Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • George Zimmerman
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 95
  • 96
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,475 Views)
Mr Gray Apr 15 2014, 06:04 AM Post #1426
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:05 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 14 2014, 04:44 PM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:01 AM
Let me ask your opinion on something and this isn't a trap question. I honestly don't know the answer. Which do you think is a better deterrent for something like drugs: stiffer penalties or regulating them so much that they're difficult to attain in the first place? Personally, I suspect both methods are equally ineffective.
Make ANYONE receiving government money take random drug tests. Fail a test, and you lose your benefits. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
I agree with drug testing welfare recipients, but I think you are WAY off in assuming that welfare recipients are such a major drug use group that that would have any impact.
They are a HUGE drug use group in my area. HUGE.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 15 2014, 08:18 AM Post #1427
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2014, 06:04 AM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:05 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 14 2014, 04:44 PM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:01 AM
Let me ask your opinion on something and this isn't a trap question. I honestly don't know the answer. Which do you think is a better deterrent for something like drugs: stiffer penalties or regulating them so much that they're difficult to attain in the first place? Personally, I suspect both methods are equally ineffective.
Make ANYONE receiving government money take random drug tests. Fail a test, and you lose your benefits. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
I agree with drug testing welfare recipients, but I think you are WAY off in assuming that welfare recipients are such a major drug use group that that would have any impact.
They are a HUGE drug use group in my area. HUGE.
Maybe, but still likely a miniscule percentage of total drug users.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 15 2014, 11:28 AM Post #1428
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 14 2014, 07:33 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 14 2014, 04:44 PM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:01 AM
Let me ask your opinion on something and this isn't a trap question. I honestly don't know the answer. Which do you think is a better deterrent for something like drugs: stiffer penalties or regulating them so much that they're difficult to attain in the first place? Personally, I suspect both methods are equally ineffective.
Make ANYONE receiving government money take random drug tests. Fail a test, and you lose your benefits. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Is your reasoning that if they can afford drugs, they don't need benefits?
Not really. It's a fact that many people can't handle substances without becoming addicted, and this often leads to being unemployable. If you can care for yourself, I'll give you more latitude in what you do in your personal life, e.g. smoking pot. If I'm paying your way, there will be none of that.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 15 2014, 11:30 AM Post #1429
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:05 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 14 2014, 04:44 PM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:01 AM
Let me ask your opinion on something and this isn't a trap question. I honestly don't know the answer. Which do you think is a better deterrent for something like drugs: stiffer penalties or regulating them so much that they're difficult to attain in the first place? Personally, I suspect both methods are equally ineffective.
Make ANYONE receiving government money take random drug tests. Fail a test, and you lose your benefits. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
I agree with drug testing welfare recipients, but I think you are WAY off in assuming that welfare recipients are such a major drug use group that that would have any impact.
You tend to be more open minded and open to other opinions. Most liberals (not saying you are a card-carrying one) would regard my position as being too mean-spirited, and not compassionate enough. Like I've repeated before, liberals suck at tough love.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 15 2014, 11:40 AM Post #1430
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Apr 15 2014, 11:28 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 14 2014, 07:33 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 14 2014, 04:44 PM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:01 AM
Let me ask your opinion on something and this isn't a trap question. I honestly don't know the answer. Which do you think is a better deterrent for something like drugs: stiffer penalties or regulating them so much that they're difficult to attain in the first place? Personally, I suspect both methods are equally ineffective.
Make ANYONE receiving government money take random drug tests. Fail a test, and you lose your benefits. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Is your reasoning that if they can afford drugs, they don't need benefits?
Not really. It's a fact that many people can't handle substances without becoming addicted, and this often leads to being unemployable. If you can care for yourself, I'll give you more latitude in what you do in your personal life, e.g. smoking pot. If I'm paying your way, there will be none of that.
that makes sense, but it's certainly not consistent with other drugs, such as alcohol which can also leave you unemployable.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 15 2014, 12:21 PM Post #1431
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2014, 11:40 AM
HoosierLars
Apr 15 2014, 11:28 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 14 2014, 07:33 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 14 2014, 04:44 PM
dreachon
Apr 14 2014, 08:01 AM
Let me ask your opinion on something and this isn't a trap question. I honestly don't know the answer. Which do you think is a better deterrent for something like drugs: stiffer penalties or regulating them so much that they're difficult to attain in the first place? Personally, I suspect both methods are equally ineffective.
Make ANYONE receiving government money take random drug tests. Fail a test, and you lose your benefits. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Is your reasoning that if they can afford drugs, they don't need benefits?
Not really. It's a fact that many people can't handle substances without becoming addicted, and this often leads to being unemployable. If you can care for yourself, I'll give you more latitude in what you do in your personal life, e.g. smoking pot. If I'm paying your way, there will be none of that.
that makes sense, but it's certainly not consistent with other drugs, such as alcohol which can also leave you unemployable.
But drugs are illegal, so it's easier to draw the distinction. I wouldn't mind requiring alcoholics to be treated. There's a procedure constantly advertised here in Seattle that has a very high success rate.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 18 2015, 09:12 AM Post #1432
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Back in the news for partnering with a "no Muslims allowed" gun shop to sell paintings he did of the Confederate flag. Nice.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/17/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shooter-selling-co/
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Aug 18 2015, 09:24 AM Post #1433
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
"Florida Gun Supply is an Inverness shop owned by Andy Hallinan, who also became nationally notorious, because of a video last month in which he declared his store a “Muslim-free zone” over the fatal shootings of four American servicemen in Chattanooga, Tennessee, by a Kuwait-born Muslim.."

According to you, the Chatt shooter wasn't really a Muslim.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 13 2016, 07:54 AM Post #1434
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
George is back in the news. How much will he get for his gun?
https://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmermans-gun-used-trayvon-martins-death-auctioned-075639328--abc-news-topstories.html
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 13 2016, 08:16 AM Post #1435
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
I wonder if his actions since the shooting has changed anyone's opinion on what happened that night. I feel like previously many people supported him because they believed he was one of the good guys with a gun. Just trying to keep his neighborhood safe. Now that he's revealed what a scumbag he is, I wonder if that's altered people's perception about his actions that night.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson May 13 2016, 09:42 AM Post #1436
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Unsurprised.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 13 2016, 03:21 PM Post #1437
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 13 2016, 08:16 AM
I wonder if his actions since the shooting has changed anyone's opinion on what happened that night. I feel like previously many people supported him because they believed he was one of the good guys with a gun. Just trying to keep his neighborhood safe. Now that he's revealed what a scumbag he is, I wonder if that's altered people's perception about his actions that night.
I'm sure it has.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 95
  • 96

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy