RobertNashville

That's why I don't let strangers into my house. ;)

The prosecution never really had a case...the original DA knew it and that's why Zimmerman wasn't charged in the first place. Now, DAs are political animals and that cannot help but influence their decisions on occasion but most DAs don't like to lose cases and won't usually file charges unless they see a real case there.  How much of the original DA's decision was based on evidence or on politics we can't know but following the DA shopping and eventual enlightenment some of the best political minds in the country tore the indictment to shreds. All that to say; if you don't have a real case you probably aren't going to find really good "experts" because in situations like that what you generally wind up with are expert witness prostitutes who will say whatever they are paid to say...I think that's what we saw in the prosecution's case.  The combined that with a bunch of "witnesses" who all had an ax to grind like TM's mother and that idiot girlfriend, etc.  The only witnesses that did a good job on the stand were the police, etc.and they did more to bolster Zimmerman than they did Martin. When the law is on your side, pound on the law.   When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts   When neither is on your side, pound on emotion or whatever will make the defense look bad.   I think we can see clearly what this prosecution did.

Yes, the Libertarian Party is an established political party; and a pretty ineffective one overall. 139 Libertarians holding office is good but out of how many available (I've heard of estimates as high as 500,000)?   The "Tea Party" is not and I hope never becomes an established political party...they don't need to be...that isn't their purpose. Since they aren't a political party comparing them to the Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican party is a fairly worthless comparison.   As to Rubio, he's a disaster but is it the Tea Party's fault that he  turned out to be a liar? Perhaps rather than citing old stories about Rubio you might want to look for stories about how those who identify themselves as members of the Tea Party (like me) feal about the SOB now. Surely there have been Libertarians who promised one thing and then showed their real stripes later hasn't there????  Rand Paul is no better...he was supporting the Immigration Bill too and he's made it pretty clear that he is on board with something similar to what was passed so as far as I'm concerned, Paul is just as bad and as tarnished as Rubio at this point and I'll never vote for him (which is sad because I was really liking him then).

Well, self-appointed "leaders of the black community" have spent the last 40+ years telling blacks that it's all about race...that EVERYTHING is about race and that all black people are victims.   Given that, of course black people are going to want the "white-Hispanic" convicted...evidence doesn't matter when it's all about race.

I have...I've also met very mild/friendly drunks and some very mean, violent ones.  Generalizations are fine when talking about groups but when you introduce a chemical, any chemical, into a single person's body there is no way to know how it will affect him.

1911s is the greatest semi-auto pistol design in the history or mankind.  I have a few....I love them.   I also have a few Glocks too because they work pretty much no matter what I do (or even don't do) to them and if I ever have to shoo someone I'd rather lose a $500 Glock than a $2,500 custom 1911..   More importantly, only .45ACP or 10MM is worthy of being carried.   Camaro's are FAR better than Mustangs and most Corvettes for that matter (mostly because Corvette owners tend to be assholes).   Finally, Marry Ann is better than Ginger any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I am not at the point where I don't vote...in fact I believe I've only missed two elections in my whole life and those were primaries and while I was deployed.   That said...I'm finding fewer and fewer reasons to believe that there are enough good candidates who actually win to make a difference (assuming they even bother to keep to the principles they claim they have).

Well, the one you claim he called "names" has been doing the same in multiple threads that have dealt with the subject of homosexuality...I'm not saying it's right for anyone to do it but in this case it's hardly a one way street.

Actually, the news just reported that the ME's report said he had enough THC in his system to make TM feel paranoid but I guess that some J4T folks still grabbing at straws have a different definition of "trace amounts". ;)

especially if he's a 6'6" 350 homosexual looking for a date.

That picture says about all we need to know about sweet little Trayvon and as for being vulgar, just look at the picture for a perfect example of it.

  Cops should not be trampling your rights but they are not there to protect them as much as they are there to solve problems and do a job which often involves taking people to jail; sometimes for very minor things just to solve the immediate problem (like a know-it-all who wants to argue rights which is actually only impeding the cop from doing his job).   It's the court's job to administer justice IAW the Constitution and that is where you rights are protected.  Arguing "rights" with a LEO is simply a dumb thing to do - at that moment, the LEO has all the power; you have none. You may prove yourself right or be proven right in the end but it may well be after a night or a weekend in jail with "Bubba".

Well of course they are, they have no real evidence so what else can they do but concentrate on innuendo!

I don't see his position as disingenuous but at the very least, it's no more so than someone who has made it clear in this and other threads that he has a real problem with "gays" but seems very willing to turn a blind eye to other sins. :shrug:

So let them know about it with a civil lawsuit or file a formal complaint with the department management...the side of the road is NOT the place whether the citizen is polite or an ass.

You are right; there isn't an answer you can give because... 1. Because your two positions on repentance seem to be in direct conflict with each other, and, 2. Because you keep changing the question/introducing new elements into the mix making answering the original question moot.

Look, You can keep posting videos all day long...I'm not arguing and never have argued that there aren't abuses of people's rights by police...they happen...but it doesn't change my opinion about where and how to handle them.

Who said anything about determining eternal damnation or salvation?  Who is changing the argument now as you accused TMF of doing? Clearly you are doing his job; you've made it clear in other threads that you don't want "unrepentant" homosexuals in your church...you offer a pass to a glutton if his weight is due to his "modern" lifestyle yet offer none to a homosexual, practicing or not.   Based on your prior statements, you get your panties in a wad over homosexuals while taking a cavalier attitude toward other sins.   You've stated...   If "repentance" is the "crux of the issue" then I ask again how can YOU know if someone is truly repentant or not?   I submit that, unless St Peter is whispering in your ear, you cannot know and if you cannot know then repentance or lack of it cannot be a legitimate part of the equation.   Since we've now eliminated repentance from the equation I ask again; since you don't care about the cause/the cause doesn't matter then are you are going to start demanding that fat people (and heterosexuals who engage in premarital or extramarital sex, anyone who has ever told a lie, those who covet what their neighbors have, those who have false gods like their TV or video games) leave your church?

Again, you deal with it in court.   Make them get a warrant to search your vehicle...don't consent...that helps you if they search anyway/get a warrant and "find" something.   Taking those kinds of actions are the only thing that will stop actual harassment.

There are some bad cops...probably always have been and always will but those situations are what courtrooms are for...the side of the road or in the pull-off area of a checkpoint is not the place to teach the police a lesson in civil rights.

  How often has anyone on this (or any other forum) ever changed their position about anything (you old coot)?  ;)   On a somewhat more serious note, I've lived in several different states, spent time (sometimes significant time) is many, many different countries; served eight years in uniform and still do in a small way; obtained multiple degrees including two graduate degrees; worked for some of the largest companies in the world; read literally hundreds and hundreds of books; faced death and watched many friends die and basically spent the better part of 60 years in forming my opinions and positions on various issues.  Now I know some will disagree but I'm not such an elitist or so self-centered that I am incapable of changing my mind about something...only a fool is that that set in his positions.  But, I'm not going to change my opinion just because of what someone or even a lot of "someones" say on the internet. :pleased:

Giving up YouTube is giving up a lot...there is a huge amount of very worthwhile information available on YouTube that you give up if you decide to now use it...it's about like refusing to have a cell phone because you get phone calls you don't want. Sure, telemarketing calls and wrong numbers are irritating but you give up both a lot of convenience AND possibly even life-saving help if you refuse to have a cell phone but I can almost guarantee you that every cell phone maker and every cell service provider either openly supports homosexuals or at least offers them the same health care benefits, etc. as heterosexuals. I guess what I'm wondering is, where does the boycotting stop? How do you decide what business you won't use anymore because, as I said above, just about every business that exists today, in one way or another, "supports" the homosexual lifestyle. :shrug:

Then why do you keep doing HIS job?

If I might send the thread back into the direction of the original issue; for a moment at least...   If someone wants to stop using a service because they support the "gay community" of for any other reason that's fine...I'm not much into boycotts myself because both people and businesses have a right to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests.  If some business wants to "support" gays then so be it.  I would submit, however, that if you are going to take this kind of stand you ought to be consistent, yes?   If you are going to be consistent then you might want to bear in mind that you could probably pick ANY business that exists today and if you look hard enough I'd wager that 98 times our of 100 you can find something...some societal issue or political stance the business takes or has taken that you'll have a problem with because it goes against your views.   So....if you are going to stop using any business that does do something counter to your views you had better be pretty damn self-sufficient...build your own cell phones, make your own cloths...grow all your own food...make your own electricity (or do without), etc.   Of course, if "gays" are the only thing you have a problem with then I guess consistency doesn't really play a part. ;)

I've no problem with getting druggies (especially those using at that moment) off the street...under the "influence" is under the influence regardless of what the agent is.   Pretty much the same with warrants...they are usually issued for a reason and getting a wanted person off the street is a "win" too.   Cash is another issue but if it's really the result of illegal acts then it needs to be confiscated.