Funny that -- I was just going to say I don't know you can confuse the two when Ephraim is such a thoughtful serious contributor especially on topics of politics and history while Gaias's comments come directly from wikipedia and corporate press releases ;-)

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

If that is the case, I offer HFG my apologies. But if he was trying to be funny, why choose a serious, thoughtful, middle of the road guy like GP? Claiming he was keta or novy would seem to offer more possibility for hilarity to ensue.

[I'm not that guy.]

I don't think he was making an out and out attempt at humor per say -- at least not an attempt to be ha ha funny. But then I find nothing middle of the road about the offensive things Petronius says.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Yeah, right article, just my mistake on the author.  I mentioned it in terms of someone whose analysis agreed with your own, but I was saying that (having read it) I wasn't so sure it was the correct conclusion (though it does seem to have become a more popular one in the last 24 hours).

Nice one!  Your two favourite slurs in one tiny hed!

Like I said, Urk, you're a real warrior.  I now return you to your fight for America!

OK, so some vigilante motherfucker who apparently sees menace on every corner appoints himself as a "neighborhood watchman," stalks a kid through the gated community and shoots him without provocation, then (possibly) gets a free pass because of a terribly-written law, and there's nothing unusual or sensational about this at all?

Great. Got it. Local news. Happens every day in your neighborhood, I'm sure. Any other stories you'd like the national media to ignore?

...but since no one was listening, we must begin again.

The media routinely ignores crimes perpetrated by blacks against whites, and by blacks against blacks, and it routinely hides the racial aspects of such crimes.

"stalks a kid through the gated community and shoots him without provocation"

You don't know that.

Would it really matter to you if it had happened that way?

All true. But that doesn't make the vigilante aspect of the story any less of a ratings bonanza now, does it, Hoss?

...but since no one was listening, we must begin again.

This question was rhetorical, right?

Well, maybe not. People sigh when they conclude that someone they want to communicate with either can't or won't understand them. It seems to me that "liberal faggots" correctly conclude that you don't want to understand much of what they say to you, which would naturally elicit sighs.

It wasn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious what faggot liberals are thinking when they resort to sighing, instead of formulating an actual argument. It appears to be a form of signalling to other faggot liberals, because no one who isn't a faggot liberal is impressed by some liberal faggot wheezing.

I understand liberalism better than liberals do. It's the prevailing ideology of our time, and most liberals have unthinkingly accepted it.

It wasn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious what faggot liberals are thinking...

I understand liberalism better than liberals do.

Bog's bitter breath, you're one are entertaining know-it-all!

Thanks, Urk!

I also understand Communism better than Maoists, and Scientology better than Scientologists.

I suspect you know more about homosexuality than gay people, too.

Wait, have we been discussing "liberal faggots" (left-leaning or socially-tolerant homosexuals) or "faggot liberals" (metrosexual city-dwellers, or anyone who doesn't own guns)? It makes some difference, you know.

For example, left-leaning homosexuals might sigh at you because you struck them as cute (if you would strike them that way in meatspace). But they might also sigh at you in earshot of one of their colleagues to say, without being too direct, "he doesn't get it" or "he doesn't understand (or like) people like us".

By comparison, urbanites (or men in touch with their feminine side in any way) might sigh at you in earshot of one of their colleagues to say, "Oh, Jesus, one of these arseholes..." or "Isn't it sad that so many people still think this way?" or "I give up, you can't talk to people like this." So who do you mean, liberal faggots or faggot liberals?  

What's more redundant? liberal faggot or faggot liberal?

I want to say that liberal faggot is probably more redundant.

Almost certainly liberal faggot would be more redundant, but still not synonymous. But that alone doesn't tell us what Gadsby intended.

Urk intended nothing more than to insult.  

His racist homophobic mind can't accept that a white heterosexual might empathize with people who are mistreated, marginalized or even murdered because of their skin colour or sexual preference.

So Urk resorts to the hoary old standbys like "coon," "nigger" and "faggot" to express his scintillatingly superior mind.

Sad, innit?

No doubt he intended to be insulting, but he mostly manages to demean himself instead.

Even as he claims supreme knowledge of "liberalism", he claims to have no idea why people around him sigh at him, shaking their heads. If he really understands "liberals" (most of whom empathise with people mistreated, marginalised, or murdered because of their skin colour or sexual preference), surely he knows that most of them feel sorry for him when they hear him speak, right? Yet he asks, with as much hostility as he can muster, why do [people] sigh at me? I tried to tell him in my Post #46 what people might be thinking as they sigh at him ("Oh, Jesus, one of these arseholes..." or "Isn't it sad that so many people still think this way?" or "I give up, you can't talk to people like this.") but have yet to see any sign of response (or self-realisation).

Alf/ Urk/ Gadsby thinks I have no sense of humour, that only he/ Zyx do, but I toy with him on TnT as much as he/ they toy with me. And I always feel gratified when I inspire him to post stuff like "I understand liberalism better than liberals do ... I also understand Communism better than Maoists, and Scientology better than Scientologists." When I read that, in my mind I immediately added "I understand Islam better than Muslims, Hinduism better than Hindus, law better than lawyers, medicine better than doctors, architecture better than architects...."  Mr. Adams was correct to add "I suspect you know more about homosexuality than gay people, too." If he understands Catholicism better than Catholics, he should consider offering himself as potential Pope.

Now if only he understood himself, he would really have something.

Like they say in the Marines, you're only gay if you're on the bottom.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

What's under fire is the, "stand your ground" law, which was borne out of the "castle doctrine."

But the idea that a man who is pursuing another person is "standing his ground" is itself absurd.  The only way this can be pinned on the law is if the law is being horribly interpreted.

776.013:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Exactly.  So, if Trayvon Martin, who had every right to be where he was when George Zimmerman started chasing him, had had a weapon, he could have legally used it on George Zimmerman.  Unfortunately, it was the paranoid freak who was armed.

According to police Martin attacked Zimmerman.

According to the police, Zimmerman told them Martin attacked him.  After Zimmerman chased Martin down.  Assuming Zimmerman's not lying (or, judging from his past behavior, telling a delusion-inspired "truth"), Martin's actions were therefore in line with the "stand your ground" doctrine.

Read that section of the law again.

I dunno man, it seems to me there used to be a place in the democratic party for people who thought freedom was call with some reasonable government regulation. Regulating guns, A-ok. Having a crazy idea in your head that "banning" guns is (a) cool or (b) will be even remotely successful, really not on the same planet.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Who wants to ban guns?

eric holder for one

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

What does he have to do with this story and the 'Stand Your Ground' law?

you're confusing "corporate lackeys" with "free market fans," which is a common and understandable mistake these days, especially when it comes to NPR. it's called corporate socialism and they're all for it over there. other than that, yes, you're right.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

If a liberal complains about castle laws, present a scenario of a battered person defending herself from her abuser

You read this in the NRA pamphlet?

I'm not a member, the NRA considers me a subhuman who shouldn't be allowed to own or shoot guns since I happened to catch a case a decade or so ago.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

I heard that story and had the same reaction.  My first thought was what if the same thing had happened to microsoft, or any other company that didn't have the hipster-doofus panache of Apple?  Somehow, I doubt they would have bent over quite as far.

They are similar to Fox and MSNBC, though in my estimation that aren't as egregious as those two.  In all cases, even when they are factual, their framing shows their biases very clearly.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Just because someone is black doesn't mean you can follow them.

If Martin felt threatened he should have called the police from his father's house. Instead he decided to chimp out, and now he's dead.

If Zimmerman would've went home and ate his Tuna Casarole after 911 told him to then he wouldn't have gotten his asskicked and incompetently fired a his gun. And his fatass wouldn't have a price of his head.

He did stop following when the 911 dispatcher told him to. Not only was the shooting justified (hence no charges), by eliminating Martin in all probability Zimmerman prevented future crimes.

Not for no reason.  Because you feel threatened.  If you feel threatened, you can.  Florida even has a law on the books saying so.

What law is that?

It's commonly known as the "stand your ground" law.  You might have heard of it.

You have a bizarre conception of what Florida's law is. I linked to it above, try reading it.

You have a bizarre conception of what Florida's law is

You have a bizarre conception of how it has been interpreted.  Based on those precedents, if Zimmermann approached Martin and he felt threatened (and a witness already testifies that he did, which is at least as reliable as Zimmermann's claim that he was peacefully walking back to his truck), Martin was within his rights to stand his ground and respond with force.

The Stand Your Ground law doesn't allow you to attack someone based on your feelings.

"and a witness already testifies that he did, which is at least as reliable as Zimmermann's claim"

What, you mean No Limit Nigga's girlfriend, who has been coached by the family lawyer? If it ever gets to a point where she's cross examined, it will be fun watching her try to keep the invented story straight.

The Stand Your Ground law doesn't allow you to attack someone based on your feelings.

That's how it's been implemented.  Read the link.

What, you mean No Limit Nigga's girlfriend, who has been coached by the family lawyer?

You know that picture is an admitted fake, right?  You don't?  Here's the retraction.

What it boils down to is on one side we have a man who's demonstrated his paranoia and has quite the arrest history for violent offenses (lucky for him, his daddy's a judge!) and on the other side we have a dead kid who might have possessed marijuana at one point.  You choose to accept the former's story as gospel (and of course any contravening testimony must be coached).  I choose to believe that he just might have a vested interest in twisting the story (and possibly a distorted perception of reality to begin with based on his past behavior) and at the very least the police should have investigated the incident beyond taking his word for it.

There's also the police report that said the shooter was bruised and bloodied. Perhaps he tripped and fell after the shooting?

The evidence, witnesses, and the law support Zimmerman. The police did investigate. There was no probable cause to arrest him. After evaluating the evidence the state attorney's office declined to prosecute. Nothing has been presented by critics indicating that wasn't the proper decision.  

The evidence, witnesses, and the law support Zimmerman.

No witness says Martin attacked Zimmerman.  No evidence shows Martin attacked Zimmerman.  The law supports Zimmerman attacking Martin no more than it supports Martin attacking Zimmerman.

The police did investigate.

You're right.  I was mistaken.  And the lead investigator doubted Zimmerman's story.

Nothing has been presented by critics indicating that wasn't the proper decision.

I'm not debating what can be proven in court.  I'm debating your taking Zimmerman's story as gospel despite his previously displayed paranoia, his previous violent episodes, and contrary evidence.

I don't take Zimmerman's story "as gospel", the witnesses and the evidence support him. According to police, his calls to them weren't "paranoia", his neighborhood had a lot of crime. Trayvon was a typical negro, and chimping out is typical negro behavior.

the witnesses and the evidence support him

No witness supports his claim that Martin attacked him as you insist must be true, nor does the evidence.

Let me be clear.  I think it's fine for people to respond with their distaste.  I think it's sad that we are so thin-skinned that a simple cartoon was regarded as beyond the pale.  It's not like there isn't some truth to what she was pointing out even though I've generally come down on the other side of the debate here.

By the way, where's Stephanie Eisner's (ironic that she's german)

I'm pretty sure Eisner, based on the only other Eisner I know and this picture of her, is Jewish.  While she may also be German, she's definitely not blond.

I did a search for Eisner name origin and hits seem to be saying it's a German name, not necessarily a Jewish name.

But yeah she could be Jewish as well. And BTW aren't there German brunettes?

Yeah, sorry.  I read your comment in a mental fog and thought you were making a "perfect Aryan Fraulein" reference.

In my guess, I was going solely off of Michael Eisner and that she looks Jewish to me (obviously a subjective impression).

Is Eisner a Jew? That would be some massively ironic considering that Walt Disney was known to be anti-Semite.

Well, I was going only off of my own memory, but an uncited Wikipedia page says he is, too, so take it for what it's worth.

The difference is it's sad when blonde girls go missing.  

There's nothing to discuss because it's a factual statement and you can't honestly deny it.