Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=167549
Phatscotty wrote:Poll Added!
oVo wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Poll Added!
Kittens (and puppies) are cute
Phatscotty wrote:Neoteny wrote:THE MEDIA
And here is the evidence that you joked about and disbelieved...As cable TV networks go, MSNBC is one of the more frequently accused of bias. Granted, they don’t have an entire comedy show out for their blood the same way that Fox News does, but they still attract criticism. To their credit, their executives admit that some of that criticism is even true.
Exhibit A in this regard is MSNBC’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. Despite pushing the story very forcefully during the first two months that it became news (with Al Sharpton interviewing the grieving parents of the slain teen and Lawrence O’Donnell shouting insults and questions at an empty chair), now that new evidence is breaking that may lead to an acquittal of shooter George Zimmerman, MSNBC is behaving as though the story doesn’t exist. In fact, not a single one of its primetime anchors has covered the story at all since the release of the pro-Zimmerman evidence. Not Ed Schultz, not Lawrence O’Donnell, not even Al Sharpton.
Mediaite explains:
In March and April, MSNBC’s primetime hosts ran with nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. They regularly suggested that the lack of national interest in the case was worthy of outrage. Last week, when an avalanche of new evidence favorable to George Zimmerman came to light, MSNBC’s primetime lineup didn’t just bury the story, they didn’t mention Martin or Zimmerman once the week that news broke according to media monitoring service TV Eyes.
and so are yours. There is only one person who actually knows what happened.Phatscotty wrote:All your assertions are assumptions.
Evidence released last week in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman shows four key witnesses made major changes in what they say they saw and heard on the rainy February night when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Three changed their stories in ways that could damage Zimmerman. One man who initially told police Martin was atop Zimmerman punching him "MMA-style" — a reference to Mixed Marital Arts — later said he was no longer sure about the punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.
A fourth witness abandoned her initial story — that she saw one person chasing another. Now she says she saw a single figure running.
They were re-interviewed in mid-March, after Sanford, Fla., police handed off the case to State Atty. Norm Wolfinger. The case changed hands again when Florida Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor.
The witnesses changed their stories in these key ways:
• Witness 2: A young woman who lives in the gated community was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."
She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."
A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.
That all changed when she was re-interviewed March 20 by a state agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.
"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses.... I just know I saw a person out there."
• Witness 12: A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with a state agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.
During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top.
"I don't know which one.... All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.
Six days later, however, she said she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 2 1/2-minute recorded session.
"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes; I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," she said.Trayvon Martin 6'2-6'4. Zimmerman 5'5-5'9
• Witness 6: This witness lived a few feet from where Martin and Zimmerman fought. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style."
He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.
and he is speaking out tonight on the Shawn Hannity show! (8pm central - 30 minutes from this post)oVo wrote:All news outlets are attract criticism and public scrutiny. In this case at first
they reported too little before the news was saturated with too much.
and so are yours. There is only one person who actually knows what happened.Phatscotty wrote:All your assertions are assumptions.
Zimmerman is the only one that knows the truth....notyou2 wrote:Why do you think Zimmerman will be speaking the truth? Ask Trayvon Martin, perhaps he will speak the truth.
Yeah, I wonder why that is?Phatscotty wrote:Zimmerman is the only one that knows the truth....notyou2 wrote:Why do you think Zimmerman will be speaking the truth? Ask Trayvon Martin, perhaps he will speak the truth.
Because trayvon martin attacked and tried to kill a person who was able to defend himselfWoodruff wrote:Yeah, I wonder why that is?Phatscotty wrote:Zimmerman is the only one that knows the truth....notyou2 wrote:Why do you think Zimmerman will be speaking the truth? Ask Trayvon Martin, perhaps he will speak the truth.
Like I said...the winner writes the history. Whether it's true or not, we really don't know because only one half of those involved get to tell the story.Phatscotty wrote:Because trayvon martin attacked and tried to kill a person who was able to defend himselfWoodruff wrote:Yeah, I wonder why that is?Phatscotty wrote:Zimmerman is the only one that knows the truth....notyou2 wrote:Why do you think Zimmerman will be speaking the truth? Ask Trayvon Martin, perhaps he will speak the truth.
Still no evidence that this took place.Woodruff wrote:So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Because the liberal causes chose to make it a national issue in an attempt to push their racial agenda (and their hatred of gun ownership).john9blue wrote:can someone tell me why this case is such a big deal, given that nobody knows the truth?
these are my thoughts as well. wonder if anyone can come up with a better reason?Night Strike wrote: Because the liberal causes chose to make it a national issue in an attempt to push their racial agenda (and their hatred of gun ownership).
I don't honestly think what I state above DID take place in the Zimmerman case, HOWEVER there is certainly evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for some time and may well have actively contributed to the result. My point stands, however...the winner of the war writes the history, so to make the claim that "Zimmerman knows the truth" is disengenuous, because the one person whose presence on the scene could corroborate/refute that "truth" (which is now whatever Zimmerman wants it to be) cannot do so.Night Strike wrote:Still no evidence that this took place.Woodruff wrote:So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Oh, this is ridiculous. There are plenty of liberal gun owners out there, Night Strike, as well as some conservatives who believe in reasonable restrictions on weaponry. Try to use some rationality instead of propoganda blaming everything on the dirty liberals.Night Strike wrote:Because the liberal causes chose to make it a national issue in an attempt to push their racial agenda (and their hatred of gun ownership).john9blue wrote:can someone tell me why this case is such a big deal, given that nobody knows the truth?
That still doesn't mean that there was any hunting of black kids going on. Furthermore, why wouldn't neighborhood watchmen follow someone if they see a suspicious person in a gated neighborhood that had recent problems of property crime?Woodruff wrote:I don't honestly think what I state above DID take place in the Zimmerman case, HOWEVER there is certainly evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for some time and may well have actively contributed to the result. My point stands, however...the winner of the war writes the history, so to make the claim that "Zimmerman knows the truth" is disengenuous, because the one person whose presence on the scene could corroborate/refute that "truth" (which is now whatever Zimmerman wants it to be) cannot do so.Night Strike wrote:Still no evidence that this took place.Woodruff wrote:So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
But you guys are ok with that, because it's your guy.
The movement to label this story as racism and call for more gun control was lead by Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the mainstream media. Those are all members and organizations leading the liberal movement within this country.Woodruff wrote:Oh, this is ridiculous. There are plenty of liberal gun owners out there, Night Strike, as well as some conservatives who believe in reasonable restrictions on weaponry. Try to use some rationality instead of propoganda blaming everything on the dirty liberals.Night Strike wrote:Because the liberal causes chose to make it a national issue in an attempt to push their racial agenda (and their hatred of gun ownership).john9blue wrote:can someone tell me why this case is such a big deal, given that nobody knows the truth?
Zimmerman is black himself, so you have to eat that race card you just vomited for no reason.Woodruff wrote:Like I said...the winner writes the history. Whether it's true or not, we really don't know because only one half of those involved get to tell the story.Phatscotty wrote:Because trayvon martin attacked and tried to kill a person who was able to defend himselfWoodruff wrote:Yeah, I wonder why that is?Phatscotty wrote:Zimmerman is the only one that knows the truth....notyou2 wrote:Why do you think Zimmerman will be speaking the truth? Ask Trayvon Martin, perhaps he will speak the truth.
So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
The FBI investigated the shooting and concluded that the shooting was not racially motivated.Woodruff wrote: So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Try to understand the twisted hatred that exists inside their hearts that makes them say such things and draw such conclusions.patches70 wrote:The FBI investigated the shooting and concluded that the shooting was not racially motivated.Woodruff wrote: So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Why are people still going on about hunting black people? Strawman much?
I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated that, correct. So what is it that you're disagreeing with in my post?Night Strike wrote:That still doesn't mean that there was any hunting of black kids going on.Woodruff wrote:I don't honestly think what I state above DID take place in the Zimmerman case, HOWEVER there is certainly evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin for some time and may well have actively contributed to the result. My point stands, however...the winner of the war writes the history, so to make the claim that "Zimmerman knows the truth" is disengenuous, because the one person whose presence on the scene could corroborate/refute that "truth" (which is now whatever Zimmerman wants it to be) cannot do so.Night Strike wrote:Still no evidence that this took place.Woodruff wrote:So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
But you guys are ok with that, because it's your guy.
Funny how you're ignoring the second part of that sentence. Why is that, I wonder?Night Strike wrote:Furthermore, why wouldn't neighborhood watchmen follow someone if they see a suspicious person in a gated neighborhood that had recent problems of property crime?
Ok, first of all, the mainstream media doesn't really give a rat's ass about gun restrictions. In fact, I'm quite certain they're in favor of as much weaponry being available as possible so they can continue to get ratings with incidents like this. So you can take them out of your list right now.Night Strike wrote:The movement to label this story as racism and call for more gun control was lead by Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the mainstream media. Those are all members and organizations leading the liberal movement within this country.Woodruff wrote:Oh, this is ridiculous. There are plenty of liberal gun owners out there, Night Strike, as well as some conservatives who believe in reasonable restrictions on weaponry. Try to use some rationality instead of propoganda blaming everything on the dirty liberals.Night Strike wrote:Because the liberal causes chose to make it a national issue in an attempt to push their racial agenda (and their hatred of gun ownership).john9blue wrote:can someone tell me why this case is such a big deal, given that nobody knows the truth?
Do you even read the thread before you post, or is this your admission that you don't have a response to the very valid point I made?Phatscotty wrote:Zimmerman is black himself, so you have to eat that race card you just vomited for no reason.Woodruff wrote:Like I said...the winner writes the history. Whether it's true or not, we really don't know because only one half of those involved get to tell the story.Phatscotty wrote:Because trayvon martin attacked and tried to kill a person who was able to defend himselfWoodruff wrote:Yeah, I wonder why that is?Phatscotty wrote:Zimmerman is the only one that knows the truth....notyou2 wrote:Why do you think Zimmerman will be speaking the truth? Ask Trayvon Martin, perhaps he will speak the truth.
So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Do you even read the thread before you post, or is this your admission that you don't have a response to the very valid point I made?patches70 wrote:The FBI investigated the shooting and concluded that the shooting was not racially motivated.Woodruff wrote: So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Why are people still going on about hunting black people? Strawman much?
Do you even read the thread before you post, or is this your admission that you don't have a response to the very valid point I made?Phatscotty wrote:Try to understand the twisted hatred that exists inside their hearts that makes them say such things and draw such conclusions.patches70 wrote:The FBI investigated the shooting and concluded that the shooting was not racially motivated.Woodruff wrote: So basically, if you're going to hunt black kids, make sure you kill them.
Why are people still going on about hunting black people? Strawman much?
You really trash the concept of 'Christian' values , how can any civilised person think that the promotion of their political agenda trumps the desire to seek fair play. The likes of Sharpton are opportunistic scum but you fail to realise that your bias puts you firmly in the same camp.Night Strike wrote:Because the liberal causes chose to make it a national issue in an attempt to push their racial agenda (and their hatred of gun ownership).john9blue wrote:can someone tell me why this case is such a big deal, given that nobody knows the truth?