Millitary action in Iraq was ‘authorized by Congress, AFTER all other available means were exhausted’!
   ‘W’ bypassed all that, and crooked up ‘justification’ for invading Iraq, WITHOUT following the edicts of Congress!

He lied us into war. I’ve been accused of treason for it, chump.

I don’t care what you think.

Why don’t you suck on those refined aluminum tube and huff some yellowcake?

no, it does not bother me, because he has my trust and he is protecting american lives and interest, unlike the previous administration who places itself first over everyone else which means any americans outside of its inner circle. the biggest example is the Valerie Plame case. in fact the Plame case is an act of TREASON.

part of your duty is to stop and defend the presidency against fallacious and cowardly attacks from the extreme right…

RMSK

RMSK

Marijuana makes some people paranoid.  Apparently, you’ve never worked in an urban high school. . .

Your “explanations” epitomize the prejudice and irrationality that’s been imposed on this incident.

As one who regularly used grass and other psychoactive drugs 40 years ago, I can assure you they contribute to disinhibition of all sorts.

Given that there were multiple witnesses to the fight, that the police were on the scene less than one minute after the shot was fired, and that paramedics examined and treated him soon after, your allegation is deeply troubling and suggestive of profound prejudice.

Even more so the statement that “black kids (sic – he was 6’3 and 150 lbs) don’t attack white guys (sic – he was Hispanic with a black great grandfather)”.

Disinhibition is a widely recognized psychological
term  used to describe a lack of restraint manifested in several ways, including disregard for social conventions, impulsivity, and poor risk assessment. 

As a pioneer in the altered state movement of the 60s and 70s, I have a fairly accurate understanding of the psychoactive effects of street drugs.

You can peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

Please do. You will accomplish nothing but demonstrating your own ignorance and inability to engage in honest argument.

RMSK

Yes he was. No he wasn’t. 

a pioneer in something that has been done for thousands of years! Get over yourself chief. Just what new ground did you cover? Or perhaps you have such a goiter of an ego that you though your little experiments were a first for all mankind?

You’re that young and you have the arrogance and audacity to believe you know the psychopharmacology, cognitive and affective stages of neural synaptic response to THC?

Iversen (The Science of Marijuana, Oxford University Press, 2000) categorized the subjective and behavioral effects often associated with marijuana into four stages. The first is the “buzz,” a brief period of initial responding, where the main effects are lightheadedness or slight dizziness, in addition to possible tingling sensations in the extremities or other parts of the body. The “high” is characterized by feelings of euphoria and exhilaration, as well as a sense of disinhibition. If the individual has taken a sufficiently large dose of cannabis, the level of intoxication progresses to the stage of being “stoned,” and the user may feel calm, relaxed, and possibly in a dreamlike state.

Apparently, you spend so much time being stoned that you don’t know what the high feels like. Too bad you weren’t around in the 60′s to experience the entire range of effects and possibilities.

 Robert I am responding to you here because I can’t read it if I go any lower.�
You are better than this.  You were correct about the word disinhibition but this person is not saying anything that isn’t common knowledge. Antiquated clinical descriptions of pot highs really don’t apply to reality. Anyhow I would be willing to bet that the girl you are responding to was around in the sixties, as was I — and well before.  And I wish my hair was as dark as yours is at my age, I would take that little rant as a compliment. Just my two cents as a fifty year long user of this particular molecule.  By the way, the kids today know way more about the metabolic mechanisms and all manner of details about pot than we did back then. Way more.

Well my friend if you haven’t visited one of the MANY internet sites dedicated to such info lately, I think you may be surprised by the explosion of scientific knowledge in the past few years.  I actually saw one TED talk (and I can’t find it because it was about neurons and doesn’t mention drugs in the title) were a researcher was reporting on things that could forestall alzheimer’s by stimulating the growth of new brain cells.  Apologetically he explained that THC stimulated such growth.
Another surprising fact I came upon was that statistically even heavy smokers of cannabis had not only less of a chance of developing lung cancer than tobacco smokers but less of a chance than people who don’t smoke anything at all.
That was a total surprise to me.
If that weren’t enough it also seems to slow the aging process. Fortunately it seems that most of these great effects are to be had at levels below what it takes to get high.
Some people are now eating raw cannabis on a daily basis which they claim affords all these effects without any high.  I haven’t seen any proof of this thought, but it is an interesting turn of events

Why would you make such an assumption? The reporting on the autopsy states otherwise and no forensic pathologist worth his salt would fail to quantify the amount.

Martin’s autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin’s blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin’s behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes”. 

What is relevant in this case is not that Martin had traces of THC in his blood, but that he had a history of unprovoked aggressive violence.

You’re a perfect example of those who deliberately turn all the known facts upside down in order to “prove” a predetermined conclusion.

Everything I’ve posted is based on the known facts and evidence. From that evidentiary base, there is only one legitimate conclusion: that Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal or inappropriate and that he was attacked by Martin, who instigated the confrontation.

So I have to cower in my home or car, but a stranger is free to wander the streets?  No thank you.

Of course, being a stranger isn’t criminal.  But neither is it criminal for a resident to walk on the same street.  My point is that you want Zimmerman to have stayed inside, while Martin could walk around.

That’s not what Adks12020 said. Do you read what people are writing and then comprehend the information?
It seems you have a preconceived idea already in mind no matter what anyone posts on any subject.

how dare young black males walk the street.

In ANYONE’S view. His father lives there. Why should he not be allowed to go to the store?

As far as we know, the gun was not visible and was certainly not being brandished by Zimmerman. Once again, you’re making unwarranted assumptions in order to support your preconception.

Zimmerman was only 20 lbs heavier and 4″-6″ shorter. Self defense applies only once you’re being assaulted or threatened with assault. The evidence, including Trayvon’s girlfriend’s testimony, indicates that it was Trayvon who initiated the physical confrontation, and it was Zimmerman who was in legitimate fear for his life. 

There was never a police order for Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin – it was a dispatcher’s advice.

If you get your facts straight, you might come to a different conclusion.

You said, and I quote, “And he had to have been following Martin against the 911 operator’s orders”. Nothing about advice. There were no orders, and the operator is often not a police officer.

Unless Zimmerman pulled his gun first (and there is no evidence of that) then Martin had no legally justified excuse for aggressive self-defense.

Zimmerman had a concealed weapon permit and so had the legal right to be carrying his gun, as acknowledged by the police.

By stating that “Trayvon Martin was not looking for a confrontation” you’re reading your own bias into the facts. No one, but Trayvon, knows what was in his mind at the time, and he had a history of initiating physical aggression (he assaulted a school bus driver).

No one, under SYG, who has initiated an aggression has the right to use deadly force unless they believe there is “imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape”. So Martin, even if he felt himself to be threatened, had the duty to retreat. Instead, he advanced and escalated the confrontation.

Those “audio experts” were private contractors. The FBI cannot conclusively determine whose voice it was, but when the police first played the recordings to Trayvon’s father, he stated that it was not his son’s voice.

And, as with all other mistakes in your argument, you fail to understand forensic blood splatter patterns. You are straining to fit the facts to your conclusion, and are misconstruing almost every element of the incident.

In fact, your bias and prejudice is stunning. Your entire argument is based on assumption, innuendo and allegation – none of it based an known facts or available evidence. Your logic is faulty and your ethics are highly questionable.

“it is reasonable to believe that the unknown person following Martin had a weapon”

Nothing makes that a “reasonable” belief unless this was a neighborhood in which everyone walked around armed – and it was quite the opposite.

“And the fact that he didn’t listen to the 911 operators advice is also evidence that Zimmerman had a touch of the vigilante.”

That’s a conclusion based on nothing but your own imagination. Zimmerman has a long history of protecting the marginalized and the bullied, defending a black homeless man who was victimized by the Sanford police, hung out with an autistic child, and mentored two black teens – which makes him a kind and caring person, not a vigilante. That Zimmerman was almost finished with a degree in criminal justice indicates that he understands the limits and constraints of the law and wishes to serve his community, which was also evident in his accepting the position of neighborhood watch captain.

By your logic, every one of the thousands of neighborhood watch volunteers are closet vigilantes rather than concerned citizens.

“I would like to read what Zimmerman had told the police the conversation was before it got physical.”

Then why haven’t you. It’s been all over the news. 

Zimmerman said that Trayvon walked up to the car and asked him, ‘Why are your following me?’ Zimmerman then rolled his car window down, told Trayvon ‘I’m not following you’ and rolled his car window back up.

Trayvon ran off and Zimmerman got out of his car to see where Trayvon was going. As he came around the building, Trayvon was hiding and waiting for him. Trayvon approached him and said, ‘What’s your problem, homes?’ Zimmerman said ‘I don’t have a problem.’

Zimmerman started to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground, jumped on top of him, covered Zimmerman’s mouth and told him to shut the fuck up and continued to pound on him.

The physical wounds, including a broken nose, cut and swollen lip and lacerations to the back of the head all corroborate Zimmerman’s account.

Zimmerman, at that point, feared for his life, managed to unholster his gun and fired one shot, which went through Martin’s heart. Once the heart stops pumping, there is little to no bleeding as there is no blood pressure.

I made no claim that Martin used deadly force – only that Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life with someone pounding his head into the concrete.

The confrontation began when Martin approached Zimmerman’s car, it then escalated when Martin hid and waited for Zimmerman, and escalated into physical violence when Martin struck the first blow and then escalated further as Martin continued to pound Zimmerman. The confrontation ended by Zimmerman’s legal use of deadly force in a situation which did not allow him any means of retreat.

It is never “justifiable to physically confront someone who is following one”, or to escalate to physical violence if someone merely accosts you verbally. The person who escalates a confrontation into violence is the one responsible for the outcome.

There was a lot of misinformation that was published soon after the incident came to light, including the old pictures and the weight taken from Zimmerman’s previous arrest when he was much heavier. 

The New York Times reported in April that Zimmerman is 5-foot-9 and 170 pounds, while Martin was 6-foot-1 and 150 pounds. Martin’s parents said he was 6′-2″.Everything I’ve posted on line is based on reading 40,000 words (85 pages) of published articles I’ve downloaded in order to get the facts straight. I have the transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call with a minute-by-minute timeline of the events. I’ve listened to all the 911 witness calls, and studied Florida’s Title XLVI CRIMES, CHAPTER 776, Justifiable Use Of Force statute.

Unlike most people, I took the trouble to fully investigate the incident before coming to a conclusion.

The more financially equal a society, the more balance supply and demand is.  That’s why you can’t have a few amount of people having most of the nation’s wealth. 

Second, it wouldn’t be spending per se, because the spending is paid for with new taxes on money that is currently out of the economy and sitting in bank accounts. 

There is plenty of money to put people to work.  The ratio of corporate wealth-to-wages is the same as right before the great depression.

There is no demand!  You do believe in this thing called demand, right?  You do believe that it is the most important aspect of any business, right?

All the bad people throughout history have let a few amount of people be rich while the rest of the nation suffers (communist included) and you are just as indifferent.  You don’t mind that people buy multiple homes while others bounce around apartment to apartment.  It’s wrong.  And it’s economically unsound.

When you use words like “confiscating,” there is no point having a conversation with you.  I make a strong effort to be as technical as possible with my language.  

Comparatively so, money is sitting idle in bank accounts when it could be in the hands of the consumer class.

As for your last comment, you don’t have to be rich to buy an apartment complex.  You can get a government loan, build and charge the amount required to maintain the apartment complex.  The only thing your philosophy is doing is making the majority of Americans poorer.  This is Social Darwinism.  You believe that neighbors should be competitive, but do you believe that government should break up banks to make the markets more competitive?

Given the option: depression or tax hikes on the rich…I think you would rather see America fall apart than for a rich guy to pay a dollar more than he has to.  

“Confiscate” is accurate.

of course, thenI’dawakenfrom my dream.

Please tell me what Republicans were able to block during the first two years of Obama’s presidency? Name even one Obama initiative.

The Unions killed Eastern Airlines,American airlines,GM,the Public Schools(ask Steve Jobs) and now California.They almost killed Wisconsin

No, That money went out before the big lay offs.  The Jobs Bill that Obama tried to pass allotted specific funds to rehire the state employees.