Trayvon Martin Incident: Facts vs. Distortion

It's a good question and worthy of investigation. The biases are obviously there, so I'm not sure how well it serves any of us to pretend they don't exist. Not saying you, or anyone else does, but the implications of that are rather disturbing and don't fit the pre-ordained assumption the media we depend on are "Fair and balanced". I've got my own personal conspiracy theory that news media generally exist to run-cover for the huge Government/war-mongering/anti-freedom police state agenda. The racial division "play" isn't so much an agenda, but a divide and conquer distraction from the real issues of the day - like the NDAA, Presidential assassination, Ron Paul, the freedom message, the wars, the economy, the border etc - anything to keep the sheeps attention diverted, and hopefully at war with each other, instead of the corrupt sons of bitches running this country into the ground.

As far as news aggregation, you got me. I'm looking for a decent one myself. An ET'er posted an amazing financial one back in the day, but I lost track of the thread or it was closed down. Ya, I always like realclearpolitics too. They have some good stuff. I'm gonna hit the hay. Have a good one
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

I like Drudge too, i also like Real Clear politics I used to just go down there to see the polls, but if you actually read all the articles they link to on their homepage they are actually a really good news aggregator. I have noticed they have a penchanct for posting every single derogatory article about Bernanke, so automatically they are an A+ in my book.....
More...

yes, but they also post/link every piece of drivel that Krugman writes and attempts to pass as intelligent.
 
Quote from JamesL:

yes, but they also post/link every piece of drivel that Krugman writes and attempts to pass as intelligent.
More...

like today's piece...
 
Quote from JamesL:

like today's piece...
More...

LOL, Broccoli and bad Faith?

I agree Krugman is a tool, but i still read his articles just to see the stupidity we are up against. One thing i always found funny about university was that even though the place is a cesspool for liberal ideas, economics professors were disproportionately conservative, because it was like math to them.

The thing i always like about Economics is that on its simplest level it is really just like mathematics. Put the numbers into a system and it works. The reason the term "liberal economist" is an oxymoron, you basically have to defy the principles of economics in order to make it work. It would be like calling someone an "artsy mathmetician" because he started trying to dream up a scheme where he could justify the equation 2+2 = 5.

It is mind boggling that a guy like krugman won a nobel prize. And it just shows how corrupt they are. I have no problem with economists who try to bring "civility/humanity" into the equation, but if you are trying to account for civility/humanity then say you are doing so.

Dont try to tell everyone that the government can spend money more efficiently, than the free market, and that we need to keep spending money to avoid defaulting like Greece, or that the government is going to lead the way to prosperity. That kind of shit defies logic, and it goes against the most fundamental economic concepts. The numbers dont add up.

I would atleast have a bit of respect for f Krugman if he simply said he was a commie, and tried to give humanitarian reasons for expanding the government, instead of blowing smoke up everyones ass, and pretending there was a logical argument for it from a numbers standpoint, and that the government is going to lead the economy to prosperity, and leading people to believe that the government spends money more efficiently than the private sector.
 
The stimulus is a prime example of Krugman creating a delusional dream world. There wasnt a single dollar that went out the door, before the economy was already adding jobs on its own. Krugman must have known that it was going to take months for that money to get out the door due to bureaucracy, so pitching it as a necessity to save the economy from depression was a lie.

Then that money got spent in the most inefficient way possible once it did hit the market,(solyndra) he must know that the private sector spends money more efficiently, thats basic economics, so basically he just tried to create all these convoluted excuses to expand the government, even though the numbers never made any sense....We would have been better off taking the 700 billion and stroking a cheque for an equal amount to every person making less than 20k cause the money would have cycled through the private sector....

And the big kicker is that when the whole thing failed, he then called for more stimulus, and said it didnt work because we simply didnt spend enough. The guy is either fucked in the head, or he is intentionally misleading people in order to expand government.

Im pretty sure that even keynes himself would concede the point that there is no way to make keynesian economics work with the bloated governments we have today which is just chalk full of red tape. There simply isnt any possible way to make the concepts work fast enough. By the time they are trying to spend money the economy is already going up, and if they tried to enact tax increases in an overheated economy some jack ass beurecrat who only cared about re election would make it so the tax increases dont go into effect till 4 years later, at which point the economy would already be on the way down again.
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

The stimulus is a prime example of Krugman creating a delusional dream world. There wasnt a single dollar that went out the door, before the economy was already adding jobs on its own. Krugman must have known that it was going to take months for that money to get out the door due to bureaucracy, so pitching it as a necessity to save the economy from depression was a lie.

Then that money got spent in the most inefficient way possible once it did hit the market,(solyndra) he must know that the private sector spends money more efficiently, thats basic economics, so basically he just tried to create all these convoluted excuses to expand the government, even though the numbers never made any sense....

And the big kicker is that when the whole thing failed, he then called for more stimulus, and said it didnt work because we simply didnt spend enough. The guy is either fucked in the head, or he is intentionally misleading people in order to expand government.
More...

I have to say otherwise intelligent people can be led to believe some truly stupid $hit if their only exposure to rational thought is in academia.

The 2 professions that seem most susceptible to this are economists and climatologists .
 
>>FACT: Zimmer man called the cops, and when he called them, they told him not to pursue Trayvon but to stay in his car

I would have thought that this would be the point that the media would be hammering hard, because in my opinion this is precisely the reason why this case warrants some kind of criminal charges. Zimmerman had no logical reason to pursue the guy, no ones life was in danger, and had he stayed in the car this whole thing would not have happened.<<

Max, I have to take issue with this, although the rest of your analysis was well-reasoned.

I heard Zimmerman's father say he had followed Martin to an area behind some townhouses but was unable to give the police and address because there were no streets signs. He got out and went around to the front of the townhouses to get an address and was confronted by Martin upon his return. I may have some details slightly wrong but that was the gist of it.

It seems to me this completely demolishes the argument that Zimmerman had left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot in defiance of the dispatcher's advice. Even if he had done what you said, I don't see how it is relevant to a self defense claim, not unless he had gone so far as to attack Martin which seems very farfetched. Bottom line, you don't have a right to attack someone because you object to them following you or find their question as to what you are doing insulting.
 
I got to admit AAA when i first read this post, I thought that you hadnt actually read into this story at all. I thought that it was common knowledge that the dispatcher tried to convince him to stay in the car, so i went to you tube to find the actual call, so i could show it to you.

Low and behold, i was actually wrong, the only thing the dispatcher ever says is "are you following him" and zimmerman says yes, and the dispatcher responds "ok we dont need you to do that," Then the dispatcher proceeds to ask him all kinds of other questions, and he doesnt try to talk zimmerman down.

I actually thought that it was a proven fact that the dispatcher tried real hard to convince zimmerman to stay in the car, that is the narrative the media is pushing, and i was also duped by it.

What is messed up about this, is that the media has lied about this so hard that even someone like me, who is trying to pick their story apart was fooled by it. This one blew my mind, because i have been trying to pick their B.S. aprt, and yet somehow i bought into the hugest lie they have told. This just goes to show how easy it is to be fooled, by the "news."

If I am sitting here trying to pick their story apart, and i was tricked by this, what chance do you think the average CNN viewer who tunes in for 30 minutes a day has of finding the truth?

Here is the call 1:40-2:00 is the only thing the dispatcher says about following Trayvon, and it is just a one off comment where he says "we dont need you to follow him" and then he proceeds to ask all kinds of other questions.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6aVwPqXc-bk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It seems to me this completely demolishes the argument that Zimmerman had left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot in defiance of the dispatcher's advice. Even if he had done what you said, I don't see how it is relevant to a self defense claim, not unless he had gone so far as to attack Martin which seems very farfetched. Bottom line, you don't have a right to attack someone because you object to them following you or find their question as to what you are doing insulting.
More...
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

Low and behold, i was actually wrong, the only thing the dispatcher ever says is "are you following him" and zimmerman says yes, and the dispatcher responds "ok we dont need you to do that," [/B]
More...

This was one of the first most distinct bits of information of emerge, Max.
 
Robert Zimmerman, a former Orange County magistrate judge and George's father has made 3 prior arrests go away. one was resisting arrest with violence which normally lands you in the slammer. all 3 priors were dropped and his record has been wiped clean.

This was a professional courtesy for a retired judge... all thought it would go away quickly and quietly like it does 99% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top