It's not a matter of "Girls is telling us how to live/it's an advice/role model show", it's a matter of Lena Dunham and crew thinking honestly that the show represents a relatable experience. Every rich girl I know who grew up in situations like these actresses do find this show incredibly relatable. But to call the…

I think that it is and it isn't. I think that they (Lena and friends?) aren't self aware enough to know that this isn't very normal, but when they get called out on it, they call it ironic, and that's how they get away with it.

Part of the plot of the show in the beginning was that they were trying to speak to the average twenty something who lives in Brooklyn- struggling with post-college/internships/jobs, etc. They just did a terrible job of it because they don't understand that most people on this earth are not rich-hence why right away…

I apologize for my tone in my comment. I had just read a bunch of comments demanding that Zimmerman was the victim,etc, and pissed.

I seriously find the girls of Girls to be utterly unbearable. Rich kids of famous parents trying to act like they know anything about being an average twenty-something. I'm sorry, but if your parents are famous artists/musicians/news anchors/film directors/grandfather wrote Sound of Music & Anything Goes, then you…

This is what I'm thinking about:

Isn't the name spelled Dzokhar?

Actually, he would be on trial for sexual assault. Perhaps you might also be on trial for the little slap you gave him, but you would argue self defense, since he had his hands holding onto your tit when you slapped him.

Actually, he would be on trial for sexual assault. Perhaps you might also be on trial for the little slap you gave him, but you would argue self defense, since he had his hands holding onto your tit when you slapped him.

Okay. You just won the internet. Let's pack it in folks! We're done.

Really? really? Is that so? Soooo, a person with a history of violence and stalking is not more likely to have attacked and stalked Trayvon-rather than the version of events he told which was that he was minding his business when he was assaulted by Trayvon and defended himself. You are a fool if you believe that…

Haven't you already asked this on like, at least one other thread, regarding Zimmerman case, and gotten numerous responses? I'm wondering if you are 'asking' so much as trying to make a point.

Yep, defensive defensive.

That's cute but it still doesn't fly. You have repeated the same phrase over and over, because you don't seem to understand that ALL the witnesses brought forth by the defense were paid to be there. Of course they backed up Zimmerman's claim. Numerous people throughout this thread, and the last thread have listed a…

Seriously dude, you just need to stop. Your opinions about this case are baseless and ridiculous. They are not facts. You seem unsure about how facts work. You cannot just take Zimmerman's current version of events at face value and tell everyone that this is the factual version of events. The "expert witnesses" they…

Obviously it was his constitutional right. You are missing my point. Though you seem determined to miss every single point made by anybody on this thread, so.... good luck to you.

If Zimmerman's case was so strong and sturdy, then, as the only eyewitness, why did he plead the fifth? Because he did not want to incriminate himself. Now, during the civil suit, he will not have that option, and will be forced to testify.

Whether or not he had his head slammed into the ground proves nothing-If you attack someone, you can expect that they might slam your head into the ground to defend themselves. You don't then get to murder them.

There is no proof that it was Zimmerman and not Trayvon who was screaming for help, first of all. And there were no witnesses which actually saw the altercation. However, if you listen to the 911 call of Zimmerman, he is clearly following Trayvon, even after he is told not to. The dispatcher tells him not to follow…