Sunday, April 29, 2012

Fun With Pictures: George Zimmerman Plus Jesus Christ Equals "Zimmerchrist"

Something fun for Sunday. One of WARN's readers, the always reliable and sharp Weird Beard, was kind enough to forward this to me. 

I present to thee the greatness and piety of Zimmerchrist--a saint and a martyr, he suffered for the sins of conservatives everywhere.

Grifter, vigilante, killer, martyr, and he with 200,000 dollars in his legal defense fund while pleading poverty to get low bail, has now been immortalized in a digital painting.

Share widely. Trust me, conservative defenders of Zimmerman will not get the pointed satire; many will be moved to tears by Zimmerchrist; who knows, maybe a few of them will speak in tongues at the sight of such a holy object.

Given our conversation about George Zimmerman as Right-wing American Jesus, Weird Beard's keen image was divinely timed in its offering. Zimmerchrist may actually replace my previously favorite depiction of JC soul brother number one as a gun-toting, cowboyesque redneck.

What now for the war on Christians? And who is waging it?


ColorBind said...

@Earth To Chauncey:

George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

Unknown said...

I don't know the full story but has george zimmerman labeled himself as a right wing conservative?

ColorBind said...

@Hurikane No, but Chauncey has labeled himself as a hater of right wing conservatives, and he couldn't resist another target, even if it was the wrong one.

chaunceydevega said...


You are still here? What a glutton for punishment. You just don't get it--is your reading comprehension that low? Zimmerman, as we have exhaustively detailed, is a martyr figure and hero of Right wing conservatives. Are you next going to suggest that Hitler was a liberal, or that progressives are evil?

I hope you don't watch that much glenn beck.

nomad said...

The "white mindset". I don't know if you saw this post of mine, but this is the same kind of twisted reasoning.

I was doing my own Google search of blacks killed by police and ran across this gem. It’s a conspiracy!

This commenter says:

"Google “police killed by blacks” and prepare to vomit
If you google “police killed by blacks” the search results are nothing short of a vomit inducing rage. Almost everything that comes up is boo-hooing about poor NIGGERS that are killed by the terrible white police.
It’s absolutely sickening. I am trying to find how many police are killed by niggers and no matter which way I word my search it’s the same disgusting shit.
Does anybody have any suggestions how I can find my information? How I should word my search? Please let me know.
I am becoming increasingly frustrated."

(Me again)
The irony is so ironically ironic. Seemingly, unbeknownst to a lot of the more liberal minded whites, there are a large number of their brethren who see things through the same racial prism. Zimmerman is just a symptom of what festers in the soul of America.

sledge said...

chaunceydevega said...
"Zimmerman is a martyr figure and hero of Right wing conservatives. Are you next going to suggest that Hitler was a liberal, or that progressives are evil?"

IDK, I think you might have stretched it a little on that one. Point being people probably don't come much more conservative than myself.

Add to this that I believe in the second amendment And I believe Gov has gotten so big, in addition to running up unrepayable debt, it's tentacles spread into every facet of it's citizens lives.

So some would say that instead of just having common sense, that makes me a right wing lunatic.

So just let me say from my perspective, ZIMMERMAN IS NO HERO OF MINE! If truth shows a jury he's guilty I hope they lock him up and throw away the key.

If it shows a jury otherwise so be it. Regardless, he is undoubtedly a marked man. Unless it affects my family I couldn't give two hoots either way.

He got himself into this situation by being an idiot. I see no reason to worship him, feel sorry for him or consider him a martyr.

And yes, some progressives are evil. Read George Soros's history as it pertains to Hitler's stunts. I personally would not be shocked if he had a 666 tattoo on his butt.

chaunceydevega said...

@sledge. I will be more precise as measured by public opinion, the place he occupies in the popular conservative political imagination--guns; race; crime--he is a potent figure...which is why we are talking about it still. Check out some of the embedded links on how the right wing media is covering this story. As is typical, they are offering up an alternate reality. The impact is seen in Colorbind's regurgitations among others.

Be careful with Soros and Hitler. The family story is very tragic; beck put his foot in his mouth there big big time. I was specifically referring to the intellectual vomit known as the Goldberg "liberal fascism" nonsense that took in so many of the right wing populist crowd a few years back.

sledge said...

@ chaunceydevega

I was referring to the interview Soros gave. Where he said while helping his protector do his job, identifying Jews and confiscating their property, that it was the best time of his life. His words.

To be sure there were some who were considered conservative that were found to have their hands dirty in regards to Hitler. The Bush family (George SR's father) had their hands in Hitler's rise to power by providing him funding and support.

chaunceydevega said...

@Maybe I am thinking of someone else then. Bush's daddy was real dirty. Don't forget Henry Ford too.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: Apparently your reading comprehension is the problematic one, but thanks for the reminder that you cannot make a statement without condescension.

I merely made a statement of fact.

Deal with it as you will. BTW, I have not watched Beck. I do not get Fox News channel, or whatever channel he is now on. But feel free to keep dreaming in sometimes-living color.

Can we be done now? I'm tired of being insulted by you and feeling the need to reply. Just let it go. I made a statement of fact. If it's not factual, refute it. If it is, leave it alone (for a change).

chaunceydevega said...


"Can we be done now?" Priceless, from a person who writes treatises on other people's websites and begs for attention. You finally succeeded, and now you don't want to play anymore?

If you ask nicely, explain to the classroom what you have learned, and then rub the lotion on your skin (get the joke?) I may leave you alone.

Pretty please :) You don't get to provoke, harangue, be a broken record, and then when you get someone's attention cry foul. This sounds like some online version of Stand Your Ground. You can't instigate and then want mercy.

I told you, I am just getting started with you. I am going to post your diagnosis this week. I wonder what it will reveal.

BTW I don't hate anyone. I have contempt for foolishness. I am a patriot and I love this country--I know that you may not believe that.

I also understand that the cabal of right-wing faux populists that have taken over the GOP, and those who chase after their coat tails in the Democratic Party, are destroying us. Thus, I call out foolishness and bad politics that work against the Common Good wherever and whenever I see it.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: I do not beg for attention. When I see a statement that is unfair (your "factual charges against George Zimmerman" that I ask for verification of, and which you have failed to respond factually to for several days). Same here...You link Zimmerman with right wing conservatives, while he is a registered Democrat. As you consistently attack conservatives, I assume you "hate" them. Pardon me if I overstated the seemingly obvious.

When I make a simple statement, I figure I should get an honest answer and be done with it. Instead, I get condescending lectures from you on what you imagine to be my lack of intelligence and my historical mentality -- and I respond. You started these fires. Pardon me if I work to put them out.

OK, you have contempt for people without the same narrow worldview you possess and can't help but inundate others with. Fair enough?

chaunceydevega said...


are you really this obtuse or are you playing?

what side of the political aisle has embraced zimmerman and made him a victim. I get you are a bit hardheaded and are still looking for Santa Clause while he smashes on your mom, but for you to be that in denial about the political dynamics surrounding the cheerleading for zimmerman means either you are 1) stupid or 2) willfully ignorant or 3) existing in your own world where facts and reason do not apply.

which is it?

chaunceydevega said...


are you really this obtuse or are you playing?

what side of the political aisle has embraced zimmerman and made him a victim. I get you are a bit hardheaded and are still looking for Santa Clause while he smashes on your mom, but for you to be that in denial about the political dynamics surrounding the cheerleading for zimmerman means either you are 1) stupid or 2) willfully ignorant or 3) existing in your own world where facts and reason do not apply.

which is it?

B said...

Before I read the comments on the last two articles, I thought that a three ring circus was an accurate metaphor for how utterly insane racism and race "relations" have become in our "post-racial" society. Now I'm pretty sure that they couldn't make a tent big enough to contain this massive, and hellish sideshow (although this site is making a good attempt at doing so).
Only in America.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: All three apply -- to you.

I stated that 1) Zimmerman is a registered Democrat. 2) You don't like conservatives. I made NO COMMENT on any other political implications.

As usual, I make a factual statement, and rather than address it, you take a bird walk into "Other" land. Either my comments stand on their own, or they don't.
All of your diversions will not change my words, and I'm not playing your game on this one. Address the issue at hand, or drop it.

Please tell me who is delusional here. (My money is on the one who won't stay on topic).

sledge said...


Yeah, right? I know exactly what you're feeling.

Although, I doubt it's contained within this site.

I fairness, most of the hate a discontent was dragged on by someone who I suspect hasn't proven himself to himself yet. He cares what other people think of him. Not having the last word in an argument affects his self esteem because isn't secure in the knowledge of himself yet.

I'm not saying he isn't probably a nice guy or that he doesn't defend his view of fairness even for other people.

He just hasn't reached the point yet where he can see that it's not important enough to argue about, deescalate and walk away from an conflict he is helping to cause.

Thinking about it, this same thing probably applies to Z.

Anonymous said...

He's their redemption for OJ. They have a vested interest in seeing that he escapes justice, guilt be damned. As is shown in the outpouring of financial support. It is a sick one-upmanship. They have never gotten over that OJ was acquitted of his wife's murder and it really burned them to see that some blacks considered the verdict as vindication for all the times the system had wrongfully convicted blacks that went unaccounted for. There has been nothing since on the same level of national attention as the Zimmerman case. To them it doesn't matter if Zimmerman had the hammer and sickle tattooed on his forehead, that is even better because then they get to make the claim that they are non-biased because the person that they are supporting is not even the same party affiliation as they. It reveals more about them than they can even imagine. Bradley Manning, an American soldier, who took his adherence to the clause in the Constitution, "protection from enemies foreign and domestic" quite literally by revealing the actions that are damaging to the image of "American exceptionalism" has been locked in solitary confinement for years, afforded no bail, and just recently heard what charges are to be filed against him. And nothing, nada, zip, nil, zilch on the concern for his ability to receive " fairness", no outpouring of donations for his defense. Nothing from any of these claiming to be arbiters of the Constitution and how it is applied.

Anonymous said...

Correction: There was Rodney King but they couldn't obscure video proof. This is perfect because they can ask you to forget what makes sense in light of there being no visual proof.

sledge said...


Bradley Manning? Why'd you have to ruin a perfectly good post by bringing up Bradley Manning.

"It reveals more about them than they can even imagine." may apply here but I can't stand that worm.

"protection from enemies foreign and domestic" Doesn't apply here because only officers take that oath. The enlisted oath says they will follow all orders.

There was nothing honorable in what he did. It was treason brought on by the fact he was ticked that an enlisted female in his unit kicked his butt for making rude and unseemly remarks. Being somewhat feminine himself, he didn't like it because she wasn't brought up on charges.

He's been in prison for months not years, and he's lucky we're not in a war declared by Congress or he would probably be taking a bullet to the head.

Other than that. Good job on the rest of the post. :)

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: If my self-esteem and knowledge of myself weren't doing just fine, I would have buckled long ago, instead of still asking Chauncey to answer the questions. I don't expect to get the last word. I'd just like a bit of respect and honesty from our host, who has decided he'd rather attack than back his "factual" claims. And on this site, that means others pile on.

What I've gotten here is what Zimmerman is getting everywhere, which bodes very badly for his future. I can turn off the computer anytime. He will not be able to turn off this hatred for him, warranted or not. He could be guilty. And he could be innocent. And the conversations going on every day indicate we may have another dead man on our hands -- even if it turns out he did nothing wrong. And that, race notwithstanding, is dead wrong.

sledge said...


A jury will figure it out. Why do you care what CDV or anyone else thinks or has to say about it?

Z probably isn't going to last long. He brought that on himself by being an idiot who didn't know when to stop. The global gene pool has been refining itself in just this way for eons.

If he is ruled not guilty by a jury of his peers he better start practicing self defense and with that gun of his. Because from the way the whole situation went down he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. And he certainly didn't know how to use a weapon efficiently at all.

Why he bothered to get one is beyond me unless he is another of these "look at me, I have a gun, I must be tough" numskulls who are as much a danger to themselves as to anyone else.

sledge said...

Sorry folks. I've felt a little tense and opinionated tonight. Breath in, breath out.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: According to Reuters, Zimmerman was told to get the gun by an officer because of ongoing problems with vicious dogs. Every time Chauncey or Sharpton or Jackson, et al convict Zimmerman publicly, his odds of living decrease. And there actually is a chance that he was within his rights to shoot. We do not know. But a guy shouldn't be sentenced to death without a trial. Each new article here does just that. Nobody of any race should be subjected to that. It would be fascinating to see what happens to CDV, after he gets his gun, if he is forced to use it. I'm betting he wouldn't like the same treatment he's now giving Zimmerman. And all of his fancy words wouldn't work his way out of that mess.

At this point, it's obvious what CDV thinks about it. But I don't care for ongoing dishonesty and avoidance by him. I asked him at the outset about four "FACTS" he claimed to be in cement. Since then, he keeps demeaning me while refusing to back his allegations.

With all the abuse he piles on me (and he hasn't stopped), it seems right that a) I should be able to defend myself and b) it should be pointed out that the brilliant "Chauncey de Vega" refuses to answer the simple question that started all this.

My standards and points have long since been made. Chauncey refuses to prove he has the stuff he claims to have. That is pathetic.

My standards of integrity are apparently much different than Chauncey's. And after he asks me to take a psych test, he calls me defective because he didn't like the results I got. Hypocrisy?

Anonymous said...

Bradley Manning was arrested in May of 2010.

So, okay, maybe it was a month short of being able to be called years but, it certainly was over one year and closer to two.

As to his reasons for doing what he did. We could argue, what he said vs. what he is accused of, ii would certainly have the potential to turn inot a circle jerk if either of us decided to channel a certain unamed. But that isn't the point really.

The point is, here someone who is not being afforded the protection of the Constitution, with regard to his detainment, crruel and unusual punishment, presumption of guilt without trial, much of which the Z-defenders are fearful are being practiced on George by a group who doesn't have even enough power to have ALL the evidence presented to a jury. They hold up Constitutional protections as their reasoning yet ignore the violations of another. That points to other motivations being the real reasons. What other motivations would fuel such ardent defense of one and not the other, if the concern was based solely on ensuring justice? That is what is revelatory about over-zealous Z-defenders.

CNu said...

BTW I don't hate anyone. I have contempt for foolishness. I am a patriot and I love this country--I know that you may not believe that.

rotflmbao...., stop playing.

And the conversations going on every day indicate we may have another dead man on our hands -- even if it turns out he did nothing wrong.

It's been well established that he did a great deal wrong. The only question remaining are whether he did anything illegal in the opinion of the jurors who will consider the information already brought to light.

CNu said...

@CDV - point of clarification

I don't for a moment question your aspirational patriotism, love of country, or contempt for foolishness - but I'm fairly certain you hate the affective deficit disorder demographic working overtime under top-level "divide and rule" to reassert the barbarity of states-rights feudalism.

Those so-called conservatives know exactly who they are.

There's no shame in hating them, they are a genuine existential threat...,

nomad said...

While on the subject of Zim and Christ and w that enigmatic image of the Savior you've provided... this raises the question: Who would Jesus shoot?

sledge said...


Their are more effective ways to deal with dogs than a gun. Plus they don't come with the investigation that occurs anytime a gun goes off in a neighborhood. A cop should know that.

Mace or pepper spray will turn a dog around quick. Or for that matter spitting at it will stop it in it's tracks allowing you to escape.

I wouldn't worry about CDV getting a gun. He seems intelligent enough to realize that just owning one doesn't do anything for you. I'm sure if he hasn't already invested in training he will.

Owning a gun requires a degree of brain power, common sense and rationality. Or you can land yourself in trouble with it lick-ity split.

Which brings us back to Zimmerman. Regardless of whether it is proven in court that the shooting was legal by means of self defense. It was totally unnecessary.

Zimmerman initiated the chain of events that ended in the death of Martin. Zimmerman's mind and rationality were not right.

He see's a black guy he doesn't know in a mixed neighborhood walking down the road. Not breaking into a window. Not kicking in a door. Not breaking any laws.

This black guy could have been visiting a friend or even going for a evening stroll. Neither of which are illegal. Z has no way of knowing what this black guy is doing and it is none of his business to begin with.

But because Z see's Martin, who doing nothing illegal. He calls the cops while following someone who is doing nothing illegal and initiates the events which would end in Martins death. This proves he was irrational to begin with.

You cannot assume someone is a criminal unless you are witnessing them committing a crime. Zimmerman had no legal right to approach or question Martin. Following him without sufficient reason was harassment and is probably the reason the DA is able to proceed with murder charges against him in spite of his claim of self defense.

Now back to CDV. He has a right to his own opinion the same as you. It's not illegal to insult someone due to their opinion. Although, it is foolish to care what someone else thinks and let it affect your actions or response.

Neither opinion is going to affect the outcome of the trial. How long are you willing to invest time in trying to get him to say your opinion is correct? A lifetime?

Find a woman, or spend time with the one you have. I guarantee you that you will find more satisfaction in that than you will ever get in waiting for CDV to agree with you or admit his opinion is wrong. He see's it his way and you see it yours. End of story.

Find something productive or reproductive to do to get your mind off of it.

Just saying.

sledge said...


You are right as usual. Manning does deserve his Constitutional rights as do Zimmerman and Martin (his were infringed upon and then stolen).

But that doesn't change my mind that manning is a scumbag, Zimmerman is an idiot, and Martin was the end victim of Zimmerman's irrational idiocy and actions.

This will be true whether Z is ruled to have acted legaly or not. Look for a civil suit in the future.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: Zimmerman did initiate the CHAIN of events -- by obeying the NW signs. We do NOT KNOW who initiated the physical altercation. I asked Chauncey an honest question, and have been defending myself since. If I state that Chauncey should answer my question, it makes sense that I should also answer challenges from others. Chauncey DOES have a right to his opinion. But stating his OPINION as FACT, and then abusing someone who asks him to provide backing for his "facts" is not kosher.

If I wasn't attacked, this would have been over a long time ago. If I hadn't answered Chauncey's attacks, I would have been called a coward (I have, in so many words, even though I have responded).

It's an interesting world here: If I disagree with Chauncey, there is no way in the world I can ever be redeemed, regardless of my call for EVIDENCE OVER UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION. Strange rules of civility on this site; not my rules.

I try to follow these (I do get waylaid sometimes by CDV:)

Be alert for signs of bias, such as:

* personal attacks on people
* sarcastic language
* sweeping generalizations unsupported by verifiable data
* oversimplification of complex issues, and
* ignoring or belittling opposing views”

* Does the writer sound committed to communicating with readers? As a reader, do you feel like you are being addressed respectfully?
* Does the writer support the claims with evidence?
* Does the writer reveal how and where the evidence was obtained?
* Does the writer reach a conclusion that is in proportion to the amount of evidence produced?

Imagine if we all used these.

ColorBind said...


Those are from the Writer's Handbook.

I'm assuming Chauncey has been too busy with "other things" to read it.


sledge said...

ColorBind said...
"If I wasn't attacked, this would have been over a long time ago. If I hadn't answered Chauncey's attacks, I would have been called a coward (I have, in so many words, even though I have responded)."

Exactly my point. Why do you care? Why is that important to you. Ego, self esteem? If you do in fact know yourself it wouldn't matter.

When you feel you have to react to what someone else says you have released control of yourself to them.

They can believe what they say or they can just be using it. None of it matters unless they take action to touch or harm you physically. Let them say and think whatever they want until that point.

Words, all to often, are not worth the actions and responses they create. If someone calls you a name. Is that worth maiming or killing them? The same principle applies here.

Smile and let it go. Unless for other reasons you just want a piece of them. Then blow them a kiss. Saw it in a movie. It works.

chaunceydevega said...

@Cnu. They are an existential threat, and the culture warriors especially, the foot soldiers with all their Jesus Camp mess who don't realize they are being played.

@Sledge. Fair and good points. I do have your post and will share it soon. My father had 2 guns in the house and I was taught from when I was little you don't point a gun at someone unless you are willing to kill them.

Maybe that is why I don't get all the gun fetishizing by the likes of Zimmerman and his clan. If the rules say leave the gun at home, why don't you? Not having owned one yet, do some folks feel naked without one? Is the sense of implied power that great?

Point 2, imagine the tedium and hell any person who let colorbind, assuming he is male, put his penis in would go through. dude stalks and is amazingly persistent with folks he doesn't know on the internet.

If he enjoyed some reproductive bliss his mentally unhinged self would be calling, showing up at work, asking for marriage, sending emails, and generally bothering the hell out of them, their family, and their neighbors. I can also imagine him midcoitus asking fifty times if his partner had an orgasm yet. Over. Over. Over. And over again.

Don't wish that on Colorbind's victims. BTW all people should be weary of any person who quotes a writer's guide or manual. really narrow and doctrinal thinking.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: Thanks for making my point.
Try reading your words in the context of Zimmerman talking to Martin (or Chauncey to me). You've got a point.

@Chauncey: Just pointing out some standards that, had you followed them, nearly all of this could have been avoided. (Again, so sorry that my test results didn't fit your omniscient knowledge. And thanks for using that as evidence of MY being defective.) And again, thanks for the lack of facts and the steaming condescension.

To simplify things, my further responses to your attacks will be simple:

No facts. More condescension. More BS. Standards? Up yours.

sledge said...


Yeah, that post I sent you is something I don't think enough people know about. Especially, the black community who is getting hit by it disproportionately to other races.

I'm sure some will think I'm nuts. My spell check doesn't work all that great. If you want to change any of it make it come out right and make sense please do. I just think the message is important.

As to guns. You are probably right about the power thing with a lot of people. I've been around them most of my life and was taught that they are nothing more than a tool. Not even the most important tool that you carry. That being your brain.

I carry everywhere that it is legal to do so. Usually I forget that I even have it on. To me it's the last line of defense. Only to be used after every other option has been tried, including running.

Here in Florida if you shoot someone, even if justified, you can still be sued for the trauma someone else experienced in witnessing someone being shot. So unless it's your last chance to save your life it's pretty stupid to shoot someone.

sledge said...

Unbelievable! You just can't make this stuff up. Actual proof that truth is stranger than fiction.

Zimmerman's Lawsuit Against Al Sharpton, NBC, and the Martin Family Attorneys

sledge said...

I can hardly wait for the vultures to go to work on the movie or mini series.

sledge said...

sledge said...
"Actual proof that truth is stranger than fiction."

Maybe it would have been more accurately stated the life is stranger than fiction.

Can you even imagine the audacity it takes to file a civil lawsuit like that?

If Zimmerman actually winds up getting rich from shooting a black kid, in these kinds of times. With the sick headed, desperate people out there. Oh man. I better not even go there. That's too ugly to even consider.

CNu said...


the Examiner has scooped the mainstream media one more time again.

Their coverage of the government's secret dealings with extraterrestrials is unparalleled.

sledge said...

So you're saying they can make this stuff up? Maybe I'm gullible. If so, that is pretty low. Lower than Zimmerman actually doing it.

CNu said...

HuffPo Weird News is reporting that Taa-II the Worldship has been spotted near the sun....,

Anonymous said...

Real Time America post Zimmerman Execution:

There is a large silent majority but liberal and conservative majority whites but a small percentage of Black folks and others of color who want Zimmerman to be found innocent of any charges..

Today in our nation the Black underclass and even the Black professional class is under extreme pressure to become a uniform collective of Americans by ignoring as a matter of normacy anything to do with the Black ppor.

We are in the midst of a cultural equation that renders certain Black behavior not ony subject to ridicule and the practice of low expectations etc but the reality of being executed under the color of law is REAL.

People no longer need to wear police uniforms to license a lawful killing of a Black person in America..

I expect this mindset to worsen and all manner of photo id's, security wipes, etc will be introduce in our nation to render a bandwidth of Americans who whose liberty and citizenship to be discounted and under examination..

Entire areas and regions of activity will be banned or ecommerce bandwidths were emerge which creates another era of separate and unequal in the post racial and industrial era of America..

CNu said...

silly Thrasherian emotional negroe....,

The plantation has been under construction since long before Zimmerman.

ignants and ninis will now have a suitable place of employment and restore the original meaning of American black gold!

{there are of course always death squads and/or WW-III}

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: I'm surprised you're amazed at the idea of Zimmerman suing because his civil rights were violated; some people predicted that one long ago. (Unless you don't believe that his civil rights, guilty or not, were obliterated).

And just so I'm not accused of taking one side, the following are cases where blacks had their civil rights violated.

EVERYBODY should be entitled to some civil rights, right?

sledge said...


So now you're going to start with me? You know chaunceydevega is still around, right?

Z's civil rights were never violated. He could go out to dinner, take in a movie, whatever he wanted starting the evening of the shooting after the police were done questioning him.

If he ran into any trouble, I mean, he had the police number speed dialed on his phone, right?

He chose not to. That was up to him. Although, it didn't seem to stop him from prospering.

He made enemies by his own actions.

So I guess under your line of thinking. The early white settlers who were under attack by Indians and couldn't leave the fort were having their civil rights violated?

chaunceydevega said...

@colorderanged. You are pathological. They say one of the signs of being crazy is that you never take the step to ask "am I crazy or not?" when reflecting on your own behavior. You manifest that indicator of mental illness.

In your obsession with the "victim" Zimmerman, did it ever occur to you that he violated the most basic civil rights of another person, i.e. their right to life, safety, and security?

Trust me, there is going to be a civil suit in this case--Martin's family is going to sue Zimmerman in civil court and take everything he owns. Sadly, that won't bring back their child.

I hope they also sue his father, his "best black friend," the police department, his brother and everyone else that participated in what I believe will be revealed to be a concerted campaign to cover-up Zimmerman's wrong-doing.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: I'm baffled by you taking offense at my comment. Zimmerman's civil rights were NOT violated the night of the shooting. Are you going to maintain that they haven't been since then, since he is a marked man, and cannot show his face in public for fear of being killed? Would you consider that to be some kind of violation of civil rights?

Note, I said "guilty or not". I meant everything he's had to live with and will likely spend the rest of his life living with, partially due to the actions of people like Sharpton. How does that not make sense, and why would YOU be offended by my stating what (to me) seems to be fairly obvious?

ColorBind said...


"EVERYBODY should be entitled to some civil rights, right?" MY WORDS ABOVE

I NEVER said Martin didn't have civil rights. I said it should be no surprise that Zimmerman might sue, because his entire life has been wiped out (YES, I KNOW MARTIN IS DEAD, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT HERE. Sometimes the obvious doesn't need to be stated.

I agree that Martin cannot be brought back, and that his parents will likely sue. Do you deny that Zimmerman shouldn't have similar rights, while he is still alive?

And until the trial is over, we will not know whether Martin (who, yes is dead) had his civil rights violated. That's what the trial is for, right?

I have given Martin some consideration here. Why will you give Zimmerman ZERO? Fair?

If I say that EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS (been there, done that if you're paying attention) you would still attack me. What does that say about each of us?

Other than that:

Few facts, more condescension; Standards? Up yours (please)

chaunceydevega said...


You do need to go on a comedy tour. "I meant everything he's had to live with and will likely spend the rest of his life living with, partially due to the actions of people like Sharpton."

This whole mess is George Zimmerman's fault. Al Sharpton and those other black rabble rousing trouble making negroes had nothing to do with Zimmerman's decision to hunt down another human being and kill him.

If your boy simply stayed in his car, or alternatively got some treatment for his cop OCD fetish, none of this would have happened.

sledge said...

ColorBind said...

"Are you going to maintain that they haven't been since then, since he is a marked man, and cannot show his face in public for fear of being killed?"

I'm not offended. LOL!

Your statement concerning Z shows the mark of man he is. If he had considered his overwhelming fear before initiating the events that took Martins life he still could feel safe and cozy in his bed.

It seems the lion of the housing association turned out to be a rabbit.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sledge said...


If Zimmerman had given Martin what was warranted by his walking down the street. A casual notice. He wouldn't be in the situation he is in.

But that's not what he did. He followed or hunted him. He lost track of Martin while on the phone. Did he continue hunting, we don't know.

But we do know that he pulled the trigger that killed Martin.

So, he hunted, followed, tracked Martin and he killed Martin. The decision to follow Martin was unwarranted. Th decision to pull the trigger on Martin will be for a jury to decide.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that it wouldn't have occurred if Zimmerman hadn't unnecessarily followed Martin.

Anonymous said...

I see psycho is still here.

That article is someone suggesting possible complaints should Zimmerman decide to file a civil suit. He hasn't done so as yet. Al Sharpton was asked to use his platform to help the family seek justice so,if they are going to go after him for violating his civil right then the suit would have to include the family of Trayvon, since they were the ones who employed Sharpton's assistance and gave him much of the information he reported. To that I say, good luck with that.

The claim that he (Sharpton) violated their privacy does not have standing either because Florida is a sunshine state. Has been long before this happened. They feed the media information in legal cases. One need but only look at the Casey Anthony case to find precedent that the media did not go above and beyond what would be deemed normal for that state. If anything, he would have to go after those, sunshine laws. Again, I say to that, good luck.

It is not uncommon for high profile personalities to recieve threats. They rarely get to sue the media or single out media personalities to launch suits against. Almiost every network picked the story up and disbursed information as it became available to them. They have no way to prove which source of information was what inspired the person who made the threat. Or if, for that matter, it was the media at all. The threatenee could have gotten information from a cousin.

On these basis, Zimmerman wasn't treated unequally by the media, therefore his civil rights weren't violated. Except possibly by the person making the threat and even then, beingin fear does not automatically equal civil rights violation.

sledge said...


Yeah, your post makes sense.

CNu was already poking fun at me for being gullible.

Well, I guess that would be pretty hard to argue with so I won't even attempt it. Sometime you just have to smile and say, "Yeah, that was me."

You seem to have quite a bit of legal knowledge. If Martin's family went ahead with filing a legal suite do they have a means of locking up the money Zimmerman made on his website?

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: Thanks for agreeing with my point, the justification in Z's pulling the gun is for the JURY to decide. If Z stayed in the car, none of this happens. But I think any judge would take exception with the term "hunted", even more so "decided to hunt down and kill him". Like you said, the JURY will decide right or wrong on the shoot, which removes "decided to hunt down and kill" from the equation. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a fight, as in that case, Z would have approached Martin and shot him. People who hunt down and kill do not wait until their prey is on top of them to shoot. Correct?

While Sabrina sounded fairly lucid with her comments, she failed to address NBC distorting a video to paint Zimmerman as a blatant racist.

(And she calls me "psycho" for looking at facts, rather than opinion. In the court of common sense, I think she might be remanded over for analysis.)

ColorBind said...

@Corrections: That should be "audio" although it was part of a video.

Anonymous said...

" You seem to have quite a bit of legal knowledge."

No not at all. I remember reading a forum where someone was questioning why all the evidence in the Casey Anthony investigation was consistently being leaked. It was then I found out that Florida was very open with it's information gathering and that it was legal under Florida's Sunshine Law.

Zimmerman is being coached by some powerful and knowledgeable people. Remember he had a secret meeting with Fox News personality Sean Hannity. These folks are pros on swaying public reaction and they are motivated to help because they fear this case will impact the Stand Your Ground laws that they invested in passing. This means, NRA, and any organization that has a personal vendetta with President Obama. I wouldn't doubt that they helped him acquire the lawyer he has now because he has some particular specialty, as opposed to the two he dropped. I am certain they are skilled in the way if hiding money.

Of course, the Martins should file a civil suit but I am not certain how much it will net them from Zimmerman personally. I hope they wait until he builds a nest egg to announce their civil suit. But it is anybody's guess as to how much he will be forced to disclose. Either way they still have the ability to name the City of Sanford and the property owner.

Anonymous said...

" (And she calls me "psycho"


How do you know I called YOU psycho? Are you reading my mind? What facts do you have to support that I called YOU psycho?

sledge said...


You aren't trying to indicate that you aren't obsessed with this case are you?

Because you obviously are. If it is affecting your life, which it very well could be from the amount of time you spend on it, it's an addiction.

Just say no. Step away from the screen. Join or play the games on Facebook. You need to find a replacement for this addiction which will move your mind in a different direction. Anything.

I've already suggested a woman. You should look into it. It will occupy your mind for years trying to figure her out.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: Pardon me, sir. It seemed to me that you and I were exchanging some ideas here. What changed? Are you obsessed? You and I were exchanging thoughts here. Why point the finger at me? (And yes, I check back here from time to time to see if Chauncey has anything reasonable to say to me -- or to get your response to my response to your response. That's called two-way communication,not obsession, right?

@Sabrina: Just an educated guess based on your prior comments. If not me, then who?

Anonymous said...


No see, you're not reading me. I asked for facts. By you're admitted standards, only facts can be used in making an accusation or informing a "guess". I'm asking you what facts do you have or can gleam from my prior direct comments to you, that I called YOU psycho in a post that was not a direct response to you? I didn't use your name and your are not the only one on this board, not even in this particular post so what FACT informed your "educated guess", which by your standards shouldn't exist in the first place?

Anonymous said...


I find it completely strange that you harangue the posters on this board to provide facts for their "educated guesses" but fail to do so yourself.

1. I have not failed to give anything. I simply chose not to offer an answer as to whether I was speaking of you or another poster. Why? Because I don't OWE it to you to disclose the identity of who it is i was referencing. In fact, since the comment didn't use any identifying markers, you really can't claim the comment then ask for confirmation. Well, you can but then that would be twisting my words which amounts to, by your standards, lying on me.

2. You're wrong in your ASSumption. The timing of my comment has nothing to do with the exchange between you and Sledge. If you look just above your last exchange with Sledge, you'd see 'comment removed by author',that was my original post until i decided to make changes. This means it was not in response to your exchange since it hadn't happened yet.The context of my post was in reply to a post written by Sledge prior to the last exchange you had with Sledge. And since the comment does not address you specifically it could have been written about any of the other posts prior.  By your metric, everyone on this board who has ever had a comment post after you, which is not hard to do, is talking to you.  Do you hear voices too? 

3. While it is tempting to say your "evidence" gathering (which appears to be your attempt to inject and re-argue the Zimmerman case, yet again) is a clear indication of psychosis, I won't. It may be true that your clip art project are my words and are being used in the proper context, I can't be bothered to go through every point with you so, I will assume that they were presented in earnest and with the upmost integrity. (^_^) What I do know, is none of these clips are proof that the comment I made above is about you because the comment I made above cannot be identified unless I disclose who I was talking about. That may or may not have been you. " MIGHT have been aimed at you" does not mean ACTUALLY aimed at you.

So your " educated guess" is mere speculation, with no basis in fact. You are drawing a conclusion based on prior actions and assigning them to this comment. You are not affording me the benefit of the doubt that this comment may not be about you. You have basically convicted me, found me guilty,  when YOU DON'T KNOW that I could have been talking about someone else. You haven't even considered that I may not be talking about you, at all. The thought never crossed your mind, did it? I demand an apology from you. I've suffered emotional distress by being accused of something you cannot prove definitively.

 If you can't concede that you really don't know who I was speaking of then all your talk here of standards and facts are bunk and your creditability (whatever there is of it) is shot. 

If you still believe that you are correct and that only you have licsense to make "educated guesses" then maybe you should start your own blog, instead of harassing the author of this one for his own actual (he is an educated man) educated opinion based on his interpretation of the facts, you believe what you believe based on your "educated guess" of the facts, I believe what i believe based on my interpretation of the facts presented.

In short, get a life clown.

Pssst! This one  ^^^ is directed to you. It's in a post response to you and well... I'm telling you it is. 

I bet you're probably too dense to see what just happened here.

sledge said...


Oh man. I can kind of understand the mano e mano thing of getting into it with Chauncey and some of the others, although I see it as unproductive.

But you are actually gonna jump off the cliff and take on a black woman?
Have you totally lost your mind?

Perhaps you haven't noticed that not even the other black guys on here are willing do that.

Gee, do you think there might be a reason for that?

Anonymous said...

Whether you consider it an ENORMOUS leap or a hop, a leap you did make. Since you did, admittedly, i am under no obliation to provide you evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on you, and you failed. You can not take my past conversation with you and other from a different post and make the assumption that anything I say, in this and any future posts, is attributed to you unless expressed directly to you or you are addressed by name.

On the other hand, I would be happy to let you know who it was I was referring to if you are willing to admit that you draw conclusions based on information that you decipher from available facts, and that the author of this blog is doing the same.

As for me, i could give two flying left shoes if you apologized to me or not. And believe me, you cause no emtoional distrees in me so don't worry your little head about that.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for what appears to be your support and i really don't want to offend you but, i want to get clarification.

I am not sure what your image of black women consists of and if i am to guess it would include some stereotypes. Is this correct?

If it is, I just want you to be informed that I reject stereotypes. We are not all the same. Just as not all whites are characterized as one-toothed, Bobby Lee, mountain men, all black women are not head snapping, flip-lipped, gum poppers. IF, that is the image your are conjuring.

Thanks in advance.

sledge said...


Well, I guess it could be a stereotype.

I do work with many black women and my impression comes from them. If offended, regardless of the woman's size, the offender is going to be in your face unloaded on like a pile of bricks.

If their response isn't instantaneous,and they spend time thinking about whatever offended them before the bricks drop. Clear the room, because that load of bricks is going to more closely resemble the Great Pyramid at Giza.

Just my observations. It may be a stereotype and it may not apply to all black women.

Regardless, I'm not taking the chance.

And believe me, no offense meant.

sledge said...

Read that- The offended is going to be in the offender's face unloading on them like a ton of bricks.

Not sure what the original garble was. I was distracted a couple of times.

Anonymous said...

" I would assume he is drawing his opinions from available facts, although the conclusions he reaches do not match the facts I HAVE SEEN or any facts in existence AS FAR AS I KNOW, which is why this began (and continued) with me asking for validation of those "facts")."

What makes you the arbiter or judge of what facts are valid and what aren't? The facts that the author has seen satisfies his conclusion, and mine and many others. This is his blog, he doesn't owe it to you to conform his opinion to what you consider are facts nor does anyone else here. We have listed the facts as WE see them, as WE know them to be and have drawn our conclusion from them just as you have with you set of facts. Just because you refuse to accept the facts that we have presented and the conclusions we have drawn, it doesn't make your conclusions any more correct nor ours any less so. It is pretty presumptuous of you, and mighty white BTW , to DEMAND that we dismiss what we believe in order to conform to what you believe your standards are. You can make a request and you have, and I think the author of this blog has been mighty gracious to allow you to post your points of view, pretty patient in responding to you and allowing others to humor you.

The bottom line is, we are at a stalemate, an impasse. The facts as we see them does not fit your standards, the facts as you see them we do not agree with.

Can we agree to disagree regardless of whom you think started what?

To do any less makes you appear psychotic and amounts to stalker, harassment type behavior.

As to your posts being deleted, this is a private blog, you have no first amendment protection here. The host can delete as he pleases. I don't think he is being unreasonable, he still allows you the freedom to post here despite your actions. He has that right. Just as you have the right to be offended by it but then you have a few choices. You can realize why your posts may be being deleted and course correct, you can do as you have been doing and attempt to rally the posters here to take offense with you, or you can do what people who are not case studies for the DSM would do and seek out a place where they would not feel that they are unwelcome or targeted.

As to whether, I will answer your question or not, no I won't. You have shown again,that despite reasoning, despite having your very arguments turned back on you, that you refuse, WILL NOT agree that the author has every bit as right as you have, to draw conclusions, (which you so flippantly admitted above) on his own blog, based on the facts that HE has seen.

Anonymous said...

I don't disagree with your assessment. In fact I wouldn't argue if someone said it was flattering but I think what you are describing is human behavior not specific race behavior. I've seen some pretty tough women of white and Hispanic persuasions as well. Especially if it involves something dear to them like their children. Same is true for men. I'm not offended, I think many of us are trying to redefine what the world views as black-act, black-speak, black-tendency because it denies us as individuals and lumps us into perceived, usually negative, attributes.

Anonymous said...


This is interesting.

Seems like no-limit-niggerism is contagious.