EastCoastNiner

1.Curb-stomping him and stepping on his head on the pavement are pretty much the same thing. 2. Do you mind showing me where I was listing reasons for why Zimmerman did what he did? All I have said is that there is more to this story than what's come out already, both ways. It's funny how the two people you are calling out here are the two people in this thread that are open to both sides of the story. Pretty much every other person in here has their mind set on saying Zimmerman is without a about guilty. Oh, but you'll point to your Facebook post. And, in return, I'll just say, "Nah, you never did say that Trayvon was an angel, but bet your ass you'd be the guy in here (with the rest of the sheep, of course) finding a reason's to sugarcoat Trayvon Martin's alleged actions". 3. The "digging" has nothing to do with justifying anything, but rather tries to show that Trayvon may not be the angel that the media is trying to make him out to be, or that he was completely innocent here. However, I wouldn't expect you to be able to differentiate between the two. Again, there's probably truth and fiction to both sides of the story. At first, as I said before, I believe Zimmerman was certainly in the wrong. However, unlike you and most people, I didn't rush to judgement, and I'm waiting for more information to for my final opinion. Neither myself nor Flash are sugarcoating Zimmerman's action and his past, but don't want to see both sides of a story.

Oh, where art thou Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Black Panthers? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teenagers-poured-gasoline-boy-walking-home-school-set-fire-cops-article-1.1033062

Do you mind showing me where I said I believe Zimmernan is innocent? Do you mind doing that for me, or are you going to continue to make stuff up like you often times do. It's ten times more obvious which side you would take in this situation (I've taken no side). Wanting hand-outs, cases where a "minority" is perceived as the one that is wronged. etc. It's completely obvious which side you will take, without having an open mind. Also, I'm not sure why some of you keep mentioning Fox News. I never really watch or read Fox News. I listen to CNN for 99% of television news.

Not even similar. One is pointing out clear bias, and the one you are positing is actually showing your clear bias. "Majored in cheerfulness". . How about, "was suspended for assaulting a bus driver days prior"? Do you mind adding that one? Strong assumptions of why Zimmerman shot Traynov Martin. What was he supposed to be charged for? Also, is there some point about Zimmerman calling the police 46 times in 2011? .

Babe? The only babe she looks close to is: http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/00246/Babe_246206t.jpg

Try reading again. What else do you want to call climbing on someone and slamming their head into the pavement as? Oh, it's pretty much a curb-stomp. And, the picture has relevance, but it doesn't to you because it doesn't fit the liberal and over-reactionary agenda.

http://i.imgur.com/HwTcv.jpg It's not Trayvon, but the point remains.

New reports are stating that Trayvon curb-stomped Zimmerman and was the aggressor. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326,0,5928172.story

The latest rumors have him being traded to the Patriots. That would be.......amazing. HNNNGGGGGGGGG!

So, putting a goalie with worse playoff statistics by a decent margin on worse teams is going to increase his stats? Help me understand...........

That was one of the most poorly written articles I have read in a long time. From everything I have read and hear, Trayvon Martin's father did not say that is was not his sons voice screaming for help, but rather that he could not tell if it was his son for sure because it was hard to make out who was yelling. There's some other crap in this article that is factually wrong as well. Not to mention that you don't have to do something SOOOOO bad to be suspended from school for five days. The author (if I can even call him that) of this article wanted to make it seem like Trayvon Martin committed some terrible act to be suspended from school. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm closing my mind about this article.

Alright, here it goes. Reading the story and hearing about it when it first happened, it certainly seemed like Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin for little reason. Zimmerman probably should have stayed in his car and not approached Trayvon. The police reports and witness statements aren't completely on the same page either. Some claim the screaming was Zimmerman in the audio tapes, and some claim it was Trayvon. From what I've read and heard so far, I'm leaning towards saying Zimmmerman is in the wrong here, but I'm not going to say he's 100% guiltily right now. However, a few things about this case and other cases amuse me and anger me. The liberal media is trying to make Zimmerman seem like he's a white man in order to build their "sexy" story about a white man killing a black boy/young adult for what seems to be little reasons. Shall we examine how the media is changing Zimmerman's image on television and on the internet? Here is what he actually looks like: http://www.myfabulousstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/george-zimmerman.jpg Here is what the liberal media is trying to make him look like: http://media2.abcactionnews.com//photo/2012/03/20/George_Zimmerman_20120320013947_320_240.JPG They're trying to make him as white as possible to make their "sexy" story. Oh, and here's the past that pisses me off the most. I don't want to say Trayvon's murder isn't as bad as some other murders, but here's a murder case that got ZERO attention from CNN when it happened. When I say zero, I mean there was legitimately not ONE trace of this story in CNN's online data-base. Once they and other media outlets such as MSNBC, ABC, etc, were called out by Fox News and other media outlets that covered the story, those stations tried to cover their asses by starting to barely cover the story: Here's the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom Here's your convicted murderers: http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID30576/images/montage-knoxville3.jpg Hmmm, I wonder why this case wasn't covered by most media outlets...... Oh, because most media outlets are afraid to be labeled racist for reporting stories about black on white crime. It's truly pathetic. Oh, where were Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson? Why didn't they come out to play? Oh, and I'll leave you with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5IhFvIjnpI&feature=player_embedded

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/1277496422531i1sy.gif?w=528&h=396

People act like Roy was always a dominant performer in the playoffs, but that's just not true at all. He had quite a few TERRIBLE playoff performances, far worse than Haseks'. I think your whole reasoning about letting in the "bad goal at the worst time" holds little water. If those goals were the third or fourth goals he allowed in a game that "cost" his team the game, then I could see your point. However, when those goals you are referring to are most likely the first or second goal he allowed in a game, I don't think your argument and reasoning holds any water. I don't have a problem with you thinking Roy is better because you are obviously not alone, but I disagree with your reasoning about Hasek.

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/526476_10150686128121132_511291131_9328483_1099804209_n.jpg

Also, one other thing before I go into a longer post. It seems like your main argument is going to revolve around the "timing" of Hasek's rare goals that he allowed in the playoffs, which I strongly disagree with. For some like Roy that is thought to have been so dominant in the playoffs, which he was at times, with much better teams in front of him for the most part, you would think he would be blowing Hasek's playoff stats out of the water...........but he's not. Roy: 2.30 gaa .918 sv% Hasek: 2.02 gaa .925 sv% Also, I don't think it's stupid to think Roy is better, but I do think Hasek was better.

Oh, so you're saying that Hasek pretty much had to play a perfect game for the most part because he knew his team couldn't score, and he did play a near perfect game, yet he lets in one goal and now it's somehow his fault for letting it in at the "worst possible time"? So, he can pretty much play a near perfect game and then allow one goal, and the Sabres lose 1-0, Hasek should be criticized or whatever you want to call it for letting his only goal in at a poor time. I'll address this more tomorrow when I have more time.

How about, no? JPP+Nicks for Fotre. :glasses: .

He's a cocky, whiney little scrub. I hope he has a terrible career.

Even better than watching Harper fail, will be watching Lawrie fail much worse than Harper. I hope that scrub has a terrible career.

Negged.

One of my favorite videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNfgu-bYEvc

Ducks pack heat....... http://www.world-sex-records.com/files/images/duck-penis.jpg

The way I stated the question was just a jab at the Canadians here. However, I think Hasek was certainly better than Roy. Yes, Roy has three Conn Smythe's, but Hasek was NEVER on a team as stacked as the Avalanche teams that Roy was on. And, the 1993 run was not as impressive as some like to think, but I can touch upon that later if need be. Oh, and for people that talk about how Roy has the Conn Smythe's and Hasek doesn't, here's a little reminder for you. The best Canadian players in the world couldn't beat him. And, Canadians love to talk about international awards, for reasons I will never understand, but here you go because Hasek stonewalled a stacked Team Canada. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb9-hbwmb0Y And, what the hell does Hasek have to do with Blake Griffin? Flopping in basketball isn't a style of play besides playing like a [expletive]. Hasek played that style for a reason, and with great success.

Blake still flopped on that play, flailing his legs in the air. He's the least likable player in the NBA. I think Smith should be given a contract extension for that foul on Griffin.