I'm not sure if it's harder or easier after the course gets knocked down more and more as they go. The constant change makes it different for each driver.

I think the fun is all in how much dirt you can kick up! I can live with that.

And there are plenty of white people stuck in terrible situations who don't take the "bus."

There is a concept out there in pedagogy land about the importance of "grit." A teacher noticed who made it out -- those who had grit.

So there has been some movement to teach kids to have "grit."

Turns out it isn't that easy.

Full disclosure -- I do NOT have "grit." I get knocked down, I stay down. I am leveled by some of the smallest events.

I DO have tremendous luck. Born with good health, good brains, an addiction to food and not to something that wipes out my brain like some drugs, Depression-era parents who were frugal and determined that their children would not suffer what they suffered, easy access to college in the early 70s when tuition and rents weren't hugely expensive.

I wouldn't be sitting in relative ease right now if I hadn't had that string of luck. Because had I had to climb over serious obstacles, I am 99% sure I would not have done it. No grit, you see. Just luck.

Frosts my beehind that this racist tool who criticizes social justice advocates with that first clip of Freeman saying "stop talking about race" don't have the intellectual and emotional intelligence to understand what he is saying. It is clear as a bell -- but this tool is tone deaf. As is the sifter who posted this (I say that with clarity, based on years of reading his posts before I started ignoring him as a lost cause.)

"That your gonna have some ups and your gonna have some downs. Most people give up on themselves easily, you know the human spirt is powerful. There is nothing as powerful, its hard to kill the human spirt. Anybody can feel good when they have their health, their bills are paid, they have happy relationships, anybody can be positive then, anybody can have a larger vision then, anybody can have faith under those types of circumstances. The real challenge of growth, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually comes when you get knocked down. It takes courage to act. Part of being hungry when you have been defeated, it takes courage to start over again."

It wasn't mental, emotional and spiritual growth when he took steroids to initially make his name. Also boinking his maid behind his wives back didn't take courage.

I am not drinking the lemonade on this one.

WE as is "That's not the country we have decided we want to live in" Who is WE??

I don't agree with the WE. So there is no WE.

Anyway:

After reading you response it appears that you premise is this:

People are too inferior to make reasonable and logical decisions to succeeded in life so we need a benevolent government to provide for its people.

----------------Such a defeatist position.-------------------------



I believe that it is a basic instinct to want to succeed. That one naturally raises to the occasion and overcomes adversity. I believe in ones ability to rise to the occasion. To get knocked down and get back up. I believe in the human spirit.



AS for "How about we just remove all corporate welfare" Yep I agree and also get rid of mortgage deductions and all other government cheese.

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?

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?

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
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?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
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?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?


Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.

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?

Very nice!>> ^moodonia:

Peter Parkour

The video only gets an upvote for being an interesting music video... Outside of that though, I hate this show with a passion for being completely stupid and sometimes offensive...

I mean, Daffy in the old cartoons was either so crazy, he can outwit anyone, or he was so clever, he can make anyone do anything he wants (of course, when bugs is involved, Daffy gets knocked down one or two notches...) Now imagine that Daffy stayed in that "Outwited" status for every single episode...

He makes Jar Jar look like Samuel L Jackson! Daffy is so incredibly stupid you wonder why even he exists (One episode dedeciated to him not getting his newpaper and he spends the whole episode accusing his neighbors and at the end you find out he never renewed the paper... Where's the Humor!?!)...

I'm sorry, there are very few things that set me off in this world, and while current cartoons are one of them, new cartoons being based off of old cartoons is like a slap to the face...

I prefer to get knocked down.

Sailing on the San Francisco bay is always an adventure. The winds are strong but highly variable, and there are places where you come out from behind a wind shadow and get knocked down if you aren't ready.

Porter (#22), this one's on you. Don't give up after getting knocked down. Could have stopped Lynch before the 5 yard line.

I didn't quite catch what caused the argument. The black guy was asking the white guy why a black guy had to shine his shoes or something, but that's about all I caught.

I'd like to think this is a case of a punk-ass douche getting knocked down a peg, but without knowing what started things off, I'm on the fence.