IntenseDebate - Marcus Porcius

13 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Sheila Zimmerman, Wife... · 0 replies · +1 points

If I may politely say, the author of this comment makes no sense.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Trayvon Martin's Twitt... · 0 replies · +6 points

Trayvon is gone because he was on top of George Zimmerman beating him mercilessly. If Trayvon Martin had been on top of me doing what he did to George Zimmerman I would have shot him too, and rightly so...and I'm not white, in fact I'm almost as brown as Trayvon was. That's not profiling; that's defending your life.

14 years ago @ Political News and Opi... - Using the Poor to Cove... · 0 replies · +1 points

One thing that always seems to get left out.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to pay for defense. It does not authorize federal payments for free school meals or food stamps.

If the states want to provide those things, that's fine. But the federal government has no business in any of that, so any choice between cutting defense and cutting "programs for the poor" should be obvious. There shouldn't be programs for the poor in the first place.

14 years ago @ The Heritage Foundry - A Better Life for Julia · 0 replies · +1 points

I do so love the Heritage Foundation! Nice job guys.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Evidence Suggests Geor... · 1 reply · +1 points

Actually, it is easy. I addressed Zimmerman's record in my post. You said he had a "criminal record" of violence. He has ZERO "criminal record" of violence, if you bothered to LOOK IT UP as I said.

BTW, your first comment was accidentally deleted. It got listed as posting twice, and when I deleted the one, both disappeared. Your basic argument was that Zimmerman is a violent criminal, when in fact there are no criminal records to support that.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Evidence Suggests Geor... · 0 replies · +1 points

That's an easy one. The correct answer is "neither." Look it up.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Evidence Suggests Geor... · 0 replies · +1 points

I understand where you\'re coming from and for the most part I agree with you. The bottom line for me is that at the exact moment the shot was fired, did George Zimmerman reasonably believe he was in fear for his life or great bodily injury? If the answer is yes, then it\'s a legal shooting...period. If the answer is no, then it isn\'t. The evidence to this point seems to indicate that he was in the right.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Evidence Suggests Geor... · 0 replies · 0 points

Self defense is not vigilante justice, genius. Dictionary much?

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Evidence Suggests Geor... · 0 replies · +1 points

The evidence is there for anyone to see. It's not really my fault that you apparently are unable to read through the fog created by your liberal race-addled mind.

By the way, yes, gun owners know exactly how to disable an aggressive assailant. George Zimmerman apparently used the proper method, since, as you noted, he shot him in the chest. You never resort to lethal force for anything less than lethal use. Shooting to wound is for Hollywood and fools, and since you're probably not Hollywood I think we can guess the latter.

14 years ago @ The Conservative Review - Evidence Suggests Geor... · 1 reply · +1 points

Zimmerman got where he was because he was following Martin. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim by people like you that he followed Martin after being told "we don't need you to do that" by the dispatcher. He replied to the dispatcher "okay." That is when he said he was returning to his car. And that is why he was where he was when the shooting took place, by which point you can also hear him say "I lost him" and "I don't know where this kid is." In other words, at that point he was not following Martin and in fact could not even see him. The map reference is superfluous.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Marcus Porcius

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

Marcus Porcius