@Sayja
i can agree that that this is not a zero sum situation.

but i have to disagree that this video,or even the other video i posted has anything to do with 'mens rights".

and i have to take you to task for your specious claim that 'there seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened by feminism".

while i cannot speak for anybody other than myself,i can quite confidently state that i personally,do not feel threatened by feminism,but i find this "intersective third wave feminism" to be a form of feminism that,until recently i have been wholly unaware of ,to be out of touch and nothing that resembles the feminism i grew up with.

and i think that distinctions differentiating the two forms of feminism extremely important.

equality,fairness and justice are noble ideals to fight for and classic feminism did just that.it took amazing courage for those women to stand up and fight for issues regarding women.
see:suffragist movement of the 1800's.

or the bra-burners of the 60's fighting for their sexual rights and rejecting traditional social norms.that they owned their bodies and therefore.their future.

even the proud women of the 70's 80's and 90's who brought to light the casual nature of our society in regards to womens sexuality and heightened rape awareness.

what i find most disturbing,and i am struggling to understand (and maybe you can help me in that regard) is how the feminist movement which has taken courage and determination,addressing real and actual womens issues,has been perverted into this weird,perpetual victimhood decrying the "oppressive patriarchy".

because this new feminism is threatening and is garnering actual real life consequences.
see: stephanie guthrie vs greg elliot
see:the duke lacrosse players

cases where you don't actually have to BE harassed,you just have to "FEEL" as if you are being harassed.

or where you can accuse three boys of rape,get the coach fired and ruin three boys lives,and when it is revealed to all be a fabrication?

the accuser walks away with zero consequences.

so i find it delicious irony when some will defend these "third wave' feminists and state EMPHATICALLY,that words have consequences and that these men SHOULD pay a price for their words.

yet the accusers rarely,if ever,pay for THEIR words.no consequences for THEIR misrepresentation.they just falsely accused.which had real world consequences.

hypocrisy much?

and where was this "oppressive patriarchy" swooping in to protect these men?

can you explain how that is morally,or intellectually consistent?
because it appears to me to be pretty damn hypocritical.

so this woman disagrees with the current trend of feminism.
that is her right and she explains why she disagrees.
does this mean she deserves the death threats and threats of physical violence from these feminists?

so if you could explain to me this "third wave feminism" i would really appreciate it my friend,because i dont get it and it is a real break from the philosophical feminism that have grown accustomed.

(Did Babymech just say that getting brutally gang raped in front of one's children by intruders in one's home is somehow comparable or "on par" with getting cut off in traffic? What the fuck is wrong with you?)

What Ms. Carrera doesn't appreciate here is that the assault of Cytheria undermines the narrative put forward by the Social Justice Warriors (i.e., modern feminists) that gives attention to the Duke lacrosse hoax, the Treyvon Martin case, and the Ferguson debacle, but completely ignores Cytheria's rape. Why? Because it negates the notion that rape is always a function of class and privilege (i.e., white affluent men raping poor minority females) and never not. If Emma Sulkowicz or Jackie Coakley lie about being assaulted, the SJWs are all over it, but if Cytheria reports being assaulted by underprivileged African American men, the SJWs simply ignore it.

Modern feminists don't care about rape victims. They never have. They aren't trying to protect women. They are trying to punish masculinity by displacing their own inabilities to cope with anything outside of their wealthy, upper-middle class bubbles...

Actually, this is true, but it's also only one of the recall items that GM has issued Recalls for this year.

"It recalled 8,208 of its 2014 cars on May 7, for example, because they might have rear brakes on the front wheels."

"GM says it has informed regulators about two more recalls imminent but not yet announced. The latest batch includes safety belt, air bag, transmission and electrical issues in a range of midsize sedans, full-size crossovers and SUVs, and pickups."


GM's U.S. recalls this year

Below are General Motors' recall of vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1

Date, no. of U.S. vehicles, models affected, recall defect

- Jan. 13: 324,970 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2014 GMC Sierra for overheated exhaust parts

- Feb. 7 and 25: 1,367,146 of the 2005-07 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-07 Chevrolet HHR, 2005-07 Pontiac G5, 2006-07 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007 Saturn Sky, 2007 Opel GT, 2007 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch

- Feb 20: 355 of the 2014 Buick Enclave, LaCrosse, Regal and Verano; 2014 Chevrolet Cruze, Impala, Malibu and Travers; 2014 GMC Acadia for transmission shift cable adjuster

- March 17: 63,903 of the 2013-14 Cadillac XTS for brake vacuum booster

- March 17: 303,013 of the 2009 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana for airbag

- March 17: 1,178,407 of the 2008-13 Buick Enclave, 2008-13 Chevrolet Traverse, 2008-13 GMC Acadia, 2008-10 Saturn Outlook for airbag

- March 17: 656 of the Cadillac ELR for electronic brake control

- March 28: 823,788 of the 2008-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2008-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2008-10 Pontiac G5, 2008-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2008-10 Saturn Sky, 2008-10 Opel GT, 2008-09 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch

- March 28: 174,046 of the 2013-14 Chevrolet Cruze for front axle shaft

- March 28: 489, 936 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2014 GMC Sierra, 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, 2014 GMC Yukon and Yukon XL for oil cooler fitting.

- March 31: 1,340,447 of the 2004-06 Chevrolet Malibu and Malibu Maxx, 2004-06 Pontiac G6, 2004-07 Saturn Ion, 2008-09 Chevrolet Malibu, 2008-09 Pontiac G6, 2008-09 Saturn Aura, 2010 Cobalt, 2009-10 Chevrolet HHR for electric power steering

- April 9: 2,191,014 of the 2005-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2007-10 Pontiac G5, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007-10 Saturn Sky for ignition key cylinder

- April 24: 50,571 of the 2013 Cadillac SRX for acceleration lag

- April 19: 23,249 of the 2009-10 Pontiac Vibe (built by Toyota) for air bags

- April 24: 51 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2014 GMC Sierra HD for diesel transfer pump

- April 29: 51,640 of the 2014 Chevrolet Traverse, 2014 GMC Acadia and 2014 Buick Enclave for inaccurate fuel gauge

- April 29: 56,214 of the 2007-08 Saturn Aura for shift cable

- May 7: 8,208 of the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu and 2104 Buick Lacrosse for brake rotors

- May 14: 111,889 of the 2005-07 Corvette for headlight low beams

- May 14: 19,225 of the 2014 Cadillac CTS for windshield wipers

- May 14: 140,067 of the 2014 Malibu for brake boost

- May 14: 2,440,524 of the 2004-12 Chevrolet Malibu, 2004-07 Malibu Maxx, 2005-10 Pontiac G6 and 2007-10 Saturn Aura for brake lamps

- May 14: 477 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe for steering tie-rod

- May 16: 1,402 of the 2015 Cadillac Escalade for passenger air bag

- May 19: 1,339,355 of the 2009-10 Saturn Outlook, 2009-14 Chevrolet Traverse, 2009-14 GMC Acadia and 2009-14 Buick Enclave for front seat belts

- May 19: 58 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2015 GMC Sierra HD for loose fuse block

- May 19: 1,075,102 of the 2004-08 Chevrolet Malibu and 2005-08 Pontiac G6 for shift cable (expands April 29 Saturn Aura recall)

Total 18,666,842
( http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/20/gm-recalls-fine-goverment/9329481/ )

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

Did I ever say that because over 2 billion people are Christians, that makes it true? Though you could make a logical argument that, if God has revealed Himself to the world, and people are more inclined to follow truth than lies, that His religion would be the largest on Earth at any given time.


The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Are you really going to try to argue that personal testimony isn't evidence, or couldn't convince you of something? If you were in a building, and someone came running in screaming that there was a bomb in the basement and everyone needs to evacuate immediately, would you demand that he take you to the location of the bomb so you could empirically verify his claim before you would leave? No, you would consider his personal testimony to be sufficient and leave the area.

The definition you're looking for is anecdotal evidence, and believe it or not, it can qualify as scientific evidence. Read any medical journal and you will find anecdotal evidence printed very routinely. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as proof, but I never said my personal testimony would prove anything to you. What I did say is that it qualifies as evidence, which it does, both in a legal and scientific sense. In the scientific sense, weakly, but that doesn't diminish its veracity, except perhaps in the eyes of those whose worldview is married to the idea that empirical verification is the only means of acquiring truth, a claim in itself which, ironically, cannot be empirically verified.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

What would you consider to be real, tangible evidence? I've never heard an atheist actually define what this would be. I assume it would be a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Well, that is what I am telling you in the first place, that you can know Him personally. That Jesus will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out and give your life to Him. A simple question: If Jesus is God, would you serve Him?

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

The main point scripture makes about non-believers is this:

That you already know there is a God, and who He is, but you're suppressing the truth in wickedness. That God has made it plain to you, to the extent that when you are standing before Him on judgment day, you won't have any excuse. It's not my responsibility to prove anything to you, because you already know. My job is to tell you the gospel and pray that God would have mercy on you and open your eyes.

There is one thing I can prove to you, which is that without God you can't prove anything. I'll demonstrate this to you if you can answer a few questions:

1. Is it impossible that God exists?
2. Could God reveal Himself to someone so that they could know it for certain?
3. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^Sketch:

A short post for @shinyblurry:

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home

Aaaaand yet one more further detail on the level of media irresponsibility on this whole thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOt1wEDy0SI

So far we have three news outlets (NBC, CBS, and CNN) who have all had to either retract blatant falsehoods they reported or correct misleading reports they previously made. In all three cases, the corrections have had to admit that things that were SAID to be evidence of racism turned out to be either gross exaggerations, or outright falsehoods. This is starting to sound like the Duke LaCrosse case all over again.

Zimmerman instigated the situation from the start. Even if you're right and Martin jumped Zimmerman on his way to the car, Martin was provoked by Zimmerman following him in the first place.

This statement is asserting that the act of following someone to see what they are doing gives the person being followed the legal right to commit an assault. However, if someone is following a suspicious person and the suspect begins an assault, the follower is NOT allowed to defend themselves. Just wanting to be clear on this point, because it sets a rather fascinating legal precedent where you can beat up anyone you think might be following you around and they aren't allowed to fight back.

If SYG applies, it sets a horrible precedence. You can instigate a fight, let the guy pound on you, and viola, you're free to kill

You may not like it, but Vaire is factually incorrect. Your sentence would be more accurate if it said, "It HAS SET a horrible precedent". This isn't some weird issue that's never happened before in the history of US legal jurisprudence. There are Stand Your Ground laws in a half-dozen states, and this kind of "turn around and kill your attacker" problem has been SUCCESSFULLY used to defend multiple of the world's Zimmermans. There are dozens of pages out there arguing this exact issue. Here are two...

http://www.slavinlawfirm.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/03/trayvon-martin-and-the-initial-aggressor-issue.html

The argument that you and Vaire should be making is that there is DEBATE in the legal community about these SYG laws. And that's true. There are a butt-ton of legal arguments taking place in which it is argued that SYG laws are not "designed" to allow a person to instigate an attack and then kill the person who responds.

But to come out and say that SYG "did not apply" to Zimmerman is simply untrue. Any lawyer could very easily make that case. To say that there is "no way" a laywer could do that for Zimmerman is just plain flat-out-like-a-lizard-drinking wrong. They will do that. They HAVE done that. There are successful cases in precedent that codify it.

You can say, "We should change the law!". You can say, "It's a lousy law!". You can say, "That's totally unfair!". You can say, "That's stupid and they need to fix it." But you can't say, "It doesn't apply" because it does. As far as the Zimmerman case is concerned, there is no clarity on what happened yes. That's what the investigation is for. If - however - the investigation concludes that Zimmerman was justified by the SYG law then that's it. Boom. He'd be immune to both civil and criminal prosecution.

Wait, I am confused... Obama is black, and usually presumed guilty before innocent as a black man first. We agree on that 100% I assume...but the proper way to word your argument would have been, "when a black man is shot and killed by a Hispanic, you are here insisting the Hispanic guy is innocent until proven guilty."

If we say Zimmerman is for the most part white, then Obama is white too, and that's just retarded... We know society goes by racial clumping and that shit is not going to change any time soon. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard "White Hispanic" in my life--when the Media wants to stir up shit for dollar's sake.

If it had been Zimmerman shot by a KKK member, who thinks the fucking paper would label it a white-on-white crime? Who on the sift would label it as such?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media% 20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.
Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.
That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%
20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.


And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.

Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.

That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift

I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.

But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".

What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...

Innocent until proven guilty.

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.

Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%20Bias

The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

Nancy Grace is a pathetic excuse for a "reporter"

she was disbarred in Georgia for illegal practices, the bar had enough of her and ran her out of practicing

she was a suspect in the murder of her husband, and there are still questions surrounding the case and many think she had something, or knew something was going to occur but didn't stop it.

she was successfully sued and forced into settlement by CNN over the Melinda Duckett suicide the day after her interview with Nancy.

she slandered and condemned the duke lacross team and daily insults and trash talking and never apologized when it was found out the girl lied from the beginning and instead of showing up, she took a week vacation when it was found the girl had lied about the rape. Therefore 'disappearing' till the story blew over.

Her latest crap is she's screaming at top of her lungs and adamantly stating that Whitney was murdered that someone drowned her. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/nancy-grace-whitney-houston-comments_n_1282410.html)

Repeatedly gave false info on air on the Caylee Anthony case, to the point of fabricating evidence that actually got her investigated by the team investigating the murder all to find out it was "fabricated for ratings" she was forced to take another week vacation this time from her bosses at CNN who owns HLN.

She was fired from her old tv spot on a local Atlanta station for slander.

the lists go on and on and on, heck even Wikipedia has a loooooong list of her offenses...

she's trash that should be done away with, it only proves that media cnn/hln are 1 step below trash jerry springer type television and there is no longer any news in america only sensationalism for ratings.

There are two aspects of the rulebook that I think might apply here; from the official NHL rulebook:

80.1 High-sticking the Puck

"Cradling the puck on the blade of the stick (like lacrosse) above the normal height of the shoulders shall be prohibited and a stoppage of play shall result."

80.3 Disallowed Goal

"When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed."

The puck made contact not with the shaft, but with the blade, at the time of release; and judging by the slo-mo replay, the blade was below the height of the net, only the shaft was above the height of the net. This means that the ref's made the right call, awesome goal.

Was that a lacrosse stick?

I went to the source and read several pages of the actual thesis.

It wasn't the Lacrosse team, it was athletes at Duke. A couple were baseball players. And her first "subject" was encountered in Sept 2008. I don't know when the last one was. Presumably 2010 sometime.

I stopped reading about halfway through. Parts of it, I was thinking "you go, girl", parts of it I was wincing. I had to stop when the wincing predominated.

It's pretty funny, though, in general. Except when the wincing got to me.

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
You fuck a LaCrosse team, but hate CANADIANS!?

BLASPHAMY!

THIS WOMAN IS A WHORE! A HARLOT! A TOTAL SLUT! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
I, too, share your love of LaCrosse. I was a middie.

"Lacrosse isn't a sport. It's a faggy college activity. Any time your running around a field with a stick with a little net on the end of it, you're engaging in a faggoty college activity. Period."

-George Carlin