Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:07 pm

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

I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:11 pm

Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?

You've been trolling against it 24-7?

I guess you have everyone fooled. Take a look at what you write and who you attack and who you defend and all the BS points you try to make.... we all come to the same conclusion. You've only been harassing Zimmerman supporters.

If you ask me, with all the stuff you keep admitting you "did not know" and the things you say you "forgot" I don't think you even qualify for having a valid opinion in the first place.

rishaed · Post by **rishaed** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:18 pm

Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?

Nope just was wondering what your thoughts on it were

I know exactly where you stand on this topic in relation to Phatscotty who can't for the life of himself read without the oh he's trolling me glasses....... Though sometimes I agree with him, but only sometimes.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:22 pm

rishaed wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
Nope just was wondering what your thoughts on it were I know exactly where you stand on this topic in relation to Phatscotty who can't for the life of himself read without the oh he's trolling me glasses....... Though sometimes I agree with him, but only sometimes.

That's fine. But I would like to hear what he thinks about it as well, since he dodged your Q. Also wondering what the reason is why you yourself thought Woodruff as a Trayvon supporter.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:05 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
You've been trolling against it 24-7?

I guess you have everyone fooled. Take a look at what you write and who you attack and who you defend and all the BS points you try to make.... we all come to the same conclusion. You've only been harassing Zimmerman supporters.

If you ask me, with all the stuff you keep admitting you "did not know" and the things you say you "forgot" I don't think you even qualify for having a valid opinion in the first place.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:06 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
rishaed wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
Nope just was wondering what your thoughts on it were I know exactly where you stand on this topic in relation to Phatscotty who can't for the life of himself read without the oh he's trolling me glasses....... Though sometimes I agree with him, but only sometimes.
That's fine. But I would like to hear what he thinks about it as well, since he dodged your Q.

f*ck you, you dodging, chickenshit hypocrite.

Phatscotty wrote:Also wondering what the reason is why you yourself thought Woodruff as a Trayvon supporter.

ARE YOU UNABLE TO FUCKING READ? GO BACK AND READ HIS POST, YOU GOD-DAMNED TROLL.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:09 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
rishaed wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
Nope just was wondering what your thoughts on it were I know exactly where you stand on this topic in relation to Phatscotty who can't for the life of himself read without the oh he's trolling me glasses....... Though sometimes I agree with him, but only sometimes.
That's fine. But I would like to hear what he thinks about it as well, since he dodged your Q.
f*ck you, you dodging, chickenshit hypocrite.

Phatscotty wrote:Also wondering what the reason is why you yourself thought Woodruff as a Trayvon supporter.
ARE YOU UNABLE TO FUCKING READ? GO BACK AND READ HIS POST, YOU GOD-DAMNED TROLL.

I will wait for Rishaed...

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:26 pm

rishaed wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
Nope just was wondering what your thoughts on it were I know exactly where you stand on this topic in relation to Phatscotty who can't for the life of himself read without the oh he's trolling me glasses....... Though sometimes I agree with him, but only sometimes.

Generally a good survey. However, there are a couple of questions that I find rather irrelevant. They are:

#9/#10 - I don't really get the alleged significance of these five photos, given that his accurate age was discussed in other areas of the survey. Photos can easily lie where age is concerned.

#12 - What am I supposed to glean from that picture?

#19 - A twitter from his brother? So what?

#33/#34 - Seem to be the same question.

#36 - So?

#41/#42 - #42 just seems like an itemization of #41 - why not put them together?

#47 - I don't find this particularly useful.

#1/#54 - Same question.

#55 - They should have specifically listed ConquerClub and Reddit. If Fox News and MSNBC get noted, we should too!

Oh, and I put all of that into the Comments section of the survey. <smile>

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:27 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
rishaed wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
Nope just was wondering what your thoughts on it were I know exactly where you stand on this topic in relation to Phatscotty who can't for the life of himself read without the oh he's trolling me glasses....... Though sometimes I agree with him, but only sometimes.
That's fine. But I would like to hear what he thinks about it as well, since he dodged your Q.
f*ck you, you dodging, chickenshit hypocrite.

Phatscotty wrote:Also wondering what the reason is why you yourself thought Woodruff as a Trayvon supporter.
ARE YOU UNABLE TO FUCKING READ? GO BACK AND READ HIS POST, YOU GOD-DAMNED TROLL.
I will wait for Rishaed...

I'm no gynecologist, but I know a cunt when I see one.

HE ALREADY TOLD YOU. ARE YOU UNABLE TO FUCKING READ? GO BACK AND READ HIS POST, YOU GOD-DAMNED TROLL.

loutil · Post by **loutil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:40 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
rishaed wrote:Found something interesting would like Woodruff's take on it
http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
I'm confused...do you think I'm upset about the Zimmerman verdict for some reason?
You've been trolling against it 24-7?

I guess you have everyone fooled. Take a look at what you write and who you attack and who you defend and all the BS points you try to make.... we all come to the same conclusion. You've only been harassing Zimmerman supporters.

If you ask me, with all the stuff you keep admitting you "did not know" and the things you say you "forgot" I don't think you even qualify for having a valid opinion in the first place.
So this is your best effort at proving that you're illiterate? Here, take a gander at FIFTEEN POSTS about what I have ACTUALLY said:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... e#p4229911

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p4231530

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... o#p4231530

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p4232241

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... g#p4232513

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p4232744

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... e#p4234427

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... s#p4234454

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... s#p4234526

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... e#p4234526

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... n#p4234807

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... r#p4235193

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... e#p4235194

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... e#p4236029

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... n#p4237684

Now, you dishonest motherfucker, how about you answer each of those posts of mine with an explanation about how each one constitutes your charge that I've been "trolling against the verdict 24/7". Or will you just be your normal chickenshit self and not bother to respond at all?

For all the times you throw the "troll" word around, you really are the most trollish, dishonest motherfucker I've ever met in my life. Do you ever get tired of being wrong, Mr "just the facts please unless I don't like them"?

I took the time to read all your post listed here. Quite an interesting read I might add and in some ways your opinions move around quite a bit. It feels to me like you sometimes enjoy the intellectual argument and move your opinions around a bit to justify the "verbal assaults". You do mention you think he is guilty of something but never articulate exactly what that is? You justify his shooting in self defense but continue to swing at me who has stood on that same ground. You agree the prosecution erred but will not recognize the bias brought by the judge. You aggressively defend your feelings and opinions but call me out for defending Zimmerman "beyond reason". You refer to Zimmermans behavior as idiotic but also suggest he would have followed Martin even without his gun as he was the neighborhood watch person. You mention you convicted him in your mind early on but changed that opinion as more facts came out. Even with that you keep saying it was Zimmerman's fault more than Trayvon. Anyway...argue onward

...

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:22 pm

loutil wrote:I took the time to read all your post listed here. Quite an interesting read I might add and in some ways your opinions move around quite a bit. It feels to me like you sometimes enjoy the intellectual argument and move your opinions around a bit to justify the "verbal assaults".

I'd be curious as to which opinions you feel I've "moved around".

loutil wrote:You do mention you think he is guilty of something but never articulate exactly what that is?

Sure I do. He's guilty of having a significant hand in creating the situation which resulted in the death of Martin.

loutil wrote:You justify his shooting in self defense but continue to swing at me who has stood on that same ground.

I suspect that isn't actually what I was having a problem with in your statements. Perhaps you can point some out for me?

loutil wrote:You agree the prosecution erred but will not recognize the bias brought by the judge.

Good Lord...are all you ultra-conservative trolls the same? Do you have meetings somewhere where you get together and try to figure out who is going to make up which shit about what Woodruff has said? It's like you guys enjoy looking retarded...perhaps you don't think I'll bother to point out your lies? Here you go, dumbass:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... n#p4228105

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... n#p4238474

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... n#p4239075

loutil wrote:You refer to Zimmermans behavior as idiotic but also suggest he would have followed Martin even without his gun as he was the neighborhood watch person.

That's not at all a contradiction. I think that Zimmerman would have idiotically followed Martin whether he was carrying a weapon or not.

loutil wrote:You mention you convicted him in your mind early on but changed that opinion as more facts came out.

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? I should have unwaveringly refused to look at the facts?

loutil wrote:Even with that you keep saying it was Zimmerman's fault more than Trayvon.

If Zimmerman remains in his vehicle (he was not acting as a Neighborhood Watchman at the time), Martin almost certainly doesn't die from that situation. I don't hold Martin innocent at all, but I do hold Zimmerman to be more at fault for basically inserting himself to create the situation, yes.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:23 pm

Woodruff wrote:Now, you dishonest motherfucker, how about you answer each of those posts of mine with an explanation about how each one constitutes your charge that I've been "trolling against the verdict 24/7". Or will you just be your normal chickenshit self and not bother to respond at all?

And...nothing. Shocking. Dishonest fucking coward.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:35 pm

Funny how you cherry pick the few posts that weren't. Funnier still how hardly a single one of those includes your responses to me or loutil. That's the only reason I even looked at your cherry pickings, because I knew they weren't the posts made to me or others, because they were all troll.

You say things that you don't believe just to get a rise out of people. Like that one time I copy n pasted something you wrote and just changed a couple words, and you went apeshit on your own post thinking it was mine.

Why don't you show us how many posts you challenged a Trayvon supporter? And then how many pages and pages you went on harassing Zimmerman supporters, and then lest add them up and compare.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:42 pm

Woodruff wrote:
If Zimmerman remains in his vehicle (he was not acting as a Neighborhood Watchman at the time), Martin almost certainly doesn't die from that situation. I don't hold Martin innocent at all, but I do hold Zimmerman to be more at fault for basically inserting himself to create the situation, yes.

Just like if Trayvon did not physically attack Zimmerman, or just went home, or just said "I'm going home".....He almost certainly doesn't die from that situation either.

How much fault do you find with Trayvon? He threw the first punch, right? How about going further, and slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete? any fault there?

oh, and how did you vote btw? Should clear everything right up.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:19 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
If Zimmerman remains in his vehicle (he was not acting as a Neighborhood Watchman at the time), Martin almost certainly doesn't die from that situation. I don't hold Martin innocent at all, but I do hold Zimmerman to be more at fault for basically inserting himself to create the situation, yes.
Just like if Trayvon did not physically attack Zimmerman, or just went home, or just said "I'm going home".....He almost certainly doesn't die from that situation either.

No shit, Sherlock. The brilliance of your third-grade education is overwhelming. I love how you state the obvious with such a sense of discovery.

Phatscotty wrote:oh, and how did you vote btw? Should clear everything right up.

For several weeks, I was the only "I agree and am mostly liberal" vote. Did that "clear everything right up", you smarmy fucking troll?

Tell me, Phatscotty...if I threw you a going-away party, would you?

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:47 pm

Phatscotty wrote:oh, and how did you vote btw? Should clear everything right up.

Woodruff wrote:For several weeks, I was the only "I agree and am mostly liberal" vote.

I knew it!

Anyways, this is turning into a freak show. I barely want to bother continuing to follow the story with this new juror who found Zimmerman not guilty, but "feels" like he is guilty.

Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder'

oVo · Post by **oVo** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:53 pm

Phatscotty wrote:How much fault do you find with Trayvon? He threw the first punch, right?

Nobody knows the truth of how the fight started,
but Zimmerman.

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:07 pm

oVo wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How much fault do you find with Trayvon? He threw the first punch, right?
Nobody knows the truth of how the fight started,
but Zimmerman.

Everybody knows Trayvon had no injuries other than on his punching knuckles.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:22 pm

Phatscotty wrote: Anyways, this is turning into a freak show. I barely want to bother continuing to follow the story with this new juror who found Zimmerman not guilty, but "feels" like he is guilty.

Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder'

Yeah, I saw that too. The ONLY thing I can think of as to why this juror is saying these things is because perhaps she's worried about reactions from within her family/community and she's trying to stave them off? Otherwise, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:23 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
oVo wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How much fault do you find with Trayvon? He threw the first punch, right?
Nobody knows the truth of how the fight started,
but Zimmerman.
Everybody knows Trayvon had no injuries other than on his punching knuckles.

Well...there was one other gaping wound.

patches70 · Post by **patches70** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:42 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: Anyways, this is turning into a freak show. I barely want to bother continuing to follow the story with this new juror who found Zimmerman not guilty, but "feels" like he is guilty.

Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder'
Yeah, I saw that too. The ONLY thing I can think of as to why this juror is saying these things is because perhaps she's worried about reactions from within her family/community and she's trying to stave them off? Otherwise, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Is that the only way you could think of why this juror said those things? You are aware that this was based on interviews on air with Good Morning America. You are aware that the taped interview is edited?

The below link is from slate.com, part of Slate magazine, and leans toward the liberal POV. They bring up some interesting points about the interview with juror B29. And considering how the media likes to stir things up and use editing to get the reactions and quotes they want to drum up sales and viewership, one may be able to start seeing a certain trend when it comes to the media and this particular case.
Decide for yourself I guess.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ramed.html

Needless to say, juror B29 stands by the verdict. Something I don't know if was made clear in her GMA interview.

Juan_Bottom · Post by **Juan_Bottom** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:02 pm

It's the John Brown question.

The question wasn't necessarily "Did John Brown free slaves in an attempt to stir up rebellion?"
Yeah, he did, but:
To him the issue was "Is it really legal to enslave people?"
No, it's not. The law of conscience is more important than that of the laws of Virginia, therefor it cannot be wrong to free enslaved people. That was his train of thought.

John Brown never gave a confession of a crime; what he gave was a point-by-point retelling of a courageous act of pre-planned martyrdom. His belief was that the law was what was in the wrong, not that he was in the wrong. Because of his reasoning, he believed that his courtroom retelling wasn't a confession; it was an attack on the law and the people hiding behind it.

And so it is with the juror. The law legalized shooting unarmed black teenagers, and so her decision was based solely on that law. It wasn't a question of whether the law was just. She believes that the law is bullshit, but also believes that the law must be obeyed. That's why her conscience is hurting. She let herself down.
If you put me on a jury, my first duty will be to my conscience. Will yours?

patrickaa317 · Post by **patrickaa317** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:03 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
oVo wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:How much fault do you find with Trayvon? He threw the first punch, right?
Nobody knows the truth of how the fight started,
but Zimmerman.
Everybody knows Trayvon had no injuries other than on his punching knuckles.
Well...there was one other gaping wound.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this is not how the fight started though, so that gaping wound is irrelevant to how the fight started. Though that is a good indication as to how it ended.

patches70 · Post by **patches70** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:27 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's the John Brown question.

The question wasn't necessarily "Did John Brown free slaves in an attempt to stir up rebellion?"
Yeah, he did, but:
To him the issue was "Is it really legal to enslave people?"
No, it's not. The law of conscience is more important than that of the laws of Virginia, therefor it cannot be wrong to free enslaved people. That was his train of thought.

Hayward Shepherd, the first man killed by John Brown's raiders. Was it right to kill Mr Shepherd?

Juan wrote:John Brown never gave a confession of a crime; what he gave was a point-by-point retelling of a courageous act of pre-planned martyrdom. His belief was that the law was what was in the wrong, not that he was in the wrong. Because of his reasoning, he believed that his courtroom retelling wasn't a confession; it was an attack on the law and the people hiding behind it.

Which justified the murder of Hayward Shepherd? He was just a baggage handler, never owned a slave in his life.

juan wrote: If you put me on a jury, my first duty will be to my conscience.

Wow....that's just...wow.

rishaed · Post by **rishaed** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:40 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's the John Brown question.

The question wasn't necessarily "Did John Brown free slaves in an attempt to stir up rebellion?"
Yeah, he did, but:
To him the issue was "Is it really legal to enslave people?"
No, it's not. The law of conscience is more important than that of the laws of Virginia, therefor it cannot be wrong to free enslaved people. That was his train of thought.

John Brown never gave a confession of a crime; what he gave was a point-by-point retelling of a courageous act of pre-planned martyrdom. His belief was that the law was what was in the wrong, not that he was in the wrong. Because of his reasoning, he believed that his courtroom retelling wasn't a confession; it was an attack on the law and the people hiding behind it.

And so it is with the juror. The law legalized shooting unarmed black teenagers, and so her decision was based solely on that law. It wasn't a question of whether the law was just. She believes that the law is bullshit, but also believes that the law must be obeyed. That's why her conscience is hurting. She let herself down.
If you put me on a jury, my first duty will be to my conscience. Will yours?

This post makes sense at first, but I must disagree here. John Brown had many options to go about freeing slaves. The ends do not justify the means. If I lie, steal, and cheat to win a court case my "victory" is tainted, and the end result is worthless. John Brown did not have to kill to achieve black freedom. There were many other ways to achieve passive resistance (as shown by Ghandi) than to take force with violence and murder. The Underground Railroad freed more slaves than John Brown ever did, and not only did it in violation of the laws of the time, they did not break another law to do so. (Murder).
The juror, found it very much the same way Woodruff does.
Is Zimmerman responsible in some way, either largely or in a minor case, of the death of Trayvon Martin? Yes.
Did Zimmerman break the law to defend himself? No.
The law does not legalize shooting unarmed black teenagers you ignorant idiot. If you would actually read this thread and stop inserting race in here, you would have realized that race had nothing to do with it.
The LAW legalizes, base on Castle Law, (Your home is your castle), that you may defend yourself, even lethally, if you feel that you are in danger of Death, a/o are having severe bodily harm being inflicted upon you.
Things like death threats fall under a different law, and are not justifiably by themselves reason to defend yourself, though you may call the police, or defend yourself if there are actions that prove that they are not threats, but an immediate danger. (Laws do vary by state, and I'm not quoting verbatim. Its common sense. (These are things paraphrased in my own words, I did not bother to look up the sections of the law on these so don't use it as a defense.)

And PS, how woodruff sees it is (as I understand) that:
Zimmerman is an idiot who largely is responsible for the death of trayvon martin, and let the situation develop into what it did.
However Zimmerman did not break any laws by defending himself from Martin who was assaulting him and put him in fear of his life, thus justifying the self defense.
If Woodruff feels like anything in this statement is wrong he is more than welcome to correct it.

Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

Concerning Zimmerman Verdict

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Re: Zimmerman

Re: Zimmerman: B-29

Re: Zimmerman: B-29