Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Sunday, April 22, 2012

"Apologize For Me Being Wrong!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

In every sports event, there is a play or a player that affects the outcome. This is known as a game-changer.

Recently in the Trayvon Martin situation, there has been two game-changers, both of them supporting previous posts on the subject matter.

Lindaman must be referring to somebody else's posts, as we'll see. lol

First, there was the apology issued by George Zimmerman. He came off as humble, repentant, and dare I say it
likable! Far from the monster the Leftists have painted him,

Wanting Zimmerman taken to court for shooting an unarmed teen that he was following, definitely equates as "leftists painting him as a monster".

Right-wingers certainly haven't tried to paint Trayvon and his family as monsters, have they?  It would be almost impossible for me to find such a right-winger, wouldn't it?

Well... except in Lindaman's very own comment box of this very post. Warchickenhawk strikes again!  lol

Zimmerman came off fairly well in the opinions of legal experts.

Lindaman, nowhere in the link you provide above, do any legal experts refer to Zimmerman as "coming off fairly well" in terms of his behavior or his apology.  They only refer to his lawyer's tactics.  You might be able find some talking heads somewhere that state what you're claiming, but it sure isn't in your source.  Yet again, you have proven that you can't even read your own sources!

On the other hand, Trayvon Martin's parents came off as petty, refusing to accept his apology (in a statement issued by their lawyer).  According to the lawyer, Zimmerman's apology was self-serving and insulting to the family. Of course, that's to be expected. He doesn't want to give the impression the apology was actually worthwhile.

Considering it took Zimmerman nearly two months to apologize, that's pretty funny. And Warchickenhawk is wrong, you can make a public statement.  The fact that Zimmerman waited until the world was watching him on television certainly wasn't self-serving though, correct?  Especially since just a couple of days earlier, Trayvon's parents made it clear that now it wasn't the appropriate time for an apology.  Then, Zimmerman did it anyway.  Totally not self-serving, though.

Oh, and one other thing:  I don't want to nitpick too much on this, but Zimmerman really didn't "apologize".  He said he was sorry, but in this case he meant "sorry" as in "I feel bad for you."  It's like when Bush said he was "sorry" to the Chinese government about the spy plane crash incident.  To apologize for something would mean Zimmerman was accepting fault.  He didn't.  I'm actually very surprised you right-wingers aren't making that clear!

But anyways...

"How petty, not kissing the ass of the man who shot your son!"

Missing in this is what the parents actually thought. Issuing a statement through an attorney is still third-party communication instead of direct communication. After all, Trayvon's mother, Sybrina Fulton, said on "Today" she felt the shooting was an accident. Here is a direct quote from Fulton:

One of the things that I still believe in a person should apologize when they really...when they are actually remorseful for what they done. I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back.

She has since retracted her statement,saying she felt Zimmerman stalked and murdered her son. However, given the context of her original statement (which she claims was misconstrued), I don't think her retraction makes much sense. Might that have been the idea of a lawyer to issue a retraction? One can only guess, but my guess is it was a lawyer's idea.

Well, of course you would. lol

But Zimmerman's apology was totally not his lawyer's idea, right?  Well, of course not!

When Sabrina Fulton said it was "an accident", she clearly means the circumstances of them crossing paths were an accident.  She didn't mean Zimmerman "accidentally" followed Trayvon in his truck, "accidentally" got out of his truck against the advice of the dispatcher, "accidentally" pointed the gun at Trayvon and "accidentally" shot him.  Sheesh!

She didn't retract her statement, she clarified it.  Which she shouldn't have even had to do, since it's obvious what her original statement meant.  But yet again, people are idiots and need things spelled out to them.

The other game-changer involves the Leftist piece of monkey crap

Twice in a row, during posts regarding racism, Lindaman uses the term "monkey".  Yep, it's not Freudian.

And really... "monkey crap"?  That's your idea of a burn?  Is it because your particular Christian branch doesn't allow you to swear strongly?  I've heard weirder things from you, since your own statements reveal that your branch of so-called Christianity doesn't believe in free will.

who said I "smeared" Trayvon's family by suggesting their copyrighting was meant purely as a protective measure. After a bit of digging,
I found this piece. I quote from the piece:

According to applications filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon” were submitted the family’s attorney confirmed last week.

Fulton plans on using the slogans for DVDs and CDs memorializing the murdered teenager.

ROFL!  That quote was in the original link you provided in your previous post!  Did you not read it??

Honestly now... you actually had to "dig" for it... somewhere else?

That is hysterically funny.  Do go on!

Hmmm...sure looks like my "smearing" had more than a ring of truth to it, given the only way for Fulton to make money would be to...copyright Trayvon's name! Funny how copyright law works, isn't it?

First, there's a difference between copyright and trademarks.  The terms are not interchangeable.

Second, Mr. Climate Change Expert/Copyright Lawyer... trademarking a term does not mean they are trying to profit from it.  Distributing memorial materials does not mean they are making a profit from it.  The family has already stated that the trademarks are not for profitable purposes.  You have already been told this.  How is this so difficult for you to understand?

Third, there are good reasons for trademarking the terms.  By trademarking the terms "Justice for Trayvon" and "I am Trayvon", a person who obtains materials that have such terms (be they CD's, DVD's, or other items) will know that such materials have the approval of Trayvon's family.  It's to prevent items (such as CD's, etc) to be made with the intent of making a profit off Trayvon's name.

It's a smart move on Trayvon's family's part.  Because now, if some wise guy hoping to make a quick buck, makes a tee shirt that says "Justice for Trayvon" on the front, with "Shoot the Crackers" on the back, the family can prevent them from being distributed.  Thus preventing the exploitation of Trayvon, and it has the added benefit of preventing right-wingers like you from waving the tee shirt around and yelling
"See?  This is what that Martins really think!"

I won't expect an apology from you, Mr. Leftist Copycat. We both know you lack the guts and the honor to do it.

Lemme get this straight, folks... Responding to Lindaman is apparently "copying" him.  But Lindaman parroting Limbaugh and Beck is totally original. Well, I guess Lindaman would know, since he's a copyright expert now. lol

Lindaman, you claimed Trayvon's family was going to make a 2 for 1 "Justice for Trayvon" hoodie sale.  Apparently that's "guts and honor" to you.  I said you hit a new low, and stated you were smearing Trayvon's family. 

Hmmm... Nope, not going to apologize for that.  Because it was true then, and it's still true now.  But what do you care, right?  To you, this tragedy is just a sports game.

You're simply... a bad person.

Your attempts to double down won't alter those facts.