The_Patriot21

yes, but your tendency when followed would be to run, and call the cops, I would. the fact that Martin did not call the cops, and instead confronted zimmerman, shows a mistake on his part, following a mistake on zimmermans part. Im not ignoring zimmermans past here at all-It just hasnt come up. and, while your right, a hoodie doesnt make one dressed like a ganster, but often times its associated with it, but your right that it was a poor choice of words on my part, though I like how you ignored the rest of my point on his clothing, that it wasnt necessarily the clothing but the location-like I said, in some parts of town, where I live, you see lots of people with hoodies on at night-no one thinks twice about it, but there are some areas where seeing anyone out walking at night-especially in february, is suspicious-especially if their wearing a hoodie, because theyre higher end neighborhoods, hoodies arnt considered acceptable clothing in the first place, and they dont go out at night to walk-if they go out at night they drive. The fact is, I think they both screwed up and both made a mistake, which lead to a unfortunate incident that cost martin his life. I honestly dont think there was any animosity there at all. and regardless, I think zimmerman has the right to sue NBC, guilty or not.

Point 1 is valid. If your driving home, and you see a strange man you dont know-dressed like a ganster, especially in an area where you don't see many people dressed like that, it could very well be suspicious. I agree, he should have just called the cops and stayed back-the cops could then come in, and check the guys ID and story, and if hes got a right to be there, no harm done, if he is up to something wrong then again, the cops can handle it. We can both agree, Zimmerman should have never gotten out of the car. Call the cops, and let them deal with it-thats not a violation of anyones rights, and it is playing safe, thats what the police are there for. Point 2 it does matter because it goes to frame of mind. A honest person with no criminal history, when seeing someone follow them will flee the scene, and call the cops. Someone with a criminal past, often hate cops, and prefer to handle situations themselves, even if they arnt doing anything wrong that day. This guy did initially try to shake zimmerman-which could have raised zimmermans suspicions, but then chose to confront zimmerman when he got out of the car. If he had tried to flee, and zimmerman did want to kill him, then martin would have been shot in the back and there would be no scrapes or bruises, and if zimmerman was honest and he tried to flee, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Its pretty apparent, that martin would rather confront danger himself then do what the average citizen would do, and call the cops, its a pretty common mindset among people with his criminal history-I used to work in a correctional center, I know a lot of people like that. Im not necessarily judging him-but it is a general mindset, they think the cops are all out to get them. excuse me, but point 3 is valid-this is a free country, if martin had a right to be there, then so did zimmerman. End of story. This isnt about "gated community" or any of that nonsense. Martin had the right to be there-but so did zimmerman, and zimmerman also had the right to call the cops if he saw anything suspicious, his mistake, was getting out of the car. Point 4, ive already agreed the police investigation was lousy from the start, those officers should be fired for their lousy investigation. There were scrapes, and signs of a struggle however. So this wasnt just a zimmerman jump out and kill a guy-something more went on. I still hold to my theory that it was a case of a over zealous self appointed neighborhood watchman, who made a few mistakes, combined with a overly paranoid person, that led to a fight, and then a death. And hoodies may indeed be popular in florida-theyre popular everywhere, but look where he was. Even where I live there are people who wear hoodies-but for example, in downtown you see a lot of them, its pretty common. You see some dude at night with a hoodie in some of our richer neighborhoods however, it looks suspicious-in fact, in the neighborhood by our golf course which is the richest in town-you see anyone walking around at night, it tends to look a little suspicious, it doesnt happen very often. The point is, something about martin aroused suspicion on zimmermans part-because there is no evidence to date that zimmerman knew the guy-and zimmerman, first called the cops-which he had the right to do, and then got out of the car, which was stupid, no matter how you look at it. Even if martin was up to no good, stepping out of the car just puts you in harms way for no good reason-martin wasnt actively threatening anyone at the time.

however, the sarcasm brings outa good point-yes martin had a right to be there, however, zimmerman-didnt know this, point 1. Point 2, martin, did have a history of drugs and violence. Point 3, zimmerman, had a right to be there as well. Point 4, zimmerman was assaulted-the evidence does point to that. Now, we dont know he was assaulted first, but the fact is zimmerman HAD a gun, if he just wanted to shoot the guy, then there would have been no evidence of zimmerman being attacked-no scrapes along the back of the head. Now, its night, martin was not dressed like most people of the neighborhood, and was by all reports-acting a little suspicious, so its very possible that Zimmerman actually thought he was up to no good. The argument isnt who had a right to be there, but who threw the first punch-which, even without the medias intervention is hard to say because the police did such a lousy investigation (which just fueled the controversey) they didnt even confiscate the gun-which is rule number one ANY time theres a shooting, regardless of the situation. My honest opinion, Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing-and was a little zealous, and saw this guy acting suspicious and started following him. Martin, especially with his past, saw he was being followed, got jumpy and started trying to evade not knowing who zimmerman was. Then zimmerman called the cops-not a bad thing, thats what your supposed to do if you feel somethings up, but then he made the mistake of getting out of the car. If he hadnt, and let the cops deal with it, this wouldnt of happened-the cops wouldve dealt with it, but instead he chose to be over zealous, and get out of the car-and martin, already paranoid thinks zimmermans after him, but instead of calling the police himself, assaults him, which leads to him being shot. That is my personal opinion from what Ive seen, I dont know all the evidence, Im sure it hasnt all been released, and in the end thats what the judge and jury will decide. That is my opinion, in any case. Im not convinced either one had it in for the other, it was a combination of zimmerman being overzealous and martin being overly paranoid.

Ok all, I wasnt gonna do any more non-christmas music, but I just came across this 7 year old singing the star spangled banner on facebook, and its beautiful. Enjoy. [media=]

no im not making the same assumption, nor am I saying who was in the right. Im saying, the media took it, left off half the facts, and twisted the ones left to make Zimmerman to look like this big, racial murderer who killed martin just because he was black. Add into that the lousy police investigation, and it turns into a mess. Im saying, regardless of whether or not zimmerman was guilty or not, the media has turned it into such a fiasco it would be difficult for Zimmerman to get a fair trial, regardless, and that thats not right-the media, in all their stupidity, has pretty much trampled over Zimmermans rights, which are he is innocent until proven guilty, and he has a right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

I think there's just as much litigational danger for them with the termination as there is with the other liability. Might as well come out on the proper PR side of it as well. I agree, I think its a sticky situation either way on Autozones part I really do. Im not saying I agree with what they did, Im just saying I understand the logic behind it, thats all.

because, because of that horrible media story, that left out half the facts, (like the fact that he did show signs of being attacked) and twisted the ones they did post. It created so much controversey, that by now, everyone, like you, is already biased for, or against Zimmerman, and it would be hard to find a jury that isnt biased one way or the other. A jury, preferably, is made up of people that have no prior knowledge of the person being accused-that way, it helps remove biases, because biases cloud judgement. In this case, finding a group of such people is next to impossible-if the jury is made up of people who already think hes guilty, then they will go in thinking hes guilty, and even if he is innocent, the jury view is going to be very biased against him, and could very well end up sending a innocent man to prison. The reverse is also true, if the jury is all biased in thinking hes innocent, then again they will go in with a tainted view-and hes actually guilty, then theres the risk of letting a guilty man free. The only way to really "ensure" a fair trial right now is to try and split it down the middle-find half the jury who is biased against, and half who is biased for. The problem with that is it could end in a deadlock and create a mess, so no matter the outcome, a biased jury isnt justice, I dont care which way its biased for. Even if the jury goes in biased that hes guilty, and he actually is guilty, its still not justice-because they will send him to jail not because of the evidence or what he actually did, but because they are biased, which isnt justice.

so, just because other americans dont get a fair trial, its ok not to give him one? thats pretty cold hearted. Im sorry, but just because other americans didnt get what they deserved doesnt make it right for him not to-if two wrongs dont make a right, neither do 3.

It doesnt matter if he was guilty, two wrongs dont make a right. What the media did is wrong, and he is an american and garenteed a fair trial-which now is next to impossible to do. And what if your wrong-what if Zimmerman was in the right? now, even if found innocent-like walla said, his life will have that shadow brought over him. Even if Zimmerman was in the wrong, he is still supposed to have a fair trial, and the media twisting the facts like that is wrong. The media needs to be held in account, if zimmerman is guilty, so does he, but its not fair to judge a man from someone elses wrong actions-which is what a good portion of America, has been doing. Judgement based on a lie, which is what the media did-distorting the truth is a lie-is not a fair judgement, Zimmerman needs a fair trial, not one where the jury is made up of people who are going in already biased against the guy thanks to the media. If you were in his shoes, you wouldnt like it either.

Good, that was an excellent case of intentially lousy reporting and made the chancws of him getting a fair trial slim

I agree steve, I wasnt discussing the situation from the employees point of view, I see him as doing the right thing, Im saying I understand corporates point of view, THAT was what I was saying I understood. I agree with what that guy did, and would likely do the same, and if I lose my job, I lose my job. Im just saying, from the corporations point of view that they are stuck in a tight situation, because it opens them up to potential liability issues, after the fact-because if they reward him for what he did, it leaves open the door that other employees might start carrying guns on them or nearby in idea that in a similar situation they can get a pat on the back-and something might happen with one of them, and create a problem. On the other note, if they discipline the guy in anyway, like fire him which they did-everyone thinks them the bad guy. Its kind of a lose/lose situation for them Im afraid in todays world.

so, what your saying is, if they do wrong its ok for you? Im sorry, but the government is our authority-the house, the senate, and the president as a whole. Are they doing right? no, your right their not. But that doesnt excuse us not to. God doesn't expect us to only follow His commands when those in authority are doing the right thing-what they do is unimportant, what we do is-it doesnt matter what they do, it doesnt matter if they follow Jesus or not, what matters is whether we follow Him or not. we cannot change this world if we do not act, ourselves, like Christ would, we cannot expect others to do what we ourselves will not. I got news for you-I realize you are in the military, and I respect and thank you for that-but the military, is not a seperate entity, it is part of the US, you are a US citizen. As your job, your chain of command does indeed go to the secretary of defense, as a US citizen, you are under the laws of the US. As a Christian, you are called to show Christs love to all-even to the government and the people who you think dont deserve it and are doing a horrible job running a country, and being disrespectful, and expecting them to "do what Jesus would do" first isnt doing that, the buck starts with us, not them.

Just trying to balance the sentence out, 3 traits I want in our elected officials and 3 characteristics of the elected officials we are stuck with. Sorry, I just didn't have room for "overly blow dried, overly fake tanned, pompous, wasters of the people's money." LOL I realize this isnt your original statement, but that is in itself name calling, I wasnt going to be specific, it was a if the shoe fits wear it statement, but you did ask. And, like it or not, those officials are in authority over you-you say the law, but I got news for you, this is a republic, NOT a democracy, YOU didn't make the laws, the officials YOU elected (you being a general term referring to the voters in general) are the ones who make the law. So like it or not, you do need to respect them because they are in a position of authority. You can disagree with them-say you don't like their policys, and why you dont like them and what we need to do to help change-without being disrespectful or calling anyone overly fake tanned, pompous, or anything else.You dont have to agree with them but you should show respect-if for no other reason, then because its what Jesus would do.

The problem is the high rate of interest that they charge. People who end up feeling like they have to resort to a pay day loan or car title loan place don't make a lot of money as it is and they end up in a pickle. These joints are out to make a buck and believe me when you pay them you pay. They loan your paycheck PLUS interest. The problem is that I have seen people who end up not being able to pay back their pay check loan and the interest on time and the interest just keeps piling on at 21% and 21% keeps getting bigger and bigger. They know what they are doing. It is perfectly legal and when you take out those loans, they can get of control in a hurry. I would never use them, biblical or not. I totally agree with you-they charge an extreme high rate of interest, and I would never recomend using one, but on the other note, lets see why. First off, lets look at a bank-its interests are lower because they have underwriters, plus other sources of income, and as such they can afford to be choosy about who to give loans to-lower risk. Pay day loan companys, are, by princible-high risk, because unfortunatly, many people who use them are people who live paycheck to paycheck, and are bad with a budget, so the chances of getting their money back are far lower then a banks-and, unlike a bank, these loans are their only source of income-and many dont have underwriters backing them. And like Jade said, a lot of them, are also dishonest (theres dishonest bankers out there to, its just most banks are nationally controlled and have better checks and balances in place) people are greedy, and will take any chance to make an extra buck. and even the ones who are 100% honest and upfront, are out to make a buck-after all what busines isn't, if your business isnt making money, then it will go in the hole real quick. And thats good you never use them-I dont see them as biblical or unbiblical, just another way to make a buck, but its not a wise idea to use them because of the high rate of interest, its a fast way to ruin your credit score at the very least, even if you find an honest one, what happens if your company goes bankrupt and you don't get that next check-all the sudden your stuck with this huge amount of debt and interest you can't pay. Just not wise financial sense in the very least.

What I find amazing here is the amazing disrespect for our elected officials, coming from christians. Seriously, they are in a position of authority here-and you put them there. All these people are elected-which means we chose them. And if you decided not to vote, then you in essence voted for the side that won. Now you can disagree with them-but we should leave the name calling out of it, after all the bible says to respect those in authority over us, regardless if we agree with them or not.

They offer a service, and they charge for it, unlike banksthat is their only source of income, the interest. They arent taking advantage of anyone-theyre up front with how much they charge, and in many cases what happens when they you dont pay. They are there to make money-just like any other business, and just like any other business it varies as to how honest the owners are. as such I see nothing about them in and of themselves thats unbiblical. I dont think its a good idea to use one from a financial standpoint-for the reasons already mentioned but I dont think theyre unbiblical.

Alright, I love Rebecca St. James Christmas music, unfortunatly she hasnt released any videos, but her music is awesome, so heres one of my favorites to start december off with.

I can see both sides of the issue here, I really can. Its a tough call, but I think autozone in this case should really consider the intent of the law, and not the letter of the law. On the one hand jade is right it opens the company up to liability issues on the one hand-on the other, its done and over with, and no one got hurt by it, he didnt use unnecessary force, didnt chase after the guy or shoot him after he was no longer a threat. And the thing is, in that case it came out good-but, if they do nothing about it, then, all the sudden, other employees at other stores, get it in their head its ok for them to carry guns, and they may not be as responsible or clear headed with one and the next time could be a disaster. Its a tough call, on the one hand you don't want to punish the employee, but on the other hand, you dont want to turn all your autozones into the O.K. Corral. I still dont think I would have fired him though, in my mind he did the right thing-and if I was the employee I probably wouldve done the same thing-but I do understand the factors involved.

start a new topic, make a topic title in the title area, then in the text box copy and paste the link from youtube (or other video web sharing site) in the text box, and click reply, it should auto embed (in theory) It will not show up at first, that is ok and normal-all videos need to be approved before becoming visible, so dont be alarmed if its not, and depending on whos on it may be a day or so before it gets approved, but usually gets done much faster then that.

one of the few things hes said that I like. ..

actually, NASA has lead to a great deal of scientific and medical improvements over the years, so this doesnt surprise me in the least-go NASA.

First off runninggator, it is not arrogance, its the truth. Ive shown you what the Bible says. as far as the research thing, your a prime example of that-you havent done the research, which is quite obvious due to your zecheriah argument. Second off, its not arrogance, 3000 years of debate does not change the truth-the truth is what the Bible says, and not what I say. Third, Im not limiting God to anything-Im taking God at His word, which is something all Christians should do. I believe in a God who cannot lie-sure, He could have done it in six seconds, He could have done it in 6 million years, Im not saying He couldnt have. What I am saying is the Bible says that God created the earth in 6 literal, days roughly 6000 years ago, and who am I to call Him a liar. God sait it, it happened, and thats that. To suggest otherwise, is trying to apply our worldly understanding on the Bible. To say that God couldnt have done it in 6000 years, and didnt, even though He said He did, is limiting God, putting Him in a box-and furthermore, calling him liar, in my mind. You are trying to force a worldly understanding on the Bible, and it does not work, there is no way you can fit millions of years into the context. If you think it is, then you have either not done the research, or you have been thoroughly deceived. And moss is bringing up a good point here, this discussion is going nowhere, you wont listen to valid arguments, you make invalid arguments, when possible, and smart alec comments and attacks everwhere else. If that is the extent of your debate skills, then this discussion needs to end before either one of us becomes angry and becomes tempted to sin in our anger. to that note, I am out. God bless, your brother in Christ the_patriot2012.

Tough call for Israel, but I am glad the US is at least backing Israel on this one.

and, as far as the 24 hour days, lets break it down. Every day of creation, is followed by and the evening and the morning, were the first day. Now, in ancient Israel, the day was counted as from the evening to the morning-thats how they differentiated days (this is found in other parts of the Bible as well as external sources) and every time a jew was to say in the evening and the morning, its to refer to a literal 24 hour day. Only time this is questioned is in Genesis, for no logical reason. But, if thats not enough for you, lets look at the hebrew word for day-which is Yom. Yom, in the Bible is used both figuratively and literally, to both mean a literal day, and figuretively, like in the day of noah. The context, is what tells if its literal or figurative. Any time in Hebrew text, especially in the Bible, if the word yom is preceded by a number, it always refers to a literal 24 hour day, and if in the Bible the first day, the second day, so on and so forth. Yet, again the only place this is questioned, is in Genesis, which is bizarre, because God doesnt just use 1 reference to a literal 24 hour day, but two, for each day. If thats not enough, lets look at the Hebrew yomin, which is the plural of days. Again, it is used both figuratively, and literally, dependent on context. And context wise, every single time without fail the word yomin is used after a number, it is used to mean literal, consecutive days. So, lets jump over to Exodus 20:11 which reads: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it, so now that we have established, in context, that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days from there it is simple enough for anyone to follow the generations all the way up to Jesus day, which is roughly 4000 years (the only variable is how long adam and eve were in the garden, which most scholars believe was around 150 years. as far as time Ruck, lets use some logic here. Who created time? God did. God created time, God created the 24 hour day. And then God, said that he created the earth, in 6 literal, 24 hour days. Do we know what time is without God telling us what it is? no. without God we would have no idea how long a day would be. For example, if your friend drove to your house and it took him 3 days, and he told you so, you wouldnt say thats preposterous, it must have taken you 5 days, what is that? thats calling your friend a liar. Now, its technically possible your friend is lying to you, he is human after all, but lets apply this to God, who is incapable of lying, and is all-powerful, and created the universe, and everything in it, including time, and He tells you, in His holy, inspired book, that is without flaw, that He created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days (that he invented) and you go wait, that couldnt be? isnt that calling God a liar? Just food for thought. And gator, I try to give you the olive branch, and apologize, yet you respond with sarcasm? Real mature. If thats all you can give me then this discussion is over. And its not pertinenant how many animals there are, for God created them all.

yes it does, if you actually bother to read it. . .but thats another discussion altogether.