3rd Juror speaks.... Liberal "intellect" on display.

[_ldsfaqs]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... 659&page=2

Read the article and it shows clearly the liberal mind.

- She wanted him to go to prison and believed (according to her feelings) Zimmerman committed "murder", but there was simply no evidence or facts for it, AND the law didn't allow it.

- She then says there was ZERO racism involved.

- She also say's the case SHOULD NOT have went to trial, that it was a "show trial".

So, here we have a clear liberal who according to her FEELINGS believed Zimmerman was guilty, simply because a person died, but when she actually got the actual facts, understood the law, she saw she wasn't allowed to make him guilty.

This woman is exactly like those liberals here.
They only see the "facts" they want, and just swear up and down Zimmerman is actually guilty, no matter what the facts and evidence are, he's guilty ANYWAY, and should pay.

To the liberal, facts don't matter, evidence doesn't matter, the law doesn't matter, and even self defense doesn't matter. What matters is that a so-called "child" died, and so the person must pay. Doesn't matter that Zimmerman could have been the one to have died, had he not had a gun, doesn't matter that Trayvon is the one who assaulted Zimmerman which was the DIRECT and actual cause of Trayvon's death. Yes, to the liberal, none of that matters, only their "feelings" matter. And it was only under the LAW was a liberal somehow able to look beyond her feelings and do the right and legal thing. She even admits that, saying that had she been Trayvon's parents, she would still be fighting also, hence further proving my point.

You liberals have no true interest in the TRUTH nor in morality.

[_Darth J]

So, ldsfaqs, what you're saying is that even if you have very strong feelings that a certain proposition is true, if facts and evidence don't support that proposition, then you can't rely on your feelings to justify your belief in that proposition.

Right?

[_bcspace]

This woman is exactly like those liberals here.
They only see the "facts" they want, and just swear up and down Zimmerman is actually guilty, no matter what the facts and evidence are, he's guilty ANYWAY, and should pay.

This is also what anti Mormonism is.

[_ldsfaqs]

This woman is exactly like those liberals here.
They only see the "facts" they want, and just swear up and down Zimmerman is actually guilty, no matter what the facts and evidence are, he's guilty ANYWAY, and should pay.

This is also what anti Mormonism is.

Indeed.... correct.

DarthJ, this is your answer. Your question is a straw-man.
Because what you ask is what your side is.
My faith is ENTIRELY built on the facts and evidences with only a "smidgen" of feelings for continued growth and the glue that connects it all.

Your "faith" in contrast is built on part of the truth, no matter what else is out there, and on glue that binds nothing together other than broken pieces.

You falsely assume that your "facts" are first "accurate" facts, and second that it's all the facts and that the "conclusions" derived therefrom is the same thing as the "truth". It's not.

Just like with Zimmerman, you people see "part" of the truth/facts, but the rest you make-up, and you completely lie about what the truth is.

You say there was racism, FBI, Defense, Prosecutor, & Jurors say's there wasn't.
You say the evidence was that Zimmerman was the "aggressor", all the witnesses and facts say's otherwise.
You say Zimmerman should pay, all the facts say it was simple self defense and thus he shouldn't pay.

See, you liberals do the same things to religion, Mormonism, Conservatives/Conservatism etc.
You use a little truth to lie. You pervert the truth, and claims such is truth.

Thus, it should show you that if you can pervert the truth so easily with a simple self-defense case, how much harder can it be for you to pervert the truth in spiritual or other ideological things? Not hard at all.... We see you do it every day, and then claim "we" are the ones who do it. But see, the facts are against you in that, like this case clearly shows.

[_Brackite]

You say there was racism, FBI, Defense, Prosecutor, & Jurors say's there wasn't.
You say the evidence was that Zimmerman was the "aggressor", all the witnesses and facts say's otherwise.
You say Zimmerman should pay, all the facts say it was simple self defense and thus he shouldn't pay.

I don't recall Darth J saying any of those things here.

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm using the "you" in the "you'all" sense. All those here who think Zimmerman should have payed for his so-called "crime".

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, ldsfaqs, what you're saying is that even if you have very strong feelings that a certain proposition is true, if facts and evidence don't support that proposition, then you can't rely on your feelings to justify your belief in that proposition.

Right?

- Doc

[Guest]

And here we have an excellent illustration of what makes this forum so entertaining... a barely literate post, riddled with errors, pointing out another person's alleged lack of "intellect."

Thanks for another chuckle.

[_ldsfaqs]

Ohhhhh.... That horny toad is so cute!!!

Thanks for reminding me of some enjoyable childhood memories, chasing the lizards and horny toads and having them as friends.

by the way, I would recommend you read my response to his post. I debunked the claim for the straw-man it was.

-----

Krose, why don't you actually correct me instead of just your lying slander as usual?
I quoted exactly what the woman said, and I clearly showed the lack of intellect. I didn't say anything false.

But, I'm not surprised you don't understand any of it, you're a liberal, thus you don't have deep thinking skills.

[_Bazooka]

So, ldsfaqs, what you're saying is that even if you have very strong feelings that a certain proposition is true, if facts and evidence don't support that proposition, then you can't rely on your feelings to justify your belief in that proposition.

Right?