While he has an important message that he is trying to get across. This "culture" they are arguing about goes far deeper than anyone realizes. Vocabulary should be the least of anyone's concern. For a side note about the vocabulary used, the word in question has lost its meaning as he is stating. Can it be a powerful word when used in a demeaning and demoralizing context? Absolutely. However, the blatant use and misuse of the word by everyone, blacks, whites and everything in between, has changed the meaning of the word. It is similar to the word fag. It has been years since I have heard the word actually used as a vicious attack towards a homosexual. Can it be? Absolutely. It is commonly used as that? Not even close. Words change meanings over time and especially over generations.

This is not the case here. The "culture" they talk about starts with teenage boys. Walk into a high school locker room. The threatening messages these two dolphins players sent each other are the same ones kids use. Martin even sent a text message to Incognito apologizing for the situation and that he doesn't blame him or they interactions. They are still friends. That says more about the whole situation than anything. They are still friends.

This "culture," yes I'm using quotes for a reason, is being founded in these men from the time they are boys. I was in locker rooms through high school and college. Have I used all the words they refer to? Yes I have. Do I hate anyone I was talking to? Not in the slightest, but it still happened because boys are boys. They don't know any better. That is the real issue. Coaches at the high school and college level are failing their players, not in a sport sense, but in a "how not to be a condescending piece of shit asshole" way. The morals I learned from my parents and family were not taught by many of my coaches. I had one coach who would bench you for this type of behavior. He did not care if you were the star or a third stringer. He did no care if we lost. He said he was more interested in teaching the kids how to be real men than to be football players. This was a great college coach and a great mentor.

This falls to them and to parents to try and teach at a young age this is not socially acceptable behavior. If they don't, they grow into men like we have on the dolphins, and then we have news stories like this. If these announcers think this isn't what EVERY single NFL or NBA locker room is like then they are even more delusional than I first thought.

@bcglorf

i did not posit drones are bad.
i didnt posit anything actually,except to refrain from the conversation entirely.
(our government,not you or i).

you or i can discuss ad nauseum and would have every right to.
we can and many do actually volunteer their time to help those in need,helpless or hurt.
some very brave souls travel to these broken countries to help ease the suffering of ordinary folk.

and you already know my answer to your query.
diplomacy is the only resolution and the reason is twofold:
1.diplomatic talks almost always are started with a cease and desist of all aggression.
2.it allows a multilateral approach therefore diffusing the hypocrisy i spoke about.

many people in this country are reluctant to look at what their own government has perpetrated in their name.
maybe out of fear...or pride.
but in my opinion any real conversation has to begin with absolute truth.

so by my vicious criticism of my governments foreign policy over the past 50 years does not mean that i ignore all the great achievements,great accomplishments and great ideals.

so if i was to posit anything on this thread it would be this:
we have lost our way.
the very things that made us great have become whispers lost in a cacophony of paranoid musings by the powerful and we sold our freedom to be cocooned in the safety of consumerism.
and while the wolves howl at the door we are fed platitudes of american exceptionalism and handed flags to wave in remembrance of good-deeds from days long past.
individualism has been ratcheted up to a fever pitch of self-aggrandizing twitter feeds and selfies.
that a persons self worth is based on their ability to purchase status symbols.
where news has become opinion and everybody has a right to one.
where facebook is a place to post your own,personal cartoon all the while never really communicating with anyone.

we have become afraid little children.

and its time to grow up.

$1.00 in 2012 had the same buying power as $0.10 in 1947.
¢4 in 1914
A loaf of bread is still, a loaf of ¢20 bread. It's the retarded monkeys who keep paying-into the play-money game that make the criminals who created this state of affairs.

Vicious, cyclical...Earth.

Funny, as I recall it was Retardicans that took a huge budget SURPLUS and turned it into deficit and debt. They only started caring about debt and deficit when it was no longer under their complete control.
My suggestion...0% incumbents in the next election...and 0% Teabaggers. And I think it's incumbent on all of us to viciously ridicule anyone supporting them or their current methods.

I'll add this my ever growing list of things I hate in the first world: tasers, pepper spray, omnipresent invasion of privacy, water boarding, oubliettes, and, now, shock collars.

The voice of God is Government. And now that God has been ousted, we need a new machine of terror: TECHNOLOGY. And then we'll reintroduce God. Vicious cycle.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

Nice Vid, Good on him. But Im curious as to why this makes him a "brave man". Ive never seen or encountered a Coyote, are they insanely vicious and aggressive or something? Almost any animal i know that has been trapped in a fence and is approached calmly, wouldn't try to kill you once it was free, at worst it might bite or scratch as it retreated once it was free? It would be exhausted and demoralised yeah? Not trying to be a jerk here, just genuinely curious.

"Rock and rolls' a vicious game, Ian...Tom Petty!....Eyyyyanh!"

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

"Sending anthrax to Piers Morgan"???.........VICIOUSLY ^upvoted^

That is why it is important to recognize your faults as just another human being, and then to align your entertainment consumption with entertainment that provokes and builds physical strength.

Be an early adopter, but not for the OCD obsession over the adoption, rather for what that new technology or entertainment means for for our freedom and the continuation of the species in civil society!

Be healthy and live in a healthy society. I know I have been out there and fuckin gung ho anti-police, but for good reason -- they drove me to a breaking point; a breaking point that I can finally see past. I don't fault institutions but the individuals that allow bad things to happen to good people and to society at large.

Be better, live better -- align your time with your positive agendas. It's not all a vicious cycle.

You know it was the squirrel baby that did it. That thing is a vicious beast with a savage bloodlust.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Swans can be pretty vicious too. A nearby lake was notorious for the big motherfrakkin' swan that would go out of its way to terrorize anyone who came to the beach there.
That said, an easy way to scare them off... use a blanket, jacket, or similar and hold it up in front of you like a wall and advance on them. Better yet, if you shake it slightly like you're closing in to pounce.
Like most animals they will react to your increased size by backing away.