Conquer Club

macbone wrote:What did you guys think of this lady who was photographed at a pro-Zimmerman rally in Texas?

At one point, Renee Vaughan of Austin mocked protesters by chanting, "We're racist. We're proud. We're better 'cause we're white."

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... to-4944084

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/35 ... will-allen

The Houston Chronicle article says she was mocking the pro-Zimmerman folks, but some news outlets erroneously labeled her as a pro-Zimmerman supporter.

I didn't follow the trial very closely, but it sounded to me like Zimmerman was getting the crap beaten out of him and pulled his gun in self-defense. The woman in the photograph isn't racist or pro-Zimmerman, but she's arguing that many pro-Zimmerman supporters are. I don't agree with her methods (her sign was used as evidence of racism against Martin, although in an interview with the woman she clearly says she's using the sign as some kind of satire and that she supports Martin), but I'd be very interested to see how many people support Zimmerman solely on the basis of race (and yes, I know he's Hispanic).

The Houston Chronicle identified the demonstrator as “Renee Vaughan.” The woman was reportedly yelling “ugly” phrases like, “We’re racist. We’re Proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the pro-Trayvon Martin crowd at the rally over the weekend, according to the Chronicle.

Thankfully, conservative new media did the research the mainstream media neglected to do.

Gateway Pundit found a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin who worked for the far-left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment. The website also uploaded a number of photos to compare to the woman photographed at the rally in Houston.

One of the photos seems to show the far-left activist identified as Renee Vaughan wearing the same glasses as the woman seen holding the racist sign.

Ondray Harris, the former director of the Department of Justice’s “Community Relations Service,” recently told the Daily Caller that he “regularly had to warn or take corrective action against career employees for acting as advocates instead of mediators.”

The news follows explosive claims that the CRS, which says it provides “violence prevention and conflict resolution services,” actively helped to organize and foment unrest during the anti-George Zimmerman protests of 2012.

“I found that some employees of CRS talked neutrally in public and spoke in the tenor of mediators in public, but behind the scenes, when they talked to the civil rights groups or the perceived aggrieved parties, they’ll say, essentially, ‘Don’t worry. The Department of Justice is here, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,’” Harris reportedly said.

He also described Thomas Battles, the regional director sent to Sanford to deal with the anti-George Zimmerman protests in 2012, as “black, and very pro-black.”

Nominated by President Bush in 2007, Harris said Battles told him he wanted him to do well because “then I am doing well, and the whole race does well.”

“I thought to myself: ‘are you kidding me? There’s no room for such racial favoritism here,’” Harris commented. “Eventually, I became even more concerned as Battles and others would openly share their extremely pro-minority [views] at the expense of the majority views. I felt such views compromised implementing the CRS mandate.”

He reiterated that it is “clear” that a number of employees “feel more of an allegiance to the people they perceive to be discriminated against than to the law, the government, or even the CRS mandate…That’s not going to change regardless of what political party controls the White House.”

He said it’s the job of those at the top to “rein in the career employees out in the field,” and warned of the consequences if they don’t.

“In some cases, this is the U.S. government taking a stand against some people,” he said.

So far, evidence has only been uncovered definitely proving that CRS employees were present at the protests in Sanford, Florida in 2012. However, a warning by the agency’s former director that the employees have a long history of advocacy and “racial favoritism” is certainly indicative that there may be more to the story.

saxitoxin wrote:Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the jury’'s verdict last week finding Zimmerman not guilty in Martin’s death?

High School Graduate or Dropout: 31% Approve, 47% Disapprove, 22% Undecided
Some University, No Degree: 42% Approve, 43% Disapprove, 15% Undecided
University Degree: 54% Approve, 32% Disapprove, 14% Undecided
Postgraduate Degree: 51% Approve, 27% Disapprove, 22% Undecided

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010 ... ZFflevhikA

I found this particularly interesting, saxi. Those who had completed more education approved more of the results, although there was a dip for postgrad degrees. There was also a decreasing disapproval rating. The 22% Undecided among postgrads is interesting, too.

Phatscotty, your stuff reminds me of the claims that Chinese authorities were actively instigating riots over Japan in the Diaoyu Island disputes.

“These protests do not seem very spontaneous”
Sui is a student living in China.

"The authorities control Chinese society very tightly, in particular when it comes to public dissent. All protests against the government are stifled at once. When people try to organise demonstrations through the Internet, often, more police turn up than protesters. But in this case, the authorities and state media have encouraged the protests. The media has repeatedly called for people to express “rational patriotism” over the islands feud. So these demonstrations do not seem very spontaneous.

In fact, it seems that the police even participated in some, if not all, of the protests. The New York Times’ Chinese-language site reported that in Beijing, plain-clothes policemen instructed people to wave flags via a loudspeaker labelled “police.” Many Chinese Internet users have also claimed to spot plainclothes police officers acting like regular protesters and leading the demonstrations. Several of them posted photos to the Internet of protesters they claimed were police officers, but these were rapidly censored.

“It’s easy for the government to exploit patriotic sentiments to distract from domestic problems”

Usually, the authorities are quick to censor all Internet search terms associated with particular protests. But this time, throughout the weekend, users of Weibo [the Chinese equivalent of Twitter] could freely search for any terms relating to the anti-Japan protests. They have clamped down a bit since then, however, and now the terms “anti-Japan” and “anti-Japanese” are censored. However, users can still search for the terms “protest” or “Daioyu islands”, which is currently one of the top trending searches."

http://observers.france24.com/content/2 ... nstrations

Another "What If?"

Imagine if Zimmerman --who is in a vehicle-- offers the guy
walking in the rain a ride home. Maybe none of this other
stuff ever happens.

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .

Did that make sense when you wrote it?

Yes, it did and still does. Not very hard to understand is it?

Well, it's hard to understand how someone is going to be aware in advance of a citizen carrying a concealed weapon, for instance.

i'm going to pull a "john's mom" here and say that trayvon should have thought of that before he started the fight in the first place.

Sure...but that's not really relevant to the statement I was disputing.

john9blue wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the jury’'s verdict last week finding Zimmerman not guilty in Martin’s death?

White: 51% Approve, 31% Disapprove, 18% Undecided
Hispanic: 24% Approve, 50% Disapprove, 26% Undecided
Black: 9% Approve, 86% Disapprove, 7% Undecided

not only did 86% of blacks disapprove, but 84% of them STRONGLY disapproved. seems like a reasonable and impartial group of people.

Sure...there couldn't possibly be any other reason than unreasonableness and partiality. Certainly not.

macbone wrote: The Houston Chronicle article says she was mocking the pro-Zimmerman folks, but some news outlets erroneously labeled her as a pro-Zimmerman supporter. Her sign was used as evidence of racism against Martin, although in an interview with the woman she clearly says she's using the sign as some kind of satire and that she supports Martin.

I gotta say...I don't think she thought that sign through very well, in my opinion. I certainly didn't get that intent from it.

macbone wrote: I don't agree with her methods, but I'd be very interested to see how many people support Zimmerman solely on the basis of Zimmerman's and/or Martin's race (and yes, I know Zimmerman is Hispanic).

I believe Saxitoxin posted a poll...I have no idea how scientific it was though.

macbone wrote: Burnt Orange Report notes that Johnson isn't just some neighborhood crank — he's the August 2010 winner of the Homeowners Association's "Yard of the Month".

As if that keeps him from being a neighborhood crank? I don't think that's really a good measurement.

[

loutil wrote:She was clearly trying to bail out the prosecution as they had NO chance of a second degree murder charge.

While I agree with you that the prosecution had no chance of the second degree murder charge (I thought it was a foolish charge), I doubt it was anything of the sort. Much more likely that the circumstances involved in how the situation was created played into it, which honestly seems quite reasonable.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Allow me to quote an article already written on the subject:
The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat, in favor of the prosecution and its efforts to railroad Zimmerman as a racist murderer has been palpable throughout the case. Her actions, which have actively aided the state, could poison jurors and factor into future litigation.
Her shameful rulings and behavior, therefore, are worth cataloging, and include:
• Suppressing exculpatory evidence recovered from the (double-password-protected) cell phone of Trayvon Martin that reveal deleted texts of the 17-year-old bragging about street-fighting with friends and relatives and photos showing him brandishing guns, gangsta-style. This evidence supports Zimmerman's claim he feared Martin and shot in self-defense.
• Disallowing Martin's criminal background, including arrests by Miami-Dade school district police for drugs, theft, graffiti and other delinquent behavior. (Martin, in fact, had been suspended from school the week he jumped Zimmerman inside his gated townhouse complex, after police found stolen jewelry and burglary tools inside his backpack.)
• Excluding any testimony from audio experts who could definitively ID Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on 911 calls as Martin bashed his head against a concrete sidewalk.
• Allowing, conversely, the last-minute request of plainly desperate prosecutors to have jurors consider an alternative lesser charge of manslaughter to try to secure some kind of conviction, any kind of punishment, in the complete absence of a sound murder case.
• Never sanctioning the prosecution despite Zimmerman's lawyers justifiably filing no fewer than six formal complaints against the state for withholding exculpatory and other evidence from them in violation of discovery rules.
• Yet repeatedly overruling — at times even reprimanding — Zimmerman's lawyers when they objected to the underhanded tactics of the prosecution.
• And even, in one of the most bizarre interventions by a judge many court watchers have ever observed in a criminal case, directly grilling defendant Zimmerman not once, but three times about his intentions to personally testify — while scolding his lawyers not to counsel him in what seemed to many to be an attempt by the court to bully him into taking the stand.
Seeing prosecutors losing the case, Nelson jumped into the ring to give them a direct shot at Zimmerman in a last-ditch attempt to make him look guilty in front of the jury.
Even former prosecutors slammed Nelson for her obnoxious partiality. Andrew C. McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney who has prosecuted major criminal cases, called the trumped-up Zimmerman case a "travesty" of justice from start to finish. Any other judge would have thrown the case out as the garbage it was.
"In presiding over the trial of George Zimmerman, Judge Debra Nelson has made some awful rulings — none worse than failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the preposterous second-degree 'depraved mind' murder charge," McCarthy wrote.
"The state's evidence that Zimmerman had the necessary criminal intent is non-existent, much less sufficient to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard," he explained. "Compelling evidence, moreover, establishes that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, a claim the state has not come close to refuting."
Yet Nelson prevented jurors from hearing all that evidence. Over and over again, she ruled as inadmissible key facts and data that could have reinforced Zimmerman's plea of self-defense.

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .

Did that make sense when you wrote it?

Yes, it did and still does. Not very hard to understand is it?

Well, it's hard to understand how someone is going to be aware in advance of a citizen carrying a concealed weapon, for instance.

Hopefully it makes the criminals think twice.

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:1. The police NEVER told him not to follow. The 911 dispatcher said it was not necessary. Not the same as the police telling him NOT to follow.

You're trying to excuse idiotic behavior based on a technicality of wording when the police dispatcher's intent was clear.

No i am not and I do not consider his behavior to be idiotic even if you do. That is just your opinion . There is a quite a distinction between "that is not necessary" and "do not do that".

The color change isn't necessary, and makes your posts far more difficult to read (at least for me, being somewhat color-blind). That aside, you seem to be willing to go to any length to defend Zimmerman.

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:2. This was no "innocent kid". This was someone with a history of burglary and fighting. This was someone who was high on drugs at the time and was scoring "Lean" when this happened.

Wait, what? I don't recall seeing evidence of a drug test having been performed on Martin that showed he was under the influence at the time. Got a link?

Martin’s autopsy shows he had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the active ingredient in marijuana, in his system, ABC News reported. Feel free to google it up...

That doesn't in any way show that Martin was under the influence at the time. Do you have even a basic understanding of how marijuana affects the body?

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:4. Once again, he did not "ignore" trained police officers no matter how many times you wish to repeat that.

He just ignored their advisement. Is that really a relevant distinction in your mind?

As I already stated...yes it is. You should understand that 911 dispatchers are NOT trained police officers.

Again, you seem willing to defend him beyond reason. I don't really understand that.

I am not defending him beyond reason. That is just an absurd statement. You proffered he did not listen to trained police officers. I just keep pointing out that statement is incorrect. I guess I could argue that you are willing to make up facts beyond reason just to find him guilty.

macbone wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the jury’'s verdict last week finding Zimmerman not guilty in Martin’s death?

High School Graduate or Dropout: 31% Approve, 47% Disapprove, 22% Undecided
Some University, No Degree: 42% Approve, 43% Disapprove, 15% Undecided
University Degree: 54% Approve, 32% Disapprove, 14% Undecided
Postgraduate Degree: 51% Approve, 27% Disapprove, 22% Undecided

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010 ... ZFflevhikA

I found this particularly interesting, saxi. Those who had completed more education approved more of the results, although there was a dip for postgrad degrees. There was also a decreasing disapproval rating. The 22% Undecided among postgrads is interesting, too.

It is. Same with the 22% undec. for HS or less.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .

Did that make sense when you wrote it?

Yes, it did and still does. Not very hard to understand is it?

Well, it's hard to understand how someone is going to be aware in advance of a citizen carrying a concealed weapon, for instance.

i'm going to pull a "john's mom" here and say that trayvon should have thought of that before he started the fight in the first place.

Sure...but that's not really relevant to the statement I was disputing.

Haha, I guess Woodruff can't find the implication for the underlined. He even hints at it but still doesn't get it.

Bear in mind the standard error on that study is likely to be in the order of 5-10%...

Now now, don't ruin our fun with your Science of Guesses.

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:She was clearly trying to bail out the prosecution as they had NO chance of a second degree murder charge.

While I agree with you that the prosecution had no chance of the second degree murder charge (I thought it was a foolish charge), I doubt it was anything of the sort. Much more likely that the circumstances involved in how the situation was created played into it, which honestly seems quite reasonable.

Allow me to quote an article already written on the subject:
The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat

What the hell is the relevance of this, other than to try to demonize "those guys"?

Aside from that, if all of that is true, I would agree that she doesn't really belong on the bench.

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:Moral of the story...do not start a fight with someone who carries a concealed weapon .

Did that make sense when you wrote it?

Yes, it did and still does. Not very hard to understand is it?

Well, it's hard to understand how someone is going to be aware in advance of a citizen carrying a concealed weapon, for instance.

Hopefully it makes the criminals think twice.

Never mind. I give up. <sigh>

House Democrats will hold a hearing next week to weigh in on the controversy swirling around the recent verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced “A Conversation on Race and Justice” on July 30 on Capitol Hill.

Now we can all relax.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nancy-pel ... le/2533446

Nobunaga wrote:

House Democrats will hold a hearing next week to weigh in on the controversy swirling around the recent verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced “A Conversation on Race and Justice” on July 30 on Capitol Hill.

Now we can all relax.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nancy-pel ... le/2533446

what is the purpose of this? it sounds like a "rally to ensure we keep the black vote"

john9blue wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

House Democrats will hold a hearing next week to weigh in on the controversy swirling around the recent verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced “A Conversation on Race and Justice” on July 30 on Capitol Hill.

Now we can all relax.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nancy-pel ... le/2533446

what is the purpose of this? it sounds like a "rally to ensure we keep the black vote"

Without looking at it very closely, that's what it looks like to me too.

john9blue wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

House Democrats will hold a hearing next week to weigh in on the controversy swirling around the recent verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced “A Conversation on Race and Justice” on July 30 on Capitol Hill.

Now we can all relax.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nancy-pel ... le/2533446

what is the purpose of this? it sounds like a "rally to ensure we keep the black vote"

Or perhaps just a search for relevance by the ex-Speaker.

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:She was clearly trying to bail out the prosecution as they had NO chance of a second degree murder charge.

While I agree with you that the prosecution had no chance of the second degree murder charge (I thought it was a foolish charge), I doubt it was anything of the sort. Much more likely that the circumstances involved in how the situation was created played into it, which honestly seems quite reasonable.

Allow me to quote an article already written on the subject:
The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat

What the hell is the relevance of this, other than to try to demonize "those guys"?

Aside from that, if all of that is true, I would agree that she doesn't really belong on the bench.

What the hell is the relevance? I was answering your statement. We were discussing the instructions from the judge which were highly unusual. I suggested the judge was biased for the prosecution. You said you doubted that. So I provided evidence of her transgressions and bias. Yes, she should be removed from the bench.

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:She was clearly trying to bail out the prosecution as they had NO chance of a second degree murder charge.

While I agree with you that the prosecution had no chance of the second degree murder charge (I thought it was a foolish charge), I doubt it was anything of the sort. Much more likely that the circumstances involved in how the situation was created played into it, which honestly seems quite reasonable.

Allow me to quote an article already written on the subject:
The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat

What the hell is the relevance of this, other than to try to demonize "those guys"?

Aside from that, if all of that is true, I would agree that she doesn't really belong on the bench.

What the hell is the relevance? I was answering your statement. We were discussing the instructions from the judge which were highly unusual. I suggested the judge was biased for the prosecution. You said you doubted that. So I provided evidence of her transgressions and bias. Yes, she should be removed from the bench.

Whether she was a "lifelong Democrat" (which is what I was specifically referring to...that's why I quoted it) or not is thoroughly irrelevant to everything. Like I said, you just want to demonize "those guys". It's partisan bullshit like this that makes me take you less seriously.

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:She was clearly trying to bail out the prosecution as they had NO chance of a second degree murder charge.

While I agree with you that the prosecution had no chance of the second degree murder charge (I thought it was a foolish charge), I doubt it was anything of the sort. Much more likely that the circumstances involved in how the situation was created played into it, which honestly seems quite reasonable.

Allow me to quote an article already written on the subject:
The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat

What the hell is the relevance of this, other than to try to demonize "those guys"?

Aside from that, if all of that is true, I would agree that she doesn't really belong on the bench.

What the hell is the relevance? I was answering your statement. We were discussing the instructions from the judge which were highly unusual. I suggested the judge was biased for the prosecution. You said you doubted that. So I provided evidence of her transgressions and bias. Yes, she should be removed from the bench.

Whether she was a "lifelong Democrat" (which is what I was specifically referring to...that's why I quoted it) or not is thoroughly irrelevant to everything. Like I said, you just want to demonize "those guys". It's partisan bullshit like this that makes me take you less seriously.

LOL...I quote an article that mentions briefly that she is a life long Democrat and now I am a partisan? The article listed numerous examples of her bias and you picked the one point that was political and stuck it to me. Well done .

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

loutil wrote:

Woodruff wrote: While I agree with you that the prosecution had no chance of the second degree murder charge (I thought it was a foolish charge), I doubt it was anything of the sort. Much more likely that the circumstances involved in how the situation was created played into it, which honestly seems quite reasonable.

Allow me to quote an article already written on the subject:
The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat

What the hell is the relevance of this, other than to try to demonize "those guys"?

Aside from that, if all of that is true, I would agree that she doesn't really belong on the bench.

What the hell is the relevance? I was answering your statement. We were discussing the instructions from the judge which were highly unusual. I suggested the judge was biased for the prosecution. You said you doubted that. So I provided evidence of her transgressions and bias. Yes, she should be removed from the bench.

Whether she was a "lifelong Democrat" (which is what I was specifically referring to...that's why I quoted it) or not is thoroughly irrelevant to everything. Like I said, you just want to demonize "those guys". It's partisan bullshit like this that makes me take you less seriously.

LOL...I quote an article that mentions briefly that she is a life long Democrat and now I am a partisan?

If only that were the only piece of data to judge it by...that aside, it didn't really appear to me that it was a case of you quoting an article at that point. It appeared to me to be "your take on things" before you started the article. Your quoting skills haven't improved, but at least you're not color-coding things (which I do appreciate, thank you).

Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/