I see what you are trying to say. I don't think you can distinguish from eyeballing, though. There is a third category to keep in mind: the brother who holds his head up in defiance in response to the attitude of some patronizing white person. The could happen across both of your hypothetical groups.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
I'm curious as to how you know these people's life stories, so much so that you are sure they've never achieved anything of which to be proud? Could it be that you are making a shallow judgment about theim based on their appearance and musical choices? I have to say that I find your blatant snap-prejudice more detestable than some alleged poser's stance.
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^longde:
Yeah, how dare those 's have some pride and hold their heads high. Why the nerve? Don't they know their place, dammit!?!?
....Obama's the worst one, I tells ya....>> ^Enzoblue:
I think what this guy is truly objecting to, (if he had the IQ to work it out in his head), is the black man's sense of entitlement which can be over-bearing in some. I read recently about the difference between self-esteem and self-image. Self-esteem coming from good deeds that make positive changes in your world, (that a stereotypical ghetto black man doesn't have), vs self-image that the stereotypical black man is over-flowing with.
You do see this boisterous in your face self-image a lot, just walking down the street with their heads held high, daring anyone to challenge them. The mistake, however, is to lump all blacks in this category and assume that all blacks with their heads held high are doing so to compensate for low self-image, which this guy is doing.


Having pride and holding your head high when you've done nothing to be proud of except perfecting the appearance of being an original gangsta or playa or whatever is detestable. That's what I'm saying. Self-esteem comes from within and can only be obtained by good deeds and caring and empathy. Self-image is a facade, (what you think other people think of you), and is easily faked.


If you agree that holding your head high because you hold 3 jobs to put your kid brother through school and holding your head high because you have a gun in your pocket are two different things, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Those two different attitudes are visibly noticeable too.

There are a few differences, the Iraq war was originally billed as taking out Saddam's WMDs and Terrorist training camps. When these things didn't materialize the dialogue morphed into 'liberating' the Iraqis. This time the dialogue is solely about stopping A dictator from actively killing civilians. Its also a UN action, as opposed to US and Pals.

Some liberals love the save the oppressed angle, while some conservatives are wringing their hands over getting the US a foot hold in an oil rich nation who's leader has embarrassed us several times in the past with his open defiance of our will.

As a liberal I would normally be in support of such an action if I could actually believe
A.)We're actually doing what the vast majority of Libya's 6 million+ population wants and not just handing control of the country over to a thousand or so militants because they're more friendly to us (for the moment).
B.)There won't actually be any ground troops, therefor greatly reducing cost and possibility of US casualties. And that instead of spear heading the effort, we're just helping to level the playing field for the militants.
C.)This was actually about helping the civilians of Libya rather than spending billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars so some corporations can make billions off exploiting Libya's resources and our military and then have the gall to bitch about how high taxes are.

I suppose the problem is we've been lied to so often by both sides, exploiting our fears or noble intentions, nobody believes them. When was the last time our involvement in a conflict actually went as planned? WWII?

Michaelangelo for me. He was funny, was always the least organized, got into more trouble, and had a touch of defiance... at least that's how I saw him. Oh, and he was a party dude.

...and he wears that mullet in defiance of those deadly blades.

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm undecided on the issue, and as such, am not propagating any particular side. Nor am I trying to fear monger, though I may be expressing my own concerns of the unknown, when I speak of Islam, I'm speaking of Islam as it is proscribed by the Koran. Though there certainly are many moderate muslims, the Koran's demands are worrisome:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)"

"Strive hard (Jihad) against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. (66:9, See also 9:73)"

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12-13)"

In regards to my comment on the founding fathers' views and expectations having been corrupted, I was referring specifically to the power given to the banks. Here's Thomas Jefferson's view on banks:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs."

As far as my worry about what they're preaching and praying for in mosques, how can I know for certain? Shall I infiltrate them? There's a mosque right around the corner from my house. Shall I attempt to gain entry? My best bet would be wearing a full cloth bag and pretending to be a chick! Yes... 'tis an excelent plan. Or maybe I'll just walk in and see how they react to my curiosity.

Funny story about that mosque actually, when I was a young kid I was biking around with a muslim friend and he needed to go to the mosque for a bit, he wanted me to come with said it wouldn't be long. I was pretty hesitant as I didn't feel it was appropriate, we biked to the back of the mosue where everyone was happy and cheerful and smiling and random muslims were coming up to shake my hand, lol, until my friend said nono he's not muslim. Anyhow, it was a little awkward. His holy book says this about me:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe(8:55)"

Regarding the Koran demanding the abolishment of all non-muslim religions, why would a moderate muslim have a different answer than a non-moderate muslim? The Koran either says it or it doesn't say it. Oh wait, I forgot. Religious words can be interpreted, misinterpreted and reinterpreted. Religion is so convenient and easily defended that way.

Also, Atheists are, or should be, fighting holy wars all day long. Fighting for better spending of resources, fighting for good science, and fighting against religion when it seeks to undermine, conceal, distort, exaggerate or otherwise abuse the truth to the great detriment of people.

And lastly, you defend Islams oppression of women by purporting that I should troll the streets in search of self-proclaimed moderate muslims and ask their opinions on the conditions of women? That's just silly. I can only speak on what I see, and what I see are TONS of women psychologically manipulated into roles of subordination. They gladly don their cloth bags in my neighborhood, if I were to spend the day on my stoop, in 35ºC weather, counting how many women walk by fully concealed, I would count many dozen.

One last thought: I'm not even American, I'm Canadian, but it seems Americans expect a lot of themselves. It's strange. You've got tons of people saying, "Hey, we'll be righteous and good, we will let them build a muslim community center a couple hundred feet from where muslims flew planes into our buildings and murdered close to FOUR THOUSAND of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, in one fell swoop."

But then when Americans invade other countries, some undevelopped and third-world, murder, rape and pillage resources, everyone stays quiet. There's no outrage. It's funny to me is all, America portrays itself as some morale bastion of freedom, justice and righteousness when it's not. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be.

Quit being hypocrites and tell them to go fuck themselves. Maybe next time their brother knocks down your sand castle at the beach they'll speak the fuck up a bit louder and tell him to quit ruining their good thing.

I'm sorry if this has been inflammatory or offensive in any way. It's a very contentious issue, and I'm happy I'm not the one having to make a decision on this. I don't hate any group. I have a lot of disdain for religion in general, but I am not so ignorant that I would hate blindly, nor should the ignorant be hated upon.

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance” -Thomas Jefferson

I would say if someone ordered, allowed or you followed the order to continue with your invasion after becoming aware of the leak and associating it with danger to your mission, then you and whom ever is involved are complete fucking morons. That's what I would say. It wasn't leaked to the Taliban first, it was leaked worldwide.

It is not up to Manning to ensure your safety.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

And would you say the same thing to me if I told you I was directly affected by these leaks? What would you say if I had said that my unit lead the force that invaded Marjah earlier this year, and the Taliban knew we were coming because of some piece of shit leaked a bunch of classified documents?
This wasn't just a simple case of "defiance" - it was a huge fucking breach of security. Yeah, the "entire fucking internet" probably would have preferred that we didn't invade a country. But so doesn't a lot of servicemen and women. So they should have to suffer at the hands of some 19 year old kid who doesn't know his head from his ass because he's just "fighting as he is able"?

And would you say the same thing to me if I told you I was directly affected by these leaks? What would you say if I had said that my unit lead the force that invaded Marjah earlier this year, and the Taliban knew we were coming because of some piece of shit leaked a bunch of classified documents?

This wasn't just a simple case of "defiance" - it was a huge fucking breach of security. Yeah, the "entire fucking internet" probably would have preferred that we didn't invade a country. But so doesn't a lot of servicemen and women. So they should have to suffer at the hands of some 19 year old kid who doesn't know his head from his ass because he's just "fighting as he is able"?

Would you report on someone for illegally invading another country and killing women and children? How far would you go to stop such wanton destruction?

Your arguments are just imperial rhetoric. Everything the US does is always moral and justified, but anything anyone else does that even slightly resembles defiance is an intolerable offense. I'm sure the "entire fucking internet" would have preferred that no invasion had ever taken place. But it did, so now one fights as he is able against the lobotomized destruction machine the US has become.

Sometimes I feel so tired when studying history. The same patterns and arguments repeat themselves ad nauseam. What do you think the Soviets were saying in their propaganda during their invasion of Afghanistan? Didn't Russian mothers care about their children being blown up in the desert? Did that stop the US giving AA weaponry to the Taliban?

But you are correct. All that pales in comparison to Wikileaks telling it like it is.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

How is this guy a creep, asshole, cunt, moron, idiot or deserve any other derogatory name?
That piece of shit Manning stole thousands of classified documents that, in the wrong hands (read: the entire fucking internet) could cause a lot of harm to U.S. service members. The only thing this guy did was tell the authorities what the P.O.S. did. Would you trash-talk someone for reporting a theft, rape or murder? How the fuck is this any different?

Meh, as the cop said, it's a "deliberate act", she was only doing it out of defiance and got served for thinking she was awesome. There is A LOT of other places she could blow bubbles, she chose directly at the police line, directly in a police women's face. I doubt this cop would have done anything if she had randomly been blowing bubbles and one flew in his own eye by chance.

I don't really see where the hate for the cop comes from, he was too agressive in tone but that's about it. Though seriously, if you can't handle being talked sternly too without feeling "disrespected" as a human, then you need a reality check.

You can see her getting arrested later, with no explanation, though the likely scenario from her previous actions is she kept trying to push the police's patience. Had she walked away from the first encounter, she would not be arrested, she obviously pressed the issue (or started something new) and then a video of only that likely small incident would look "UNJUST OMG!", when in fact she had gone through repeated incidents and warnings.

>> ^rottenseed:

I think Thunderf00t is making something out of nothing. I mean it was pretty cool and all, but at the same time, how hard is it to find people on the internet willing to poke fun at something? Not very...


Agreed. I mean comparing people drawing cartoons to those who actually fought in WW2?* I hardly think posting a cartoon from the relative anonymity and safety of the web compares. In fact, I think it's drawing more on this phenomenon than on any sense of outraged defiance.


* Yes, I know the quote is from Shakespeare's Henry V, but I think the tv show is more prevalent in popular culture.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
This video has more to do with the corruption of authority then it has to do with any one place where genocide has taken place.

It's murder, pure and simple. The moment it was given a special name it became legendary.

There comes a time, in fiction and reality where non violent defiance is simply not enough. That is the hardest line to cross, killing another human being; because one's life is in danger. If I were a praying man, and prayer did any good; I would pray that no one have to cross that line.

this..THIS is why i bow to your awesomeness!

This video has more to do with the corruption of authority then it has to do with any one place where genocide has taken place.

It's murder, pure and simple. The moment it was given a special name it became legendary.

There comes a time, in fiction and reality where non violent defiance is simply not enough. That is the hardest line to cross, killing another human being; because one's life is in danger. If I were a praying man, and prayer did any good; I would pray that no one have to cross that line.

More history for "tea partiers":

The real Tea Partiers didn't appear in public.

The real Tea Partiers met in secret.

The real Tea Partiers were engaged in an act of defiance, for which they already had been threatened with a military response.

The real Tea Partiers risked their lives and their freedom by committing their daring act of protest while literally surrounded by that threatening military.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion for which unarmed civilians of their town already had been massacred.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion, the initial victim of which, at that massacre, was a black man.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion whose first martyr was a black man.

The real Tea Partiers defied such danger that they performed their act of protest in silence, returned to their homes in silence, and in large part didn't even know each other's names.

The real Tea Partiers weren't merely whining about having come out on the wrong side of an election.

The real Tea Partiers were protesting the imposition of an economic monopoly by an unelected ruler.

The real Tea Partiers didn't enjoy the protection of their government as they whined petty complaints, in public, in peace.

The real Tea Partiers didn't enjoy a fancy celebration, with fawning attention given by their era's mass media.

The real Tea Partiers weren't gathered together by a corporation for the purpose of making a profit.

The real Tea Partiers didn't pay a small fortune to a dolled up nitwit to safely spew lies and concocted complaints from a public stage.

The real Tea Partiers sent their government into emergency meetings.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by closing their harbor.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by reducing their legal rights.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by ordering them placed under military occupation.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by replacing their civilian governor with a military commander.

The real Tea Partiers couldn't afford to publicly self-congratulate for acts of sniveling pettiness for which they should have been embarrassed.

The real Tea Partiers took great risks for a real cause for which they are celebrated by history.

defiance
the wrestler
star trek
avatar
the road
mary and max
the hurt locker

I was more impressed with his air-time than any implied sport or successful landings.

I have a personal obsession with flight and/or weightlessness, and if watching someone else do some pretty insane jumps allows me to live vicariously through your antics of weightlessness and defiance of gravity (It's the Law!), then more power to you.

I get the same feeling from watching astronauts, skateboarders on halfpipes, bmx jumps, motocross jumps, watching planes/helis take off/land, watching monster trucks leap over stacks of junked cars, watching parkour, gymnastics, etc.
And with such an extensive, readily available list from which to pull examples, I can't be the only one that feels this way.

It's all about the air-time man... the air-time...
The landing is just a crafty way of avoiding injury after the fun stuff is over.