Posted on 07/16/2013 9:30:04 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I’m so happy this is posted.
The absolute best of TV.
Leo Terrell on the right side of the law.
Juan Williams will long remember this smack down....lol.
SAVING!
Consider if the gun had been pointed the opposite way when it went off.
Would Trayvon have walked? Most likely, if the jury were fair. After all, no one saw it start. So, no one can contradict the defendant's story.
A lawyered-up Trayvon would have said he was in fear of his life when the creepy ass cracka jumped him and was about to shoot him, except he grabbed the gun and twisted it around at the last second.
Of course, there would have been a lot of dirt in Trayvon's background, but a good defense lawyer and a liberal judge could keep all that from the jury. So, the jury would come to the only logical conclusion, compassion be damned! (Actually, the only just conclusion, even with the dirt, but we have to consider low-information probabilities.)
Of course, one major difference: you wouldn't have heard about unless you lived in Sanford and were a local news junkie (most news junkies are not local news junkies).
Leo Terrel must be a racist..../S
If you're going to construct a martyr for your movement, it doesn't do any good to have a misfit loser in that role.
I wonder if some of these guys are worried that Trayvon Martin is a terrible “icon victim” for the civil rights movement and will end up solidifying support for Zimmerman.
If you’re going to construct a martyr for your movement, it doesn’t do any good to have a misfit loser in that role.
It’s worked so far having one as President, sans the martyr bit....
Amazing: Juan says that Z should have pulled the gun early in the confrontation and threatened T who would have backed off.
The problem with the likes of Juan Williams is that they lie from the first time they open their mouths to the last. He should be stopped at the first lie and not allowed to continue until it is corrected.
Who will be the first host who insists on proper decorum; as in
He talks, then someone else talks, then someone else talks?
When three people talk at once, it’s pretty clear that the host is not really interested in allowing opinions to be aired.
Can anyone explain to me the value of having several people talking / screaming at once?
It gives intelligent people a clear marker for when to use the "OFF" switch.
“Fox allows deranged liberals to make fools of themselves on national TV just to allow comparison to educated conservatives”.
Bill O’Reilly is almost as liberal as Juan Williams. He goes out of his way not to “offend” Obamagabe. He goes against his Catholic faith and believes it’s fine for homosexuals to adopt children. He has said that homosexual “marriage” will not bother him. He will not declare that marriage was instituted by God and is one man and one woman. He believes it’s fine to murder an unborn child if the “mother’s health is in danger” again going against his Catholic faith. Finally in the Zimmerman case he has said Zimmerman was WRONG to get out of his car and follow Martin, when there is nothing at all illegal about leaving your car and following anyone you damn well feel like following, especially if you’re a neighborhood watchman. I am not really a big fan of blowhard Hannity, but at least he does not kiss Obama’s rear end the way BOR does.
The idiot probably still doesn’t understand what happened. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.