That is an awful combination......... actually does skittles even go with anything?......
There's a Drive-in here the sells a "Sprittle"; Sprite with Skittles at the bottom. It's delicious. Taste the rainbow.. in liquid form.
Sprittle™ is going to be the name of my new drug. Patent Pending.
You know what's better than skittled flavored soda? Skittle flavored vodka. Definitely one of the better drinks that my friend concocted back in college.
It was not Iced Tea. It was Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, but due to watermelon being part of a particular racial stereotype this was removed from the discussion in the media. And yes it is used to make Lean.
That's like saying coke, ice, and rum is used to make a rum and coke.
And that ice and coke is a drug.
*edited rum->ice in last statment.
Don't have kids if you are going to be that naïve.
So you are defending the statement where mixers are ingredients for making a drug. Just to be clear. Why are you trying to defend that again?
That he bought the Arizona and the Skittles to make Purple Drank? Who said they were a drug themselves? This is another case of you reading something incorrectly.
If you want to practice reading read Trayvon's text messages where he talks about making it.
What aren't you understanding lol. You are parsing here. Splitting hairs because you cannot make an argument. The point is he was buying them to aid in his getting wrecked. He wasn't just a 12 year old skipping home with a pack of skittles.
What aren't you understanding lol. You are parsing here. Splitting hairs because you cannot make an argument. The point is he was buying them to aid in his getting wrecked. He wasn't just a 12 year old skipping home with a pack of skittles.
Incorrect. You could say that a significant number of discoveries were discovered by clergymen, or that the Catholic Church actively sponsored the sciences over a timespan. However, the discoveries were not commissioned by the Catholic Church.
Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't provide a right answer, it provides the methodology to find more correct answers.
It isn't a matter of thinking they were wrong (anyone can think someone else is wrong), it is a matter of being able to demonstrably prove that they were wrong.
Yes, yes, science is an enigma wrapped in a mystery, but we use it as the litmus test to determine our reality. Do you see the problem with that? Atheists discredit religion (ostensibly) because there is no scientific proof. Then when you point out that our grasp of science is not sophisticated enough to be held to such high standards... Well, it's like the kid who wants to be treated with respect but doesn't act respectably. You can't have a perfect science when it comes to eliminating religion, then acknowledge its infinite flaws when it is assailed.
- There is nothing wrong with saying "Here's all the stuff we don't know, God did it", but there is something wrong with just leaving it alone and not investigating it.
And there is something wrong in thinking that is how we arrive at our conclusions.
What aren't you understanding lol. You are parsing here. Splitting hairs because you cannot make an argument. The point is he was buying them to aid in his getting wrecked. He wasn't just a 12 year old skipping home with a pack of skittles.
Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't provide a right answer, it provides the methodology to find more correct answers.
It isn't a matter of thinking they were wrong (anyone can think someone else is wrong), it is a matter of being able to demonstrably prove that they were wrong.
Yes, yes, science is an enigma wrapped in a mystery, but we use it as the litmus test to determine our reality. Do you see the problem with that? Atheists discredit religion (ostensibly) because there is no scientific proof. Then when you point out that our grasp of science is not sophisticated enough to be held to such high standards... Well, it's like the kid who wants to be treated with respect but doesn't act respectably. You can't have a perfect science when it comes to eliminating religion, then acknowledge its infinite flaws when it is assailed.
Why are you automatically under the assumption that he's atheist because of his political leanings?
I think, if we needed to, we could also expand on Sparth's list with theism and atheism. This world does have shades of gray.
I'm really not trying to be rude, and maybe this would be best said in the 'Republicans in Trouble' thread, but do you not see how pigeon-holing people is alienating people in the middle?
As to Lean, one can make Lean out of anything...they cant say he was buying the Arizona beverage to make illicit mixtures of pharmaceuticals but then again, apparently its a given. You know, just because something can doesnt mean it always will be
There isn't multiple kinds of science, in the same way that there isn't multiple kinds of math.
Fail. Branches of Science
Anthropology
Physics (and its addendum of -physics related sciences)
Geology
Archaeology
Astrology
Chemistry
Biology
Meteorology
Sociology
The list continues... Branches of Mathematics
Geometry
Algebra
Trigonometry
Calculus
Probability
Statistics
The list continues...
But im sure thats not what he meant, as you only quoted half his statement
Incorrect. You could say that a significant number of discoveries were discovered by clergymen, or that the Catholic Church actively sponsored the sciences over a timespan. However, the discoveries were not commissioned by the Catholic Church.
Fail What scientific discoveries were initiated by the Catholic Church in the time frame you specified? Instead of saying "Fail" clarify.
Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't provide a right answer, it provides the methodology to find more correct answers.
It isn't a matter of thinking they were wrong (anyone can think someone else is wrong), it is a matter of being able to demonstrably prove that they were wrong.
Yes, yes, science is an enigma wrapped in a mystery, but we use it as the litmus test to determine our reality. Do you see the problem with that? Atheists discredit religion (ostensibly) because there is no scientific proof. Then when you point out that our grasp of science is not sophisticated enough to be held to such high standards... Well, it's like the kid who wants to be treated with respect but doesn't act respectably. You can't have a perfect science when it comes to eliminating religion, then acknowledge its infinite flaws when it is assailed. Then when you disprove someones innate understanding of why science is a somewhat "flawed" academic sector they divert to Atheism as if that has any real relevance.
- There is nothing wrong with saying "Here's all the stuff we don't know, God did it", but there is something wrong with just leaving it alone and not investigating it.
And there is something wrong in thinking that is how we arrive at our conclusions. Not when thats the main defense of literally everything going on in political debate right now.
Doesn't change the fact I think he profiled Martin while out driving that night looking for criminals.
You're still getting facts wrong while asserting that he profiled Martin for no reason other than "my feelings". He didn't "drive out looking for criminals", he was just about to drive to the store because he was hungry when he spotted someone he thought looked suspicious, and, again, in the tape he didn't even seem sure that the man was black until he was much closer to him. Why you ignored this earlier when I pointed it out, I don't know.
It drives me up the wall when people use "my feelings" as evidence of profiling, discrimination, racism etc. To me accusing someone of racism is one of the most heinous things you can be accusing somebody of so you better have a really good reason of making it.
An example, my father had a co-worker (White straight American male, so much privilege erywhere) when he first started working at his university that seemed to ignore him/dismiss him. My mother was convinced the man was discriminating against my father but if my father was as impulsive as a person as my mother (or more relevant, you) he would've missed out on someone who ended up being one of his closest friends during his entire teaching career. It turns out the guy was just a shy, quiet man.
Their trying to push that he's "white". GZ is about as much "white" as Obama is.
Liberal media portraying GZ as "hispanic" would mean he was a minority and according to liberal reasoning minorities can not oppress people. So because they want to believe GZ was oppressing TM, they can't possibly accept that GZ was a minority.
Mental gymnastics.
Where do you even get this garbage from?
Sadly you'd be shocked how many "liberals" actually believe that nonsense but I equate those people to conservatives that spend their days comparing homosexuals to polygamy and bestiality.
Hold on a second. Iced tea and candy are not used to make drugs, full stop.
Lean is made from candy, a soft drink and codeine. TM was a self professed use of Lean. There never was any "iced tea" in this case, the media lied to you *again*.
Though honestly the articles on TM have absolutely nothing to do with the case. Their just being touted around by the liberals to generate "feelings" that they can the manipulate.
Quote:
Sadly you'd be shocked how many "liberals" actually believe that nonsense but I equate those people to conservatives that spend their days comparing homosexuals to polygamy and bestiality.
Most of the liberals on this forum believe this. Just talk to them about things like "white privilege" and "minority discrimination against whites". They will adamantly insist that whites can not be victims of discrimination. It gets pretty ugly after that.
To the rest, there are very few true "conservatives" left. Right now we have two liberal parties with their only difference being where they draw their support from. Prior to the civil rights movement the Democratic party is where all the religious nuts where. During the movement and shortly afterward there as a mass exodus of the Religious liberals from the Democratic party to the Republican party, this influx eventually altered the party from a financial / business focused group with an emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility into a deep-south religious focused group.
So right now we have two parties,
Non-religious Democrats
Religious Democrats
And we wonder why the USA is going to hell in a hand-basket.
Their trying to push that he's "white". GZ is about as much "white" as Obama is.
Liberal media portraying GZ as "hispanic" would mean he was a minority and according to liberal reasoning minorities can not oppress people. So because they want to believe GZ was oppressing TM, they can't possibly accept that GZ was a minority.
Mental gymnastics.
Where do you even get this garbage from?
Sadly you'd be shocked how many "liberals" actually believe that nonsense but I equate those people to conservatives that spend their days comparing homosexuals to polygamy and bestiality.
Minority groups can be oppressive but they lack influence at the systematic level. The assertion that oppressive behaviors between minority groups don't exist is ridiculous.
I'm sad that I was gone for two days and nothing case relevant was really talked about except for the fact that the media does like to skip over facts of the case quit often when it didn't paint the picture they wanted to present.
This is irrelevant of whether somebody is a liberal or a democrat, or a conservative, or a republican, and it's disgusting that another thread has been made into a *** partisan issue.
I'm still curious as to how a jury of 6 women were chosen to be the jurors in a case of the state vs a man. It baffles my mind.
I'm also curious as to why the judge was so bias.
I'm also curious as to why this even made it to court in the first place.
I'm curious to see if the people who took it to court, the people responsible for destroying multiple people's lives unnecessarily out of trying to politicize this event that had nothing to do with race into a race issue. From George, to the ex chief of the police.
What more is there to talk about? The issue has inevitably become partisan with the Republicans holding Zimmerman up as a hero and the Democrats demanding his head on a platter. Both sides have resorted to character assassination to justify their stances and have let emotions completely blind any attempt to attack the underlying reality.
In the middle is the problem of social identity for young black men, general issues that plague the black community and an environment where being profiled and discriminated against for being black in the American public is normalized. But hey, it's far easier to put Trayvon in our 'drug addict' box so we can all pat ourselves on the back and move on.
What more is there to talk about? The issue has inevitably become partisan with the Republicans holding Zimmerman up as a hero and the Democrats demanding his head on a platter. Both sides have resorted to character assassination to justify their stances and have let emotions completely blind any attempt to attack the underlying reality.
In the middle is the problem of social identity for young black men, general issues that plague the black community and an environment where being profiled and discriminated against for being black in the American public is normalized. But hey, it's far easier to put Trayvon in our 'drug addict' box so we can all pat ourselves on the back and move on.
It's not a partisan or race issue... the fact that it was politicized to be them is sad.
There was no racial profiling, at least there's no evidence of it.
I personally don't put TM as a drug addict, you can't be physically addicted to marijuana, and I don't recall hearing about him using anything else. I do however think he was a violent young adult, based upon ignored facts.
I'm no republican, and I still find the fact that this went to trial a gross injustice.
There are many reasons it did, and it does show any underlying problem. The fact that law can be ignored to try to persecute a man for a crime that wasn't committed, because people not involved in the incident made it about race when it wasn't, is a severe problem. The entire "identifies as Hispanic" line that has popped up constantly is disgusting.
The history of America, and even it's current system has a lot of racial issues. But this was an entire miss on retaliation (which is wrong in the way it was done in the first place) as Zimmerman is no more white than Obama.
"Zimmerman, 29, who is white and Hispanic, was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter on July 13 in Florida after a racially charged trial in the shooting of Martin in February 2012. Thousands of people demonstrated across the United States after the verdict."
The thesis of that article taken in full context is quite literally the opposite of what you're saying.
Quote:
That is spreading insecurity across America, prompting Washington University professor Mark Rank to say: "Poverty is no longer an issue of 'them.' It's an issue of 'us.'"
Read the thread, lol. Followed the trial thoroughly was glad that politics didn't decide the outcome. I knew the kid deserved it. I mean who calls 911 before they plan to kill someone?
It is funny all the idiots who hang onto the media as fact givers as their information on the case. For all the defenders of him, please show me the law that justifies me assaulting and trying to murder someone for following me.
He shouldn't have got out of his car? Counter argument says TM shouldn't have went to the store alone at night, walking in a gated community, in the rain. Or maybe he should have called 911 and reported the creepy *** cracka.
