If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Care2)   Tampa jails releasing criminals into the community in order to make cells available for those who might dare protest the GOP convention   (care2.com) divider line 534
    More: Asinine, RNC, Tampa, GOP, lethal, ABC Action News, political action, political convention, COINTELPRO  
•       •       •

7474 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2012 at 6:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 04:51:26 PM
JerkyMeat:

www.thesneeze.com

GOPers, you are the biggest enemy of this nation!
 
2012-08-26 04:52:10 PM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That particular discussion was about monogamy, not on-the-cusp teenagers having sex with men where it's legal.

That particular discussion was of your making because you are wont to dance around the subject and will not admit that it is wrong for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys. I've provided evidence that the majority of humans are monogamous, you won't address facts that do not support your argument so you have avoided discussing the peer reviewed article to which I linked.

Even if we were to stipulate that monomagy is not the norm, we can't leap to the conclusion that meeting boys at rest stops after soliciting them for no strings attached sex is normal. It is a disgusting perversion. Adults shouldn't have sex with minors.


You're making a damn lot of assumptions in order to be angry at me for not agreeing with you. I also only have to look around and see a world where many humans are NOT monogamous. Since different groups of people in different places evolve differently, perhaps the truth is that some populations are and some aren't.

You made that leap, not me. And define "normal", because it's different for everyone and everywhere.
 
2012-08-26 04:52:19 PM

feckingmorons: thamike: feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.

That's an open ended assertion.

Read the Psychology Today article that shows it. Psychology Today should be objective enough for Fark.


I was suggesting that your assertion was vague, not unfounded.
 
2012-08-26 04:54:23 PM

feckingmorons: Adults shouldn't have sex with minors.


Unless they're monogamous.
 
2012-08-26 04:55:44 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.

No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?

Okay, a public place. Calm your ass down. Same difference.

There you keep going with "abuse", "molester", "pervert", etc. Thropw in as many words as possible to show your righteous hatred, like you're doing your best to convince yourself how right you are. Anyway, to the question: my 2-year-old? Well, since it's a toddler and stupid, I wouldn't let people have sex with it. My 17-year-old, who would hopefully be intelligent and educated by then? If it's horny and finds someone to have fun with, and it's legal, here's a condom/diaphram and a "Be careful".


So is your answer yes, it is OK for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys.

Yet you think I'm insane.

Even the pervert that did it thinks it is wrong as demonstrated by he withdrawal from the ballot.

You're defending the indefensible.
 
2012-08-26 04:55:46 PM
Actually it is part of Obama's plan to declare a state of emergency, send in the conservation corps brownshirts, and round up everyone at the Republican convention into FEMA camps.
 
2012-08-26 04:59:04 PM
Is the Florida tag too embarassed to be associated with Tampa?
 
2012-08-26 05:00:26 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: You made that leap, not me. And define "normal", because it's different for everyone and everywhere.


You need a basic education and a dictionary. Normal is what is the norm. It is not different for everyone. Sexual assignations at rest stops are not the norm for any population.

I'm not angry with you at all, simply debating the propriety of old men having sex with boys. I think it is wrong and you apparently don't. There is nothing to be angry about, it is simply your opinion.

I wouldn't let you babysit my kids, but I'm not angry with you.
 
2012-08-26 05:00:34 PM

gimmegimme: cc_rider: It's boggles the mind that anyone in this country can imagine protestors behaving any worse than the Republican party has been, for the past 12 years.

But Republicans have what job creators crave.

[thisdistractedglobe.com image 500x272]

It's got free market.


who is the trannie on the right?
 
2012-08-26 05:01:05 PM

Bucky Katt: Is the Florida tag too embarassed to be associated with Tampa?


It was hanging out in Miami but got blown away.
 
2012-08-26 05:07:00 PM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.

No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?

Okay, a public place. Calm your ass down. Same difference.

There you keep going with "abuse", "molester", "pervert", etc. Thropw in as many words as possible to show your righteous hatred, like you're doing your best to convince yourself how right you are. Anyway, to the question: my 2-year-old? Well, since it's a toddler and stupid, I wouldn't let people have sex with it. My 17-year-old, who would hopefully be intelligent and educated by then? If it's horny and finds someone to have fun with, and it's legal, here's a condom/diaphram and a "Be careful".

So is your answer yes, it is OK for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys.

Yet you think I'm insane.

Even the pervert that did it thinks it is wrong as demonstrated by he withdrawal from the ballot.

You're defending the indefensible.


I'm sorry that I don't see 17-year-olds as being exactly like 2-year-olds, frankly it's insulting. He was of legal age, consenting, and it was within the law for them to have sex. The only illegal part was the location. You're so hung up on the older man's age and the idea that 17-year-olds have the mental acuities of toddlers that you seem unable to do anything but scream about "THE CHILDREN!!".

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: You made that leap, not me. And define "normal", because it's different for everyone and everywhere.

You need a basic education and a dictionary. Normal is what is the norm. It is not different for everyone. Sexual assignations at rest stops are not the norm for any population.

I'm not angry with you at all, simply debating the propriety of old men having sex with boys. I think it is wrong and you apparently don't. There is nothing to be angry about, it is simply your opinion.

I wouldn't let you babysit my kids, but I'm not angry with you.


The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.

I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.
 
2012-08-26 05:09:03 PM

machoprogrammer: buckler: machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.

Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?

Not that I am aware, but they should have.


Wiki says there have been a few challenges. Apparently, the courts sided each time with te government, citing the law saying that while non-disruptive free speech is allowed, the government has the power to dictate the "time, place and manner" of the speech, as long as they don't do so based on content. There is a citation of one guy who was carrying an anti-Bush sign at an event, and he was the only one asked to go into a FSZ while those carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed to stay on the sidewalks lining the streets. Looks like he lost that one, though.
 
2012-08-26 05:10:00 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.


Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.
 
2012-08-26 05:13:36 PM

feckingmorons:

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.



www.harpers.org
 
2012-08-26 05:14:19 PM

buckler: machoprogrammer: buckler: machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.

Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?

Not that I am aware, but they should have.

Wiki says there have been a few challenges. Apparently, the courts sided each time with te government, citing the law saying that while non-disruptive free speech is allowed, the government has the power to dictate the "time, place and manner" of the speech, as long as they don't do so based on content. There is a citation of one guy who was carrying an anti-Bush sign at an event, and he was the only one asked to go into a FSZ while those carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed to stay on the sidewalks lining the streets. Looks like he lost that one, though.


I think this is what you were talking about. Free speech zones are complete nonsense. One can express one's opinion in public without committing a crime.

The charges were dismissed, they never should have been arrested.
 
2012-08-26 05:14:56 PM

Bonzo_1116: feckingmorons:

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.



[www.harpers.org image 515x337]


I wouldn'd describe that bunch as normal. I think we can all agree on that.
 
2012-08-26 05:15:44 PM
All this talk of underage sex and monogamy in a GOP convention thread and NOT ONE MENTION OF POLYGAMY???

static2.businessinsider.com

Wives, I am disappoint.
 
2012-08-26 05:18:39 PM

feckingmorons: The charges were dismissed, they never should have been arrested.


Correct! Got confused a second.
 
2012-08-26 05:19:46 PM

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.


Somewhere in the world, the norm is to chop off girls' genitals when they reach sexual maturity. It's also the norm somewhere else to stick your hand into a leaf mitten filled with bullet ants fifteen times in order to become a man. It was once the norm for 12-year-old girls to be married to 40-year-old men. Personally, I don't think two consenting people of age getting together for sex is anywhere near those.

Priests raping 12-year-old boys is not the same as a priest having consentual sex with a legally-aged teenager. The orientation and political affiliation of a person doesn't matter either. If it's consentual and legal in the eyes of the law, then let it rest.
 
2012-08-26 05:32:53 PM
Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?
 
2012-08-26 05:41:58 PM
So teachers having sex with your senior highschooler isn't a problem?. Gotta hand it to those kids who'll do anything for an "a". How about military TI's having sex with their new conscripts or college profs with their students? you ok with these circumstances?

Even consenual has its limitations.

Let's just agree that old men praying on kids turning "of age" is wrong and just give it rest already.
 
2012-08-26 05:43:54 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.

Somewhere in the world, the norm is to chop off girls' genitals when they reach sexual maturity. It's also the norm somewhere else to stick your hand into a leaf mitten filled with bullet ants fifteen times in order to become a man. It was once the norm for 12-year-old girls to be married to 40-year-old men. Personally, I don't think two consenting people of age getting together for sex is anywhere near those.

Priests raping 12-year-old boys is not the same as a priest having consentual sex with a legally-aged teenager. The orientation and political affiliation of a person doesn't matter either. If it's consentual and legal in the eyes of the law, then let it rest.


Priest or Legislator, adults shouldn't have sex with children. What kind of complete loser do you need to be to want to have sex with a minor?

I never said it wasn't legal. I said it wasn't proper or moral. I said it was unfortunate it was not illegal, but with legislators having sex with 17 year olds what do you expect. In most states he would be in prison where he belongs.
 
2012-08-26 05:51:36 PM

gibbon1: Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?


Full circle.

Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Phelps group are legal professionals who understand the limitations of the law and are smart enough not to violate them.

Your average street protester is clueless about what constitutes a threat, obstruction of justice, or what defines free speech.

Asides from valuable skills like writing checks, how to wear a rubber, and soup can opening, maybe higher education can add How To Protest Within the Confines of the Law to their list of basic life skills.
 
2012-08-26 06:22:34 PM

clowncar on fire: Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.


Sure ask a different question than the one they candidate approved, gets you ejected. Protesting outside of the fenced in 'free speech zone' gets you arrested. Not to mention that often the guy throwing bottles at the cops is an under cover cop himself.
 
2012-08-26 07:16:33 PM

clowncar on fire: gibbon1: Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?

Full circle.

Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Phelps group are legal professionals who understand the limitations of the law and are smart enough not to violate them.

Your average street protester is clueless about what constitutes a threat, obstruction of justice, or what defines free speech.

Asides from valuable skills like writing checks, how to wear a rubber, and soup can opening, maybe higher education can add How To Protest Within the Confines of the Law to their list of basic life skills.


Isn't that a quote from Thomas Jefferson?

Jesus Christ, does any right-winger care about the founding principles of this country?

www.ushistory.org

Don't worry; the British were in the right. The American assholes were protesting in a non-sanctioned manner.
 
2012-08-26 07:30:41 PM

gibbon1: clowncar on fire: Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Sure ask a different question than the one they candidate approved, gets you ejected. Protesting outside of the fenced in 'free speech zone' gets you arrested. Not to mention that often the guy throwing bottles at the cops is an under cover cop himself.


Can you post links to the news articles from whence you gleaned those facts?

Oh, you made that shiat up, oh well no need for facts if you live in a fantasy world.
 
2012-08-26 07:31:58 PM

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gibbon1: Anyone else think it's interesting that Phelps and his wack'a'doodles can protest soldiers funerals, but protesting the G20 or heckling politicians will get you the tazer?

Full circle.

Protesting doesn't get you tazed so much as how you protest.

Phelps group are legal professionals who understand the limitations of the law and are smart enough not to violate them.

Your average street protester is clueless about what constitutes a threat, obstruction of justice, or what defines free speech.

Asides from valuable skills like writing checks, how to wear a rubber, and soup can opening, maybe higher education can add How To Protest Within the Confines of the Law to their list of basic life skills.

Isn't that a quote from Thomas Jefferson?

Jesus Christ, does any right-winger care about the founding principles of this country?

[www.ushistory.org image 300x275]

Don't worry; the British were in the right. The American assholes were protesting in a non-sanctioned manner.


So you think we're in a war? The protesters are freedom fighters?

I thought they were unwashed 20 year olds.
 
2012-08-26 07:39:34 PM
The whole thread and not a single person has posted Snake or Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons?

/man, fark is slipping.
 
2012-08-26 07:47:47 PM

feckingmorons: So you think we're in a war? The protesters are freedom fighters?

I thought they were unwashed 20 year olds.



You have it backwards.

how2becomeanfbiagent.com

Crime fighters

www.spring.org.uk

Fire fighters

images.politico.com

Freedom fighters
 
2012-08-26 07:52:49 PM

gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

 

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

ZOMG! I don't want to have to walk 50 extra feet because other people are exercising their First Amendment rights.

What kind of American are you?


You've done a great job at turning this exchange away from the initial subject - the fact that teabaggers don't seem to be mistreated by the polic at their protestse - and towards the UC Irvine pepper spray incident.

I assume this is because I sufficiently explained why the teabaggers aren't mistreated, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just decided to deflect. So, good job with that, but I see its pointless to engage you in adult discourse. Carry on with your pseudo-political theatrics.
 
2012-08-26 07:57:58 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

...
The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

....

You've done a great job at turning this exchange away from the initial subject - the fact that teabaggers don't seem to be mistreated by the polic at their protestse - and towards the UC Irvine pepper spray incident.
.


UC Davis. Irvine doesn't have enough hippies to sustain a good protest. 

/Unless there's been a second UC protest pepper spray incident....
 
2012-08-26 07:58:22 PM

Amos Quito: feckingmorons: So you think we're in a war? The protesters are freedom fighters?

I thought they were unwashed 20 year olds.


You have it backwards.

[how2becomeanfbiagent.com image 512x355]

Crime fighters

[www.spring.org.uk image 420x233]

Fire fighters

[images.politico.com image 605x328]

Freedom fighters



-snert-

Well done!
 
2012-08-26 08:03:45 PM

feckingmorons: PsiChick: Someday, fecking, remind me to introduce you to the term 'loaded language', and when it is or isn't appropriate to use.

I'm quite comfortable with my use of language, thanks.

If you don't like it talk to the makers of the movie Strip Club King, they called him infamous long before I did.

Loaded language is simply things you don't like. Redner while admirably an advocate of the First Amendment is a scumbag who exploits women for his personal gain.

OWS are simply social misfits who can't hold a job and expect their every need to be catered to by others at no cost or burden to them. I hold them in the greatest contempt. They are also an ineffective political movement.


Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.
 
2012-08-26 08:07:18 PM

clowncar on fire: So teachers having sex with your senior highschooler isn't a problem?. Gotta hand it to those kids who'll do anything for an "a". How about military TI's having sex with their new conscripts or college profs with their students? you ok with these circumstances?

Even consenual has its limitations.

Let's just agree that old men praying on kids turning "of age" is wrong and just give it rest already.


Fine. 17-year-olds are the exact same as 2-year-olds. Consentual sex involving of-age people is terrible and sinful. America will forever be immature about all things sexual.

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: The norm varies depending on location. There is no one-size-fits-all, unless you feel like going aorund the world and forcing all 7 billion people to do what you think is the norm.I wouldn't want to anyways, and thanks for thinking I'm a pedophile because I'm not against 17-year-olds having legal sex with someone they want to have sex with.

Somewhere in the world it is normal for 56 year old men to meet 17 year old boys for anonymous sex in public. I don't think so.

Would you be as vociferous in support of this man if he were not a gay Democrat? What if it were a priest of the same age?

I don't think you would have the same argument in that hypothetical situation.

Somewhere in the world, the norm is to chop off girls' genitals when they reach sexual maturity. It's also the norm somewhere else to stick your hand into a leaf mitten filled with bullet ants fifteen times in order to become a man. It was once the norm for 12-year-old girls to be married to 40-year-old men. Personally, I don't think two consenting people of age getting together for sex is anywhere near those.

Priests raping 12-year-old boys is not the same as a priest having consentual sex with a legally-aged teenager. The orientation and political affiliation of a person doesn't matter either. If it's consentual and legal in the eyes of the law, then let it rest.

Priest or Legislator, adults shouldn't have sex with children. What kind of complete loser do you need to be to want to have sex with a minor?

I never said it wasn't legal. I said it wasn't proper or moral. I said it was unfortunate it was not illegal, but with legislators having sex with 17 year olds what do you expect. In most states he would be in prison where he belongs.


I guess I'm just strange for not thinking that people on the cusp of adulthood should be treated like toddlers because they're somehow unable to think and reason and understand anything until they magically acquire all those abilities the instant they hit a pre-determined number.
 
2012-08-26 08:08:27 PM

feckingmorons: Can you post links to the news articles from whence you gleaned those facts?

Oh, you made that shiat up, oh well no need for facts if you live in a fantasy world.


Link
This kind of stuff is still going on, but i don't expect you to recognize it. We could talk about the war on whistleblowers, or agent provacatours, or arrests without probable cause, or detention in supermax facilities with no contact, or wiretaps, or police intimidation/abuse... And the list could go on. But unless you've been paying attention to any of it your going to want your "proof" for all of it which means countless links to shiat you won't even read. So lets just say your suck the corporate Kock and leave it at that.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I assume this is because I sufficiently explained why the teabaggers aren't mistreated, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just decided to deflect


Dumbass, the teabaggers have been co-opted by folks like the Kock brothers. They are/were aregueing for things that make rich people richer. You only get the blugeon when you go against the status quo.
 
2012-08-26 08:10:30 PM

PsiChick: feckingmorons: PsiChick: Someday, fecking, remind me to introduce you to the term 'loaded language', and when it is or isn't appropriate to use.

I'm quite comfortable with my use of language, thanks.

If you don't like it talk to the makers of the movie Strip Club King, they called him infamous long before I did.

Loaded language is simply things you don't like. Redner while admirably an advocate of the First Amendment is a scumbag who exploits women for his personal gain.

OWS are simply social misfits who can't hold a job and expect their every need to be catered to by others at no cost or burden to them. I hold them in the greatest contempt. They are also an ineffective political movement.

Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.


Save your breath. It's all the fault of people under a certain age that we're even having these problems, don't'cha know. Bootstraps and entitlement and all that, walk to school barefoot uphill both ways ten feet of snow carrying a horse. If you're not enamored by that, you're a lazy ungrateful drain on society.
 
2012-08-26 08:18:53 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

 

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

ZOMG! I don't want to have to walk 50 extra feet because other people are exercising their First Amendment rights.

What kind of American are you?

You've done a great job at turning this exchange away from the initial subject - the fact that teabaggers don't seem to be mistreated by the polic at their protestse - and towards the UC Irvine pepper spray incident.

I assume this is because I sufficiently explained why the teabaggers aren't mistreated, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just decided to deflect. So, good job with that, but I see its pointless to engage you in adult discourse. Carry on with your pseudo-political theatrics.


Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?
 
2012-08-26 08:23:58 PM

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.

So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?


I know for a fact that you've consistently referred to Trayvon Martin as a "kid" in numerous Zimmerman threads.
 
2012-08-26 08:29:35 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.

So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?

I know for a fact that you've consistently referred to Trayvon Martin as a "kid" in numerous Zimmerman threads.


You're absolutely right. When I asked, I was searching around to see if he was one of the soulless asshole morons who describes Trayvon Martin as a cross between Tyler Durden, Al Capone and Mike Tyson pre-Hangover. I found no evidence of this, so I felt no need to press him (or her, I dunno) further on the issue.

I was very glad to find out that he wasn't the kind of POS who demands justice for the social group to which he belongs and wants everyone else to fark off and die. Only a reprehensible subhuman wishes separate but unequal, right?
 
2012-08-26 08:33:17 PM

gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..


Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.
 
2012-08-26 08:34:23 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..

Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.


Justice Scalia? Is that you?
 
2012-08-26 08:35:46 PM

gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..

Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.

Justice Scalia? Is that you?


Wow. Ignorant AND trolling. I didn't expect that one. Have fun on the internet, kid, but please... don't procreate or vote. Kthx
 
2012-08-26 08:39:28 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme:
Have you considered the possibility that there are fewer "incidents" at tea party protests because they are armed and the OWS folks are pussies who lock arms and appeal to reason and the Constitution?..

Displaying your second amendment rights isn't appealing to the constitution but blocking a student walkway when you've been lawfully ordered to move isn't? Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right? Saying "I'm protesting" doesn't grant you carte blanche to break the law as you see fit.

Are you this ignorant or are you a persistent troll? It's ok if you're just ignorant, but please let me know if you're a troll.

Justice Scalia? Is that you?

Wow. Ignorant AND trolling. I didn't expect that one. Have fun on the internet, kid, but please... don't procreate or vote. Kthx


api.ning.com

I think of myself as the one on the right.
 
2012-08-26 08:41:18 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right?


This should end the conversation right here and solidify your status as a moron. Hint: it's in the 1st.
 
2012-08-26 08:46:28 PM

Magruda: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Also, you're aware that there is no constitutionally-protected "right to protest", right?

This should end the conversation right here and solidify your status as a moron. Hint: it's in the 1st.


I am just trying to send him heartlove because you're right; you can't argue about the rights of Americans to protest with someone who hasn't gotten to the Constitution unit in eighth grade social studies.
 
2012-08-26 09:06:47 PM

PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.


Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.
 
2012-08-26 09:08:06 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I guess I'm just strange


I'll agree with that part.
 
2012-08-26 09:10:44 PM

Magruda: LinkThis kind of stuff is still going on, but i don't expect you to recognize it. We could talk about the war on whistleblowers, or agent provacatours, or arrests without probable cause, or detention in supermax facilities with no contact, or wiretaps, or police intimidation/abuse... And the list could go on. But unless you've been paying attention to any of it your going to want your "proof" for all of it which means countless links to shiat you won't even read. So lets just say your suck the corporate Kock and leave it at that.


You linked to Wikipedia, that is as authoritative as a comic book.

You don't have any cogent argument.
 
2012-08-26 09:10:46 PM

feckingmorons: PsiChick: Yeah, how dare they demand affordable education, regulation for Wall Street, punishment for those who destroyed our economy, and a jobs market that holds real jobs.

Affordable education is available at many universities, education through high school is available free. Regulation from Wall Street - The Obama administration is not charging MF Global, Corzine or Goldman Sachsm and the jobs are disappearing because the uncertain tax positions and no budget in 3 years make businesses hesitant to make any investments in the US.

So if OWS is demonstrating against Obama good for them.

I don't think they could agree on decaf or regular coffee though, they are spoilt children.


When will they stop being un-American by challenging the status quo and protesting what they feel is injustice in society? George Washington would NEVER do that.
 
2012-08-26 09:15:29 PM

feckingmorons: Magruda: LinkThis kind of stuff is still going on, but i don't expect you to recognize it. We could talk about the war on whistleblowers, or agent provacatours, or arrests without probable cause, or detention in supermax facilities with no contact, or wiretaps, or police intimidation/abuse... And the list could go on. But unless you've been paying attention to any of it your going to want your "proof" for all of it which means countless links to shiat you won't even read. So lets just say your suck the corporate Kock and leave it at that.

You linked to Wikipedia, that is as authoritative as a comic book.

You don't have any cogent argument.


You think that a baby and a 17-year-old have the same sexual identity.

You clearly have some deep-seated issues that Detective Stabler can help you work through.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
Displayed 50 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report