Tommy has done anything but complain. I just don't see what you read, or read into things sometimes.

 

Pointing the finger, and generalizing (all) and complaining about whats wrong with Black America but yet afraid to be part of the solution is what I see from him.

 

It's okay if you dont understand where im coming from. We live totally different worlds.

 

 

Trayvon was a hoodlum:



hood·lum

ˈho͞odləm,ˈho͝od-/

noun

1.

a person who engages in crime and violence; a hooligan or gangster.

synonyms: thug, lout, delinquent, vandal, ruffian, hooligan, lowlife; gangster, crook, mobster, criminal; informaltough, bruiser, hardman, goon, hood, punk, rowdy




But somehow I'm sure you will argue that he doesn't fit this description either...

 

Now you are using hoodlum, how many more descriptions you are going to throw out there?

 

I would describe Trayvon as a person, a child who made mistakes that alot of people make in their lives. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">We dont know how and if Trayvon is responsible, because he isnt here to tell his side of the story. Lets be real here. If someone else was in Zimmerman shoes, I would expect them to paint themselves as the victim as well if they are facing a significant amount of jail time.  You are right, we don't.  But it doesn't mean he wasn't responsible either (sorry, double negative).  And it doesn't mean Zimmerman was lying.  But we do have evidence.  And there wasn't enough evidence on the other side to convict Zimmerman.  I can only go by what we know and the evidence at hand.  


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">So if Trayvon was 12 or 13 years old but still the same physical strength, would it be wrong to call him a child in that instance? As much as we would  to hold Trayvon accountable, Zimmerman should be held accountable, he is a adult. In Florida, the age of 17 is considered a juvenile execpt when charged with a violent felony he can be charged as a adult. That's not what happened here. If he was alive he would have (at best) been charged with a misdemeanor as a juvenile and could have that charged dismissed.  But he wasn't 12 or 13 years old.  I think most logical people here do not consider a 17 year old a child, plain and simple.  So you are saying Trayvon could not have been charged with a violent felony?  He would have been accused of trying to kill Zimmerman had he been alive.  That is a violent felony.  He certainly could have been tried as an adult.  You may not believe he would have been, but to say at best it would have been a misdemeanor is completely dismissing parts of the case.  


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">You know what the comparison is? Davis is considered a "thug" as well for loud music.  But Trayvon isn't considered a thug for loud music.  Two completely different things.  


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> Any Black person can think for themselves and have different interpretations, there is no code to follow. The conversations that take place in the barbershops, hood, etc stems from how we interpret things like the Martin, and Davis trial and that's what im speaking from. I dont think you paid attention to my other posts because I advocate for all races, so I dont understand the "hypocrisy" you are claiming.  That isn't a very good explanation for why you said "Correct me if I'm wrong... didn't you say you were black".  You said it like his answer was an acceptable black thing to say.  So you always interpret one side favorably regardless of the facts or evidence presented?  Isn't that in itself racially motivated?  

---

Head to the panhandle! They are all over.

 

:woot: that would mean going on I-10 I hate I-10, but I stand corrected.

---

Pointing the finger, and generalizing (all) and complaining about whats wrong with Black America but yet afraid to be part of the solution is what I see from him.

 

It's okay if you dont understand where im coming from. We live totally different worlds.

Tommy lives in it too. He has offered up solutions. You'd rather not pay attention to that.

 

The agenda is thick.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Just because I'm black, I'm supposed to agree that he did nothing wrong? LOL. THAT, is what's wrong with Black America. And with this post, I'm done.

 

JFC, he did offer a solution.  Think for yourself.  Take race out of the equation.  That is what he is saying.  

---

:woot: that would mean going on I-10 I hate I-10, but I stand corrected.

I-10 is a boring stretch of road. That is one of the give aways of the numerous small towns that are out that way.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Tommy lives in it too. He has offered up solutions. You'd rather not pay attention to that.

 

The agenda is thick.

 

He has offered not to help, I am helping, so I did pay attention.

 

What "thick agenda" do I have?

 

JFC, he did offer a solution.  Think for yourself.  Take race out of the equation.  That is what he is saying.  

 

See above.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

He has offered not to help, I am helping, so I did pay attention.

 

What "thick agenda" do I have?

 

 

See above.

 

And I already told you what he offered.  To think for yourself and not be on a "side" because you have the same skin color as the other person.  

---

Pointing the finger, and generalizing (all) and complaining about whats wrong with Black America but yet afraid to be part of the solution is what I see from him.

 

It's okay if you dont understand where im coming from. We live totally different worlds.

 

 


 

Now you are using hoodlum, how many more descriptions you are going to throw out there?

 

I would describe Trayvon as a person, a child who made mistakes that alot of people make in their lives.

James, I'm sorry, but we will never see eye to eye on this.


You think Trayvon was a baby that didn't know any better. You call Zimmerman a murderer but I seem to recall you posting in another thread how you cheered when OJ got away with killing his wife. I'm my world, all three of them are bad people...in yours, only one is.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

James, I'm sorry, but we will never see eye to eye on this.


You think Trayvon was a baby that didn't know any better. You call Zimmerman a murderer but I seem to recall you posting in another thread how you cheered when OJ got away with killing his wife. I'm my world, all three of them are bad people...in yours, only one is.

Amen

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">We dont know how and if Trayvon is responsible, because he isnt here to tell his side of the story. Lets be real here. If someone else was in Zimmerman shoes, I would expect them to paint themselves as the victim as well if they are facing a significant amount of jail time.  You are right, we don't.  But it doesn't mean he wasn't responsible either (sorry, double negative).  And it doesn't mean Zimmerman was lying.  But we do have evidence.  And there wasn't enough evidence on the other side to convict Zimmerman.  I can only go by what we know and the evidence at hand.  
That's correct, we can only go by the evidence and poor prosecution of Zimmerman


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">So if Trayvon was 12 or 13 years old but still the same physical strength, would it be wrong to call him a child in that instance? As much as we would  to hold Trayvon accountable, Zimmerman should be held accountable, he is a adult. In Florida, the age of 17 is considered a juvenile execpt when charged with a violent felony he can be charged as a adult. That's not what happened here. If he was alive he would have (at best) been charged with a misdemeanor as a juvenile and could have that charged dismissed.  But he wasn't 12 or 13 years old.  I think most logical people here do not consider a 17 year old a child, plain and simple.  So you are saying Trayvon could not have been charged with a violent felony?  He would have been accused of trying to kill Zimmerman had he been alive.  That is a violent felony.  He certainly could have been tried as an adult.  You may not believe he would have been, but to say at best it would have been a misdemeanor is completely dismissing parts of the case.  
There is a reason why a 17 year old is still considered a child. Again, we only have Zimmerman's account. I am not dismissing parts of the case but let me ask you this, do you not realize if Trayvon had not been killed the prosecutors could have presented their case differently?


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">You know what the comparison is? Davis is considered a "thug" as well for loud music.  But Trayvon isn't considered a thug for loud music.  Two completely different things.  
The point is both are considered thugs for different reasons


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

 Any Black person can think for themselves and have different interpretations, there is no code to follow. The conversations that take place in the barbershops, hood, etc stems from how we interpret things like the Martin, and Davis trial and that's what im speaking from. I dont think you paid attention to my other posts because I advocate for all races, so I dont understand the "hypocrisy" you are claiming.  That isn't a very good explanation for why you said "Correct me if I'm wrong... didn't you say you were black".  You said it like his answer was an acceptable black thing to say.  So you always interpret one side favorably regardless of the facts or evidence presented?  Isn't that in itself racially motivated?  Regardless of what you considered a good 
explanation, I stated how I felt in the best way possible. As I said in blue, any black person can think for themselves and have different interpretations, I am not arguing, or disputing that. I interpret things the way I see them, the problem is I have a stark contrast from the majority POV in here so its coming off as one sided to alot of people which isnt a surprise. 

 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

And I already told you what he offered.  To think for yourself and not be on a "side" because you have the same skin color as the other person.  

 

Sorry man, people are different. I am taking all sides, what's wrong with me doing that.

 

James, I'm sorry, but we will never see eye to eye on this.


You think Trayvon was a baby that didn't know any better. You call Zimmerman a murderer but I seem to recall you posting in another thread how you cheered when OJ got away with killing his wife. I'm my world, all three of them are bad people...in yours, only one is.

 

There is no problem with not seeing eye to eye on certain things. I dont take disagreements personally so I still cool with you all.

 

You seem to keep missing the fact that I point out Trayvon has his troubles, but because im not labeling him the things you (or others are) its upsetting you. 

 

As for the OJ thing, I not denying one way or another whether I posted in that thread, but can you summarize (beyond you alleging me "cheering") what I said, or can you provide a link?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Sorry man, people are different. I am taking all sides, what's wrong with me doing that.

 

 

There is no problem with not seeing eye to eye on certain things. I dont take disagreements personally so I still cool with you all.

 

You seem to keep missing the fact that I point out Trayvon has his troubles, but because im not labeling him the things you (or others are) its upsetting you. 

 

As for the OJ thing, I not denying one way or another whether I posted in that thread, but can you summarize (beyond you alleging me "cheering") what I said, or can you provide a link?

 

Nobody has a problem with you not labeling him.  You have a problem with people putting a label on him.

---

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jtmoney" data-cid="130699" data-time="1392139306">
<div>
 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">That's correct, we can only go by the evidence and poor prosecution of Zimmerman.  
I think it was poor prosecution simply because it was a poor case to begin with.  You had a terrible witness for the prosecution who changed her story and had a defendant who did not who also had physical evidence on his head that backed up his side of the story.  I don't know if what he said is true.  And I don't know if Trayvon tried to kill him or said "you are going to die" to Zimmerman.  None of us do.  But based on what we do know, which is all we can go by, Zimmerman was acquitted.  


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">There is a reason why a 17 year old is still considered a child. Again, we only have Zimmerman's account. I am not dismissing parts of the case but let me ask you this, do you not realize if Trayvon had not been killed the prosecutors could have presented their case differently?  
You absolutely seem to be dismissing parts of the case.  Of course they could have presented their case differently.  But Trayvon is dead and what we are left with wasn't enough to find Zimmerman guilty.  You can believe what you want.  I think the difference here is you took a side before the trial ever started.  I waited for everything to come out and based my thoughts on the information we had on both sides.  


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The point is both are considered thugs for different reasons.  "different reasons"...  Well gee, you think?  And that is the entire point.  


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

Regardless of what you considered a good explanation, I stated how I felt in the best way possible. As I said in blue, any black person can think for themselves and have different interpretations, I am not arguing, or disputing that. I interpret things the way I see them, the problem is I have a stark contrast from the majority POV in here so its coming off as one sided to alot of people which isnt a surprise.  
Let me ask you this.  If I asked a fellow board member who was standing up for a black person and asked him "Correct me if I'm wrong... didn't you say you were white?" you think that is okay?  Do you not see the issue with your way of thinking?  It is divisive.  How in the world are we going to bring people together if both sides (white/black) stick to a "side" and only see things from their POV?


 

 

</div>
</blockquote>

---

Sorry man, people are different. I am taking all sides, what's wrong with me doing that.

 

 

You aren't taking all sides JFC and that is the point.  You aren't taking all sides when you have to ask another person what skin color they are because they think differently than you.

---

A thick, thick agenda. And it's sad, really.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

Sorry man, people are different. I am taking all sides, what's wrong with me doing that.




There is no problem with not seeing eye to eye on certain things. I dont take disagreements personally so I still cool with you all.


You seem to keep missing the fact that I point out Trayvon has his troubles, but because im not labeling him the things you (or others are) its upsetting you.


As for the OJ thing, I not denying one way or another whether I posted in that thread, but can you summarize (beyond you alleging me "cheering") what I said, or can you provide a link?

I'm not upset that you aren't labeling him...you are upset that I am.


I don't remember what the thread was about, but you said something about not having cheered so much (about whatever it was) since the OJ verdict was read.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

This is great.

---

I don't remember what the thread was about, but you said something about not having cheered so much (about whatever it was) since the OJ verdict was read.

 

JFC, if that is true, than that would honestly explain a lot especially in regards to Trayvon.  I mean, you honestly think like this?  Pretty much destroys your credibility in regards to race and racism.  

---

You aren't taking all sides JFC and that is the point.  You aren't taking all sides when you have to ask another person what skin color they are because they think differently than you.

So ^^this^^

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???