I can't disagree with that assessment as stated at all, but at the same time I think there may be some validity to the overall point regardless of the mention of that questionable group. I certainly won't defend bullying; I think it's abhorrent and indefensible, but I'm concerned regarding the point that discourse on college campuses has been stifled may be valid and worth discussing.

Regardless, due to priorities beyond my control I know that I won't be the one to hash this out so let me just say that this is a great conversation and it's exactly what I hope VS can continue to be.

It's disheartening how naive and ignorant some humans are, but when they through some means obtain such important positions meant to drive progression of understandings that require genuine knowledge, then it's indefensible.

Take out the bronze age nonsense of; "god's on our side," "god gave us this land," "I'm not afraid because god will protect me," or "It's in the bible," and all that remains is an indefensible, morally unjustifiable, land grab. International law has decreed it illegal, but what is being done to redress the situation? I find it surprising that the Jews - having suffered millenia of persecution and oppression - cannot identify with the same persecution and oppression being suffered by the Palestinians. All I see for the future is escalation, and who knows what that will lead to.

If you think about it though, this is kind of the ideal situation:

You have a guy who openly tells the world via youtube that he deals marijuana. People show up to rob him. Nobody gets hurt, it's a completely peaceful situation, with no violent retaliation except to post the video and show the world an indefensible example of the type of people these guys really are.

I know people who have been beaten in front of their families for their weed. I also know people who have been killed for it. It's crazy.

The "debate" is inherently unfair because one side has to defend indefensible stupidity. As for what's on the air in "professional news outlets" (and I'm no fan of CNN), her intelligence seems to be only slightly beneath the average of Fox News' presenters. S'all fair and balanced. >> ^bobknight33:

I'm not here to defend her or the Pastors sermon content. All I'm saying if you are going to have a debate make it fair. Have equal intellectual capacities to present their ideas. As a professional news outlet they should have know not to have her on the air. >> ^Januari:


@bobknight33 You HAVE to be kidding... any interest in defending those statements yourself?... Devil's advocate even?... i mean ANY defense/excuse/rationalization/explination... anything? I'd really love to hear it. Or just consider for a moment the possibility that the comments made by this bigot and the folks who support him, reflect VERY well on the intelligence level of the person in this video. I suspect you'd have an incredibly hard time finding someone who isn't this stupid to go on camera and actually support them...
>> ^bobknight33:
What a poor interview. This should have been with someone who had the intellectual capability to have this discussion. Where was the Pastor, Deacon or such who could have properly defended, justified the statements from the sermon.

If she was to represent any one else on any other topic she would have been just as bad.

She was railroaded for the pleasure of CNN and its audience.
That's not news that abuse.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^spoco2:
That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."

Really? You're going to try to justify people who spend the price of a house on a car, and then have no idea how to drive it? That's the line you're going to take? Because it's pretty indefensible.
I'm never going to say "I have the money to buy a Lamborghini". I seriously doubt I'll ever have that much disposable cash. If I did have huge sums of cash, I would quite like to have a nice car, sure, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper than a lambo though. And I also wouldn't act like a dick and rev the engine while sitting at the lights, before trying to show off the 'raw power' of my manly machine. I don't see how people can justify that much money on a vehicle that has 2 seats and where 95% of its power is unusable due to it never being safe to drive at full speed. It's retarded.
Do I suppose then that you have bought a really expensive dick replacement car? Or do you just lust after them?

How people spend their money is their business, and requires no justification from anyone. Also, how do you know it was not the first time this person had driven it and underestimated its power? You say you would like to buy a nicer car. Well, it's ALL relative, because a guy, even lower down the food chain than you, may find YOUR choice indefensible. Tell you what, why don't we all buy the same car and srew individuality. As for me? I aspire to an Aston Martin and, no, it won't be a "dick replacement." Actually, you are quite fond of the word "dick" so you really should quit while you are behind, because with each sentence you reaffirm that you are one.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^spoco2:
That just makes me happy:
Dick who bought a lambo in the first place
Dick who thinks it's appropriate to give it some pedal going round a corner to show off why he spent so much money on a CAR
Dick smashes into other cars, causes no injuries, just VERY expensive damage to his car, and to others which he'll have to pay for.
Bravo sir, you've made me quite, quite happy.

Bravo Sir; Your comments clearly demonstrate that you are just a sad, jealous, guy. Let me guess your response; "I have the money to buy a lamborghini but don't want to look a dick." Yeah, sure. Here is a quote that may help you; "jealousy is the tribute those who haven't, pay to those who have."


Really? You're going to try to justify people who spend the price of a house on a car, and then have no idea how to drive it? That's the line you're going to take? Because it's pretty indefensible.

I'm never going to say "I have the money to buy a Lamborghini". I seriously doubt I'll ever have that much disposable cash. If I did have huge sums of cash, I would quite like to have a nice car, sure, maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper than a lambo though. And I also wouldn't act like a dick and rev the engine while sitting at the lights, before trying to show off the 'raw power' of my manly machine. I don't see how people can justify that much money on a vehicle that has 2 seats and where 95% of its power is unusable due to it never being safe to drive at full speed. It's retarded.

Do I suppose then that you have bought a really expensive dick replacement car? Or do you just lust after them?

There is no law, anywhere, that says if you think someone is stalking you that you can turn around and beat the crap out of them.

Also didn't you notice how you fabricated the whole story in your mind? Now Zimmerman was waving his gun around and thats why martin was running? Also now Zimmerman DETAINED him?

Where are you getting all these "FACTS" from? The Bill O'Reilly's of the liberal world probably.

I'm the most calm and rational person on here and just because I'm NOT taking sides you want to label me a racist sympathizer. Awesome

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So i'm pretty sure you're a racist sympathizer. or just dumb.
If you instigate an attack, you can't claim self defense. Period.
If you were stalked and chased down and detained against your will by a belligerent man with a gun, who you knew hated you and was out to harm you...
You're telling me you'd simply punch him once then attempt to flee?
Zimmerman has the right to defend himself with lethal force?
But a skinny unarmed teenager using just his fists is wrong to fight for his life?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Your opinion is disgusting and indefensible. Full Stop.

In reply to this comment by Darkhand:
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

At Darkhand:

So i'm pretty sure you're a racist sympathizer. or just dumb.

If you instigate an attack, you can't claim self defense. Period.

If you were stalked and chased down and detained against your will by a belligerent man with a gun, who you knew hated you and was out to harm you...

You're telling me you'd simply punch him once then attempt to flee?

Zimmerman has the right to defend himself with lethal force?

But a skinny unarmed teenager using just his fists is wrong to fight for his life?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Your opinion is disgusting and indefensible. Full Stop.

So i'm pretty sure you're a racist sympathizer. or just dumb.

If you instigate an attack, you can't claim self defense. Period.

If you were stalked and chased down and detained against your will by a belligerent man with a gun, who you knew hated you and was out to harm you...

You're telling me you'd simply punch him once then attempt to flee?

Zimmerman has the right to defend himself with lethal force?

But a skinny unarmed teenager using just his fists is wrong to fight for his life?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Your opinion is disgusting and indefensible. Full Stop.



In reply to this comment by Darkhand:
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".

Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Attack the messenger libs, cause you sure as hell can't defend the indefensible.


You comedians. You're always "on" aren't you.

Attack the messenger libs, cause you sure as hell can't defend the indefensible.

>> ^kceaton1:

You don't see this very much in the NBA for a few reasons. One, the defense is tighter, BUT there are still players that can still most definitely pull this off no problems. The reason said players do not pull off said play is because your coach will rip off your head and shit down your throat...as Duke Nukem so elegantly puts it.
It is a play of pure showboating extreme and not meant for professional play. Your number one goal set by your coach (and to be honest the owners as well) in a professional league is to make sure the ball goes in first, showboating is your secondary consideration to pump up the crowd. If you're ahead by 30 points with six minutes left in the fourth quarter maybe they will give you some leeway on doing such things.
I know the number of times I've seen it done are very few and far in between; much like behind the backboard shots (which require you to be VERY careful with your aim if you want it to count).


I kinda think it made it easier for him to score, if he's proficient at it such that he trusts the move. I hope you're just being a bit negative. I'm not into basketball, but the supreme confidence in one's abilities to the point where you can perform indefensible moves or sleight of hand is what made michael jordan exciting whether you like basketball or not. More like that is not a bad thing.

>> ^spoco2:

It's a pretty indefensible position he's taking.
He's saying:
"If you can bring yourself to front up to a hospital/clinic fast enough that the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet, I'll be ok with you stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg"
"But in all other cases, well, you've obviously taken too long, it's now 'a life' and I've backed myself into a corner saying I can't condone that... so tough"
He's trying to make out like he has a heart and is giving an option for women who have been honestly raped.
Heaven forbid that they take some time to get over the trauma, or have a hard time building the courage to ask for the treatment... nope, in his world it's just a routine procedure they should get done after an apparent routine rape.
Fucking hell... why again do people think he's the messiah?


Did I watch a different video then everyone here? He said at 7 months...its a bit different...vastly different than the way you note it. Seriously, wtf am I missing? And if someone says he implied something I got a problem with that.

Basically, "Emergency contraceptive okay even if it is a life. Don't wait till you're about to have the baby." That's it from this vid. He doesn't say anything about waiting a week to get the courage and lose out, or a month or two.

Otherwise he would (If I recall) leave it to the states (Which means, in effect, make it 1000% legal to have an abortion. Maybe a bit inconvenient for those who live in some states that outlaw it, but then crossing the border of one state to another isn't an outright prohibition.)

It's a pretty indefensible position he's taking.

He's saying:

"If you can bring yourself to front up to a hospital/clinic fast enough that the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet, I'll be ok with you stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg"

"But in all other cases, well, you've obviously taken too long, it's now 'a life' and I've backed myself into a corner saying I can't condone that... so tough"

He's trying to make out like he has a heart and is giving an option for women who have been honestly raped.

Heaven forbid that they take some time to get over the trauma, or have a hard time building the courage to ask for the treatment... nope, in his world it's just a routine procedure they should get done after an apparent routine rape.

Fucking hell... why again do people think he's the messiah?