pholus Feb 2013 #78
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #85
Pholus Feb 2013 #91
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #73
JI7 Feb 2013 #49
Agschmid Feb 2013 #71
In_The_Wind Feb 2013 #75
ck4829 Feb 2013 #76
Coyotl Feb 2013 #79
libodem Feb 2013 #80
Ironman2008 Feb 2013 #81
cyberswede Feb 2013 #82
MoonRiver Feb 2013 #84
MoonRiver Feb 2013 #83
Neoma Feb 2013 #90
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #92

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:27 PM

1. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:28 PM

2. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:30 PM

3. Excellent

Hope it goes viral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:31 PM

4. Because black = "bad guy with a gun"

in Wayne's World.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

8. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:22 PM

17. EXACTLY! The only thing scarier than a black man is a black man with an actual gun to them...(n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:24 PM

37. Racism is alive and well and if he had had a gun, his killer would be walking free without charges

right now. It sucks but that is the way it is. I hope someday this will no longer be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:36 PM

5. Excellent question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

11. so excellent

it really answers itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:13 PM

30. That would make it a rhetorical question

wouldn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:36 PM

6. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:39 PM

7. Yeah . . . why IS that???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

9. Or How About Why Wasn't Martin in the Right if he Fought Z Based on SYG & His Fear For His Life?

Zimmerman isn't the only person in this incident entitled to the SYG defense. If a strange man follows you and then approaches you while you're innocently walking home and that man is not a law enforcement officer and that man confronts you, don't you have the right to defend yourself based on the SYG law? Seems to me Martin had every right to defend himself by fighting with Zimmerman. Even if, by some chance, Martin initiated the fight he's still justified by SYG standards. A strange man followed him - we know this because of 911 transcripts - and then approached him. It's reasonable to believe Martin feared for his life. So attacking Zimmerman would have been justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:42 PM

12. Again, to be fair, there are those who argue that Martin was the one who...

"Stood his ground" not Zimmerman. But, clearly, they are not in the majority and this is the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moonwalk (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:46 AM

70. But assuming Zimmerman's story to be true, it was Martin who was standing his ground.

Martin had the right to defend himself against a stranger who accosted him or challenged him and had followed him. Of course, we don't yet know whether Zimmerman's account of events is at all plausible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #70)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:08 PM

89. Oh, I'm not arguing otherwise. All evidence so far points to Martin as the one who...

..."Stood his ground" (when forced to, mind you, as he was wisely running from Zimmerman) and defended himself. But many here believe that those in favor of the "Stand your ground" law that Zimmerman used to excuse his shooting Martin would NEVER apply that law to Martin. They are accusing all those who supported this pro-gun law (defend yourself with a gun) as being hypocritical, assuming that none of them see Martin as the one who "stood his ground" or that Martin would not have been similarly excused if he'd had a gun and used it on Zimmerman.

I'm afraid this is a false accusation of hypocrisy...somewhat. Though the majority of those favoring "stand your ground" are on Zimmerman's side and have little to say about Martin, there have been plenty that DO say Martin was the one standing his ground and that if he'd had a gun he would have been in the right to have shot Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him.

So, we really can't say everyone on that side of the fence is a hypocrite, ready to excuse the guy who shot a black man, but not the black man if he'd shot back. There really have been those on that side saying "stand your ground" applied to Martin not Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

10. Actually, there were those who said that, apparently....

...but one can just see the result, can't one? The black kid going to jail for shooting the other guy even though the other guy tried to shoot him. There really is no winning in this rigged game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:43 PM

13. Huh? Doesnt he realize that Trayvon was ... well you know?

Wearing a hoody. What did you think I was going to say?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:10 PM

22. Armed

with Skittles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:13 PM

35. Dont underestimate the danger of Skittles. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:45 PM

42. I most certainly don't. Skittles has been on this board for a long time.

Very dangerous.

Very, very dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:43 PM

14. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:46 PM

15. The notion that good guys need guns

Pre-determines the bad guys

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:48 PM

16. It came up on every discussion I saw about the case

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:07 PM

21. Did the NRA make a statement

to that effect? I'm thinking not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:50 PM

28. Probably not, I don't follow the NRA my friend.

 

The interesting this, and off the subject obviously, is how people are divided on even this issue. The clearest proof of the racism and hypocricy of the anti-Trayvon faction is most evident when Trayvon's right to self-defense and to stand his ground comes up. But that's another topic for a different thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:16 PM

31. I'm hoping the prosecution makes

that very argument. I would love to have that stupid law overturned as well as having Zimmerman convicted of murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:21 PM

41. I very much want to see Zimmerman convicted

 

I have followed this case very closely, and paid more attention to it than is probably healthy, so I am invested in this. The more I have learned the guiltier Zimmerman looks to me. I want to see him convicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:32 AM

77. Not going to happen

Zimmerman will walk free. Trial is only being held to stem the anger, it will be a farce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:23 PM

18. If Trayvon had a gun, there wouldn't even be a trial had the same outcome occured. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:56 PM

29. Agreed. That poor kid would be under the jail. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:40 PM

19. Jeff runs THE SMIRKING CHIMP, my favorite political website other than this one nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HomerRamone (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:10 PM

46. Do you have a link that you could share with us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left on green only (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:37 PM

51. If you go to the DU home page

it's in the list of links in the column on the left hand side of the page, as you scroll down.

But in the meantime:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:02 PM

20. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:15 PM

23. Very good question.

Answer: They are fucking hypocrites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:26 PM

24. Because they can only parrot talking points....

And those talking points don't apply to anything except the specific thing they are referring to and not to be expanded beyond their chest puffing victory at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:29 PM

25. Such silly statements are almost always made in jest by gun control proponents

 

Trayvon Martin wasn't old enough to qualify for a permit to carry a loaded firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:37 PM

26. Zimmerman qualified for a permit under lax gun laws.

Without a gun, this tragedy would not have occurred because Georgie would never have gotten out of his vehicle. Another coward emboldened by his "equalizer."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:48 PM

27. OUCH

Optimal
Understanding of
Circumstances and
Honesty.

In other words, bullseye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:22 PM

32. Even in SYG states, you don't get to shoot someone for approaching you. There has to be

a reasonable fear of imminent, grave bodily injury or death. If someone is charging you with a knife or bat, you may resort to deadly force. If you're minding your own business and get jumped and are being beaten, you may use deadly force.

I daresay that many people in SYG jurisdictions do not understand their responsibilities. You cannot start a fight with someone and shoot them if you're losing, like Zimmerman did.

In my opinion, neither party had the right to use deadly force in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:01 AM

72. Had Martin been carrying the gun, had Martin lived, he would be the one claiming reasonable

fear of imminent, grave bodily injury or death. The only reason that Zimmerman can claim imminent, grave bodily injury or death is because he survived whatever happened.

How could the entire situation have been prevented?

If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun and genuinely been that scared, he would have stayed in his car. The police would have stopped Martin, talked to him, and think of it, Zimmerman would not be in jail. Zimmerman would not have to face a trial or a plea bargain. Martin would still be alive. We would never have heard of them.

I think we can safely say that in the Zimmerman/Martin case, regardless of who started it (and I think that the tape that Zimmerman made shows that he followed Martin with a questionable intent, an intent to "find out where he was going" and that his following Martin resulted in a confrontation and was the cause of the confrontation), it would not happened but for the fact that Zimmerman was carrying a gun.

The Zimmerman case is a very clear example of a harmless situation made worse, possibly criminal, by a gun, by the carrying of a gun.

A gun is a powerful object. A gun changes the personality of the individual carrying it.

Zimmerman may have a problem arguing simultaneously that he had a reasonable fear of imminent, grave bodily injury or death but that he followed Martin anyway. Behind that question there is only one answer. I think the stronger argument is that Zimmerman was afraid but that his knowledge that he carried a gun made him bold and fearless enough to follow Martin. His gun made him confident in his ability to "defend" himself. In his mind, he may have used his gun to defend himself, but I think there is a good chance although not a certainty that a jury may find that in fact either he was not afraid (because he had the gun) or that, since he had a gun and knew it, his claimed fear was not reasonable.

We shall see. Zimmerman is likely to have a jury that is favorable toward him in my opinion. He should plea bargain if he has any common sense however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:51 AM

74. But Zimmerman initiated contact by pursuing Martin. That act renders any claim of self-defense

Ridiculous. An analogy - while armed, I follow a man in a car because I think he has stolen my son's bicycle. The man notices that I am following him, stops his car and gets out. I get out and accuse him, and a heated argument ensues. We begin to fight, and he knocks me down and appears ready to jump on me and beat me, so I draw my weapon and shoot him.

This is clearly not a valid case of SYG because had I not been following the man, there would have been no confrontation.

As I mentioned earlier, SYG does not give me the right to undertake actions that precipitate a physical confrontation, then draw and fire my weapon because I may be losing.

People who choose to arm themselves have an especially compelling obligation to avoid any and all confrontations, solely because there is a higher probability of death or serious injury.

Years ago a friend and I were in a public place where alcohol was being served, although I did not drink any. A local bully was drunkenly trying to pick a fight with me because he thought we were a gay couple. He was insulting and obnoxious, asking us who was the batter and who was the catcher. We were both legally carrying concealed 9mm pistols, having gone to the gun range that day and stopping for dinner on the way home. I left money for the tab, got up and walked out without finishing my burger. The bully did not follow. If he had followed and began beating me, I would have had a valid case for self-defense. But we took extraordinary measures to retreat and avoid further confrontation, as Zimmerman should have done.

If Zimmerman gets off, it will be a grave miscarriage of justice, and not just because Martin was black, or a kid, but because it will give the nod to people who have a mind to behave like idiots and chase down or otherwise confront anyone who looks suspicious to them.

When Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he sealed his own (and unfortunately, Martin's) fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:40 PM

87. Personally, I think you are right. I like this statement:

When Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he sealed his own (and unfortunately, Martin's) fate.

And that is why I think Zimmerman would be smart to plead to manslaughter if he could do it. Or even to 2nd degree if he can get an agreement on a sentence. He is in a bad pickle in my view.

But then it does not take much to get a hung jury, and that is probably what he is hoping for.

Remember, in the OJ case, the defense won because the prosecutors' theory about the time of the events did not make sense to the jury. The prosecution has already made errors in this case -- not pressing the charges early enough is one -- and who knows how strongly they believe in their case? So, I couldn't predict the outcome here. It would take only one racist on the jury, only one person unwilling to be objective . . . .

A lot will depend on how the court interprets the change from the duty to retreat law to the stand your ground law. But I do agree that the person who follows another person for whatever reason should not be able to rely on the stand your ground defense. It is the person who is followed and reasonably feels he is in imminent danger . . . who has the right to stand his ground. That is not so different from the traditional self-defense. In particular, in the Martin case, Trayvon Martin was a minor, walking to the house where he was staying (for him home) and felt himself to be endangered by someone who was following him and acting suspicious. Without knowing all the evidence, that is what I understand took place. It is more believable to me that Martin had a reasonable fear that justified self-defense. He knew he did not have a weapon. Whereas Zimmerman knew he had a weapon and had even taken a bit of training in police methodology and criminal work. It may be that Zimmerman had, on some level not totally conscious, fantasized that he was a police officer or had some legal right to apprehend someone he considered in his fantasy to be a "suspect." It's a fascinating case to me.

That Zimmerman is trying to delay his trial is a bad sign for him.

I wonder whether the defense is trying to wait until the girl who was on the phone with Martin when the killing occurred looks older and less innocent and trustworthy. The trial needs to be held asap if justice is to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #87)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:59 PM

88. I hadn't thought of that angle...

"I wonder whether the defense is trying to wait until the girl who was on the phone with Martin when the killing occurred looks older and less innocent and trustworthy. The trial needs to be held asap if justice is to be done."

It would certainly work to Zimmerman's advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:55 PM

33. we need a new Black Panther Party advocating for gun rights

that's when California passed gun limits. Under Reagan if I recall correctly.

Some black guy walks into a JC Penny store with an assault weapon over his shoulder and the crazies would want to limit guns. Of course, he'd probably be killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamlette (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:15 PM

36. Interesting scenario, and you gave the only two possible outcomes:

1. He is killed by someone who was afraid. The killing will not only be justified but will be used as more evidence that more guns in public places are necessary to keep us safe.

2. He causes hysteria, but no one around was crazy enough to engage him in a gun battle. Then, we get more gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:11 PM

34. Dark people are scary. They don't need guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:26 PM

38. Spot. On. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:30 PM

39. We don't allow people under 21 to carry handguns in this nation.

Only under certain circumstances are they allowed to possess them even at 18, but no concealed carry permits, and no open carry in most or all states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:36 PM

40. Wow, never thought about that!

YEAH! Why didn't anyone stand up for Trayvon's RTBA? We all know why, but still. VERY good tweet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:24 PM

43. 40 replies and NOT ONE from those to whom the question was addressed.

 

Not only nailed, but screwed, doweled, glued and pinned.

All the talk about standing up to a government going to far is BULL-fucking-SHIT.

What's being prepared for is an uprising amongst blacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:36 PM

44. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

I won't be holding my breath for the spate of replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:06 PM

45. I think that WAS said. The replies were like "so you think a shootout would've been the way

to go?" Something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:38 PM

47. does the NRA..

 

Support the right for underage children to bear arms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:29 PM

48. Because Only Southern White Protestants Are Responsible Gun Owners

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:36 PM

50. How novel. Another slam at the South. Yawn. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:45 PM

52. Born And Raised In Texas - I Know The Culture Well

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:50 PM

53. I see no evidence of that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:52 PM

54. Will Have To Agree To Disagree About The Time Spent In Baptist Pews Suffering Hell Fire

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:57 PM

55. Your experience gives you the right to broadbrush an entire region?

Or state?

Or town?

It's ok to slam an entire people based on the actions of a relative few?

I had a dog bite me not long ago. All dogs are evil.

See the stupidity and bigotry in that logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #55)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:58 PM

56. IMHO - When The Shoe Fits ...

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:01 PM

57. Yeah, bigotry is a comfortable fit for some people. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:08 PM

58. Yes - Quite Right - To Include Many Of Those Southern White Protestants

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:23 PM

59. I've said all I have to say about your broadbrush bigotry.

Although you've made my point far more effectively than I have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:27 PM

61. Great - Thanks For Sharing

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:25 PM

60. Interesting..."quite right" is not what you would call....

....an everyday expression anywhere in the South, or any other region of the US for that matter.

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:29 PM

62. Shooting The Messenger I See - A Form Of Ad Hominen Attack

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:37 PM

63. Nope....just responding with an astute observation....

....one that I see you didn't....or couldn't....refute.

And now you want to hide behind the "I'm just a messenger defense"? Really?? Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:39 PM

64. We Will Have To Agree To Disagree

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:46 PM

65. Piece of advice to see you on your way...don't use "quite right"....

...when conversing with a real Southerner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:58 PM

67. Piece Of Advice As We See You On Your Way - Don't Lecture Another Southerner

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:16 PM

86. As far as I can tell, you're not from the South. Good luck with your attempted charade. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:56 PM

66. Doesn't sound at all strange to this New Yorker n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #66)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:00 PM

68. To This Texan - Quite Right - Is Just That - Quite Right

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #66)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:05 PM

69. I've lived in, worked in, or traveled through all 48 states of the mainland US, and....

...the only people I've heard use the expression "quite right" were actually tourists from England.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:06 AM

78. You know, "Yankees" have a reputation for correcting grammar...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yankee&defid=5452281

Are you all that you claim to be?

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #78)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:13 PM

85. Hmmm. Let's see....I was born in Virginia, earned degrees from a major college in Virginia....

....and can prove that I have ancestors from that state going back to the early 1600s. I currently live in the state of Alabama and have done so since 1990. So yes, I'll claim being a Southerner any day of the week.

Oh, by the way, you're very much mistaken about my previous posts because I wasn't correcting anyone's grammar. Grammar is defined as the set of structural rules that governs the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. Grammar has very little to do with how certain words or phrases are used on a local or regional basis, and that was my point. But, to make it perfectly clear, I claimed that I had never heard the phrase "quite right" used anywhere in the South, and had never heard it used anywhere else in the continental US.

Your turn. Do you have anything substantial to add to the conversation?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #85)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:06 PM

91. No. You and I are pretty much alike here.

So butter my butt and call me a biscuit. Oh wait, I forgot. I guess I missed that rule that said people can't use any turn of a phrase that has an origin other than the region in which they grew up under pain of your disapproval. Certainly, I don't have your awesome pedigree...do you compete in shows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:04 AM

73. If you were bitten by a dog recently, it would be wise for you to stay away from dogs you do not

know to be peaceful.

I too had very bad experiences living in the south. I don't slam the entire people, but I am wary of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:34 PM

49. Because they were defending Zimmerman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:47 AM

71. Big ass kick... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:19 AM

75. Kickin' it.



I_T_W

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:38 AM

76. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:55 AM

79. I like this one: "If guns don't kill people, why give them to soldiers, just send the people."

After all, people kill people, not guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:03 AM

80. Exactly

Excellent. Wish I had clicked sooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)


Response to Ironman2008 (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:07 AM

82. Not sure what this has to do with the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ironman2008 (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:19 AM

84. So, you're implying that blacks are the ones who kill the most people,

therefore Trayvon Martin should NOT have been armed. Trying to follow your "logic" here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:16 AM

83. BRILLIANT!

Would love to hear the excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:09 PM

90. Yep...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:21 PM

92. I did, others did as well. The unity in audience inferred does not exist.

This is almost as silly as the OP a little while ago that was using Raygun, like I give a fuck what Reagan has to say other than a near sure-fire litmus test of being right when holding an opposing position to his evil nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread