The media does not cares if blacks kills blacks. They report what is and is not news worthy.

The other week the When the plane went down is San Fran. There were 72 killings / shootings in Chicago and no National Media. From a gun violence point of view and there is a lot of that going around, still no one cares.


The Zimmerman/ Martin issue was made a race issue from the National Race Baiters Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. They went down to Sanford and goated the DA for the arrest of Zimmerman. The circus show had begun. Even during and after the trail, MSNBC is pulling the race card. No wonder the country is divided.

The only defining issue to have is the state of mind of Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger. There was no defining evidence of willful intent or self defense hence he was acquitted.

Almost doesn't matter anymore. Even if he is acquitted, his life is effectively over. Especially if he keeps gaining weight at the rate he's going

The Martin gangsta persona is bullshit, but the paranoid racist with delusions of grandeur portrayal of Zimmerman seems to be pretty accurate. Idiot should have stayed in his car, and although the asinine law may acquit the motherfucker, he killed Martin, and it was his (Zimmerman's) own damn fault.

And yes, catbutt, even the far-rightie nutters have a small delegation here at VS, replete with their own delusions, as well as the occasional drifter who succumbs, temporarily, to their representative media's onslaught of stupidity and faux rage.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor you must ACQUIT.
That does not. make. sense.

Finally, a little perspective. I feel like CNN was really just trying to emphasize that this isn't some bullshit punishment. These kids got their asses handed to them. They're fucked. I think this was in direct response to the understandable concerns that they wouldn't be.

This brings up a bigger question, which is "why don't more of these cases end this way?" My argument would be because the legal consequence of sexually related crime is too severe. It often has the effect of making the judge or jury uncomfortable levying that punishment in light of the specific facts of the case, and thus acquit the rapists to avoid destroying their life completely. It even probably dissuades many victims from levying accusations in the first place. If there were more graded punishments as there are in many other developed nations, we might find charges and convictions more common.

The registered sex offender thing is just one example. I remember that one case of a girl getting charged with distributing child pornography for sexting her boyfriend. Now she has to tell her neighbors she's a sex offender. It's all about politics, not justice.

*promote .. because if he is acquitted and the country riots, we should know the kind of arguments that the jury was presented with.

If the trash can lid doesn't fit, you must acquit.

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

He wants to be President, and? You imply he is a worse choice than say, the current President (Who has left open a facility to torture, predominately, Muslims,) or the President/s before him (a President who used a degree to fight two wars without batting an eye as to why.) I would hope you can admit he would have been FAR better than Obama or Bush…

So Paul has an issue with property rights and the government telling you what to do? Thoreau also had problems with that line of thought. I think the greater part of their argument, that he fails to articulate, is that---when a government takes power, it always takes more power in time. And when it has the power, it finds a way to abuse it. We see that has happened.

Oh, and I am so glad that the law in 1964 protects minorities... except that the wealthy and white have found 1 million loopholes around it with other laws... Blacks commit a crime? More punishment and jail time than a white. Blacks need a job? No, go away... How about, blacks need welfare? Sure, so long as you don't make anything of yourself. WE STILL HAVE JIM CROW LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY. GET OVER IT. ONLY SOCIETY AT LARGE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM. AND WE WON’T, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO.

So glad that the useless law does something ineffectively... Oh, and go to certain bars in PA as a black man, and lets see how far the patrons let you go before removing you. Glad that a law will protect your rights as your being stabbed to death--then protects him as the white, racist judge laughs and acquits his friends.

I also think the problem; we don’t ask, what is the principle behind Paul’s actions? Racism? No... Nor greed (The reason pot is illegal, for example.) It is relying on humanity to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as so often the case, Humanity is horrible (See Rome, genocide, and religion)--and we blame Paul for being naive; and he is. But so are we. Instead of holding accountability to the sign holders we laugh at Paul’s ignorance. Instead of blaming the murderer, or rapist, we blame the politicians who have not put laws out there to "protect us.”

Kind of like--"Well, she was wearing slutty clothes so we should blame her for being raped!" I know, I know, that is a far-fetched comparison, but it still fits to some degree. Both people do not deserve to be attacked for their statements (One who was making a statement by dressing physically attractive, and the other one who makes a statement verbally with good intentions.) But, as is the case, people do punish both in society.

I think Paul would be better off being a liar so he could actually get elected--because, though people may do it unintentionally, they elect the bad guy because the good guy always loses. But then, if he did become a winner through deception, he would just be another in a mold of thousands.

The funny part is that in matters such as this, Paul would have no sway in the agenda; he would only have a say in matters of Liberal agendas (Close Gitmo, stop wars, debt, cut down the drug war, end the Patriot Act., etc.) So even if you did elect him, Netrunner, you would get the best of both worlds. No gold standard, but most of your agenda would be fulfilled… Of course, Liberals suck at thinking logically (Even the part of me that is liberal, and there is quite a bit, has this problem.)

Speaking of society, here is my example…
http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching

Yes, you're right.
If you imagine him as impotent, he becomes clownish though. And I like the clown in him.


In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!

Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!

Hi @BicycleRepairMan! Since we’re discussing the 10 commandments, I thought I’d do us a favor and actually post them here for us to look at so it’s easier to discuss. Note that there are two versions, the ones from Exodus and the ones from Deuteronomy, so I’ve posted both versions (as printed on Wikipedia):

Exodus

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Deuteronomy

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.
8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
17 You shall not murder.
18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
19 Neither shall you steal.
20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

I do not see anywhere in either version of the Ten Commandments any “command” about not thinking about or interpreting these commandments. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so. My original point stands—that’s not what they actually say. There is no need to excuse or explain away the original text, because there’s nothing explicitly written there that supports your interpretation.

That being said, to some extent Hitchens’ interpretation of the Ten Commandments as including thought crimes matches that of the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Ten Commandments. However, you yourself pointed out that most Christians—including Catholics—don’t interpret it that way personally. And that’s the weakness with Hitchens’ argument. He’s not arguing against religion here, he’s arguing against one particular interpretation of a particular religious ruleset (the Ten Commandments) of a particular religious sect (orthodox Catholicism). His interpretation, it turns out, is not even held by the majority of the worshipers of that particular religion (Christianity as a whole). Which begs the question of why he’s even going off about it (the thought crime thing) in the first place? His claim is that the Ten Commandments are a terrible place to get your morality from, yet his argument is actually not against the Commandments themselves but against the unthinking interpretation of some religious adherents. I don't find that to be a very rational or convincing argument against the Commandments themselves.

I'm sure they put down such serious charges just so he can be acquitted of all of them later on when the court sees how ridiculous the case is.

Once inside the building, they barricaded themselves in and set to work. Equipment used to make weapon components were trashed and computers, filing cabinets and office furnishings were thrown out of the windows. Once they were done they calmly waited for the police to arrest them. Two activists who supported them outside the factory gates were also on trial. All of the defendants have argued that what they did was not only morally necessary but crucially that it was legal. U.K law allows the commission of damage of property to prevent greater crimes.

Two of the accused, Simon Levin and Chris Osmond have extensive experience of working in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement. Chris Osmond told the court that ’the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza at that time meant it was imperative to act’. He cited the words of Rachel Corrie, the U.S activist who was killed by an IDF bulldozer in Rafah, as an inspiration. The court heard a passage of Corrie’s diary ’I’m witnessing this chronic insidious genocide and I’m really scared, this has to stop, I think it is a good idea idea for all of us to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop’.

During the trial the court heard not only from the defendants themselves but from Sharyn Lock, who was an international human rights volunteer in Gaza during Cast Lead. She was inside Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City when it was attacked with white phosphorus. She concluded her evidence by saying that she had no doubt that those who armed the Israeli Air Force ’had the blood of children on their hands’. The jury saw footage of the air attacks on the UNWRA compounds where civilians were sheltering and have been given an edited version of the Goldstone report.

Recently elected member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also gave evidence supporting the decommssioners, saying that the democratic process ’had been exhausted’ as far as the factory was concerned.

On January the 17th 2009 the bombs had already fallen relentlessly on Gaza for three weeks. Massive, passionate demonstrations and pickets had been held in many cities around the country and the world in protest against Israel’s war crimes, but to no avail. A growing sense of helplessness was grabbing hold of the movement as the Palestinian body count stood at over 1400 and counting. 300 of the dead were children. It was against this background that the “citizen’s decommissioning” of EDO MBM/ITT took place.

EDO/ITT is an arms manufacturer, based in Brighton since 1946. They were acquired along with the rest of EDO Corporation by the multinational arms conglomerate ITT in December 2007. Their primary business is the manufacture of weapons systems such as bomb release mechanisms and bomb racks. This includes crucially the manufacture of the VER-2 Zero Retention Force Arming Unit for the Israeli Air Force’s F16 war planes.

Over the years, EDO have consistently denied supplying Israel, and despite over fifty court cases campaigners were not able to properly expose the links between the factory and the IAF. However the serious nature of the charges against the seven (the factory sustained nearly £200,000 of damage and may not have recommenced production for weeks) means that for the first time courts took the argument that EDOs business is fundamentally illegal very seriously.

Paul Hills, the Managing Director of EDO MBM, spent his five days on the witness stand last week being confronted with all the evidence gathered by campaigners over the years –evidence which exposes a complex network of collaboration between British, American and Israeli arms companies and the way in which their deals are clouded in secrecy. The Decommissioners were able to present Mr Hills, for the first time, with a dossier of evidence showing how EDO MBM use a front company in the U.S.A to indirectly supply components for the F 16 to Israel. Under U.K law the supply of weapons components that might be used in the Occupied Territories is actually a crime.

After hearing Hills’ explanations of his company’s business practices, Judge George Bathurst-Norman said that, despite Hill’s denials of dealing with Israel, it was clear that their was enough evidence to justify a genuinely held belief they did. He also offered the opinion that End User Certificates required for arms export licences were “ not worth the paper they are written on” as they can be easily manipulated.

There is a history of juries in British courts finding anti-war activists not guilty when they attack machinery used in war crimes. In 1996 four women from Trident Ploughshares decommissioned a Hawk jet that was about to be shipped to Indonesia – they were found not guilty. In 2008 the Raytheon 9, who damaged a factory in Derry supplying weapons to Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war, were acquitted by a jury and only two weeks ago a group of nine women carrying out a similar action at Raytheon during the Gaza attacks were also found not guilty by an unanimous jury.

On Friday, the jury found Simon Levin, Tom Woodhead, Ornella Saibene, Bob Nicholls, Harvey Tadman, Elijah Smith and Chris Osmond not guilty of “Conspiracy to Cause Criminal damage” by unanimous verdict in Hove Crown Court.

Chris Osmond said “This action was taken because of EDO MBMs illegal supply of weapons to the Israeli military. We brought the suffering of ordinary Palestinians into a British courtroom and confronted with the evidence they took the brave decision to find that our actions were justified.”

The decommissioners’ stance made it clear to companies like EDO that they can no longer count on not being held to account for their actions. There are now a growing number of people in the international community who are willing to risk their own liberty to stand up for the people of Gaza and to challenge Israel’s war crimes through whatever means possible.

^ So your defence of a police officer illegally trying to snatch someone's private property off a person under the guise and umbrella of law enforcement and legality is "he failed."

So he isn't breaking the law because he's a BAD phone snatcher?

And when he tries to bully someone into blindly following FALSE ordinances/laws, he's not doing anything wrong because he's too stupid to think up a lie to cover it?

Are you really acquitting this guy because he's stupid and clumsy and slow? You know, if police officers tell people to do things that AREN'T enforceable, you reduce the chances that they will do things that ARE enforceable when you tell them to. Then people will get hurt, and it'll be the fault of people like this bald-headed cunt.

Thank god he didn't bring out a fucking taser or bear mace. But if he'd fired either at them and accidentally missed and hit himself, that'd have been alright, yeah?

It's like saying my comb is scarier than a porcupine. The comb may be functional and cost less to maintain but lets face it, porcupines are badass. If you have to take on a pack of lions don't bring a comb my friend. THAT would be like trying to fight cancer with healthcare instead of war.

Ladies and gentlemen this is not making any sense. I!!! AM NOT MAKING ANY SENSE!!! IF THE GLOVE DOESN'T FIT YOU MUST ACQUIT!!!