Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The lien holder on people could be a spouse, but the primary lien holder is the entity that you have to ask permission from to get a marriage license.
Why Has No One Killed George Zimmerman?
- Thread starter Rrog
- Start date
The lien holder on people could be a spouse, but the primary lien holder is the entity that you have to ask permission from to get a marriage license.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Do you keep her chained in the basement or does her leash extend to the kitchen sink and the stove ?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Yes but that`s where I came from, and you too. I don`t want a Pyrex label.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Parking lot at minimum. (someone`s clearing the snow in the winter.)
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're not gonna tell me why it is moral to own slaves?
maybe you can tell us about your day of work making subway sandwiches for customers?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
bitter bigot is bitter.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Climategate"
Dummies like you think they fabricated data, even though 11 different investigations into it found no wrongdoing
So where's your respect for the law there?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i got one even better.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/va-supreme-court-rejects-cuccinellis-bid-for-u-va-documents/2012/03/02/gIQAmo8inR_story.html
you remember ken cuccinelli, right?
he did sure climate scientists. his retarded hissy fit was tossed out by the virginia supreme court.
i'm gonna go back and find the quotes from kkkynes and others telling us all how this would be the end for the climate change hoax.
budlover13
King Tut
Try to bait much?
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
I do not accept the grammar of your question.
Owning a slave would not be a positive moral act. For instance, it is moral to donate money for those who need it. That is a positive action taken which leads to a human who needs help getting help.
Owning a slave is not a morally positive action.
How can I spend all day "making subs" when I spend all day at the "call center," numbnuts?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
What law? The laws of physics? The laws of nature?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Are you having a hard time following along?
In Rrog's original post, he was wondering why nobody has harmed Zimmerman yet, on account of him being a douche. You chimed in about someone being acquitted after an investigation but still being seen as guilty, yet you don't hold the same standard for the "climategate" investigations or the investigations into Planned Parenthood that all found no wrongdoing was committed. You still believe the conspiracy theory that they fabricated the numbers to make the case for anthropogenic climate change stronger, and you still believe PP sold baby parts for profit, do you not?
Would you mind explaining that glaring double standard for the rest of us?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Are you drunk?
We were talking about criminal cases.
The fact that you think the numbers were or were not manipulated in documents related to global warming has no effect on whether a global warming theory is correct.
Baby parts are being sold to companies, that is pretty clear. The fact that the government decided it was not illegal does not change the moral implications.
This argument shows your level of desperation.. pathetic
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
We're talking about how you cried about someone's allusion towards committing violence against Zimmerman because you align with him politically because he was acquitted for Martin's murder, but still believe that UEA fabricated data and that PP sells baby parts for profit, even though almost a dozen investigations into the two says otherwise
Simply put, you're being inconsistent. Adding the "criminal" element is your attempt at moving the goalposts when that aspect of this isn't even relevant to the point I'm making.
Ace Yonder
Well-Known Member
So when the government decides that what Zimmerman did was not illegal that DOES change the moral implications?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The government didnt decide anything. A jury of Zimmermans peers determined he was not guilty of murder.
Morally I belive that Zimmerman was in the right and I dont think the government nor laws have anything to do with morality. Smoking pot is illegal in most places. Do you think it is morally wrong? When they legalize it will it be morally right? You are confusing concepts here.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You are making many assumptions and mistakes here. I have no idea what Zimmermans politics are.
It doesnt matter what color either person is in a confrontation, it doesnt matter what their religion is, their sexuality, their sex, etc.
If someone is assaulted by another person they have a right to defend themselves.
You believe that if the assaulter is a minority then the victim does not have a right to defend themselves due to social justice or some other fucked up thing. I cant help you with that because you are the one inserting politics into it.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm sure that'll be in your manifesto the cops recover from your body after the inevitable confrontation because of "social justice"
Michael Huntherz
Well-Known Member
Hi there, Zimmerman wasn't assaulted, that's not even up for debate. Florida's law is an extremist reactionary sort of law, it needs to be reformed. You're either being disingenuous, or you are a violent asshole with little to no compassion for other human beings, and probably a racist.
Elwood Diggler
Well-Known Member
another thread proving republicans are no longer useful idiots
first thing hillary needs to do once elected is push for iq tests for voting privileges
something needs to be done to rein in the fucking stupidity and neutralize them from further harming society
first thing hillary needs to do once elected is push for iq tests for voting privileges
something needs to be done to rein in the fucking stupidity and neutralize them from further harming society