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.

(Huffington Post)   Romney to homeless flood victim: "Go home and call 211". This is not an Onion article   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 295
    More: Dumbass, Mitt Romney, California Secretary of State, U.S. Post Office, disaster areas, chairman of the board, Ryan Grim, Sam Stein, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  
•       •       •

8071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Sep 2012 at 1:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-01 10:05:03 PM
We get it, he's robot.
 
2012-09-01 10:09:11 PM

Frederick: Amos Quito: Mrtraveler01: FARK ROMNEY!!! He's a robber-baron POS that made his money carving America up and selling it for scrap - and your precious Democrats did NOTHING to enact trade laws that would prevent him and his ilk from doing so.

Tweedle (D), Tweedle (R).

They ALL sold us out.

Time to stretch some rope.

This shtick is so boring. You really need to try something new.


No, America needs something new.

You keep playing the two-party game, and WE keep losing.

Problem is that you can't see beyond the blinders, and can't imagine that there might be some alternative.

We elect Republicans - we get shiat on.

We elect Democrats - we get shiat on.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 365x324]

When are we going to realize that they're just two mouths talking out of the same head?

Lulz.

Dont you just hate being correct, yet no one listens?



These clowns have split themselves into two troops of howler monkeys standing neck deep one big poop pit where they spend their time flinging shiat at one another - and they are dumbfounded - even OFFENDED at the idea of someone refusing to pick a side and join them in the muck.

Amazing.
 
2012-09-01 10:13:55 PM

Amos Quito: even OFFENDED


Not offended. Amused.
 
2012-09-01 10:16:06 PM

Amos Quito: Keizer_Ghidorah: Amos Quito: A Dark Evil Omen: I dunno what's more insane, that this is a thing that actually happened or that there's toolbags ITT defending it. I mean, at least Amos is having the decency to BSABSVR but actually trying to spin this as anything other than a miserable bit of stupidity? Unbelievable. Some people literally have no shame.

???

I guess you missed the part where I said I'd rather see Obey do another term than the Fingerless Glove.


/Frying pan
//Fire
///Nice to have a "choice"


Don't you think?

How about you try being intelligent about what you're ranting about instead of the nonsense you keep spouting like Old Faithful?

Do you have any idea for solutions? Anything positive and intelligent to say?


Yeah. You can start by treating the people who have been consistently working to destroy this nation like the traitorous criminals that they are instead of planting their campaign signs in your yard.

We've been conned. Our mistake was complacency, trusting that these bastards and their masters EVER had our best interests at heart.

Human nature is human nature. This was all very predictable.

We should have listened to Tom.


Hon, you shouldn't be saying this like it's some astonishing discovery unshared by the rest of the human race. I can't offer you a charter membership in the Cassandra Club unless you realize that everyone here already knows that Both Sides Are Bad and Have Been For Quite Some Time. Sadly, it IS a choice between the lesser of two evils sometimes.

And it's not complacency to realize too that, like I said above, the problem isn't solely in the court of the politicians. It's also the fault of women like this, who gets this response from Rmoney and says:

On the visit from the pair of Republicans, Chiarello said, "He's good. He'll do the best for us. He has our best interests at heart. I thought he'd be more like a politician, but it was more understanding and caring."
 
2012-09-01 10:18:08 PM

cchris_39: What would have been the correct response?


"I'm so sorry to hear that. Let me see how I can help you." *whispers to an aide to get this sorted out*
 
2012-09-01 10:27:16 PM

HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: State-level tyranny is okay. Massive concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of corporations and a wealthy aristocracy is okay. He's fine with tyranny. It's just the federal government that's bad, because... I dunno, he doesn't like the way the word "federal" sounds?


Now where did I say anything like that?

I think it was the thread where you described segregationists as rape victims because the Federal government mercilessly ended Jim Crow laws against their will.


So you don't think Civil Rights were an important enough issue to take the time and trouble to enact legally and properly?

And now Obama signs legislation that suspends habeas corpus and their ain't jack shiat you can do about it.

Precedents. How do they work?

"My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late."

Link

--Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic Convention

Tell me again how the civil rights acts were illegally passed. You amuse me.



Okay, the federal government did not have the Constitutional authority to enforce an end to Jim Crow Laws (detestable as they were) on the States. Just like they did not have the Constitutional authority to grant women's suffrage or enforce prohibition. A Constitutional amendment was required.

But instead, the Supremes side-stepped the Constitution via a ridiculously broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

This is fact, and set a dangerous precedent (one of many) that has steadily moved us away from Constitutional mandates and toward centralized authoritarian control - the forerunner of tyranny.

Now, you and I may like the Civil Rights act, the EPA (and any of dozens of other goodies that have been similarly extraconstitutionally enacted), but that does not make them constitutionally legitimate, does it?

As to the rape analogy: Rapes have produced some beautiful babies that were loved and cherished by their mothers, and grew up to become fine people. So that makes rape okay, right?
 
2012-09-01 10:29:07 PM

Amos Quito: So you don't think Civil Rights were an important enough issue to take the time and trouble to enact legally and properly?


Yes, it's a real shame that white people can't legally discriminate black people anymore huh?
 
2012-09-01 10:35:42 PM

Amos Quito: But instead, the Supremes side-stepped the Constitution via a ridiculously broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.


Well clearly I should take the words of some guy on the internet over the third branch of government.

Obviously some random guy on the internet is more well-versed on legal affairs than a bunch of people whose job is to interpret what the laws of the US mean.
 
2012-09-01 10:40:18 PM

Gyrfalcon: We should have listened to Tom.

Hon, you shouldn't be saying this like it's some astonishing discovery unshared by the rest of the human race. I can't offer you a charter membership in the Cassandra Club unless you realize that everyone here already knows that Both Sides Are Bad and Have Been For Quite Some Time. Sadly, it IS a choice between the lesser of two evils sometimes.

And it's not complacency to realize too that, like I said above, the problem isn't solely in the court of the politicians. It's also the fault of women like this, who gets this response from Rmoney and says:

On the visit from the pair of Republicans, Chiarello said, "He's good. He'll do the best for us. He has our best interests at heart. I thought he'd be more like a politician, but it was more understanding and caring."



Yeah, we can all take credit for where we stand. We have and will continue to have the government we deserve thanks to our action or inaction.

Vote for the little dick, I guess.


/Cassandra Club
//Does this involve alcohol?
///And nudity???
 
2012-09-01 10:41:42 PM

Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: State-level tyranny is okay. Massive concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of corporations and a wealthy aristocracy is okay. He's fine with tyranny. It's just the federal government that's bad, because... I dunno, he doesn't like the way the word "federal" sounds?


Now where did I say anything like that?

I think it was the thread where you described segregationists as rape victims because the Federal government mercilessly ended Jim Crow laws against their will.


So you don't think Civil Rights were an important enough issue to take the time and trouble to enact legally and properly?

And now Obama signs legislation that suspends habeas corpus and their ain't jack shiat you can do about it.

Precedents. How do they work?

"My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late."

Link

--Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic Convention

Tell me again how the civil rights acts were illegally passed. You amuse me.


Okay, the federal government did not have the Constitutional authority to enforce an end to Jim Crow Laws (detestable as they were) on the States. Just like they did not have the Constitutional authority to grant women's suffrage or enforce prohibition. A Constitutional amendment was required.

But instead, the Supremes side-stepped the Constitution via a ridiculously broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

This is fact, and set a dangerous precedent (one of many) that has steadily moved us away from Constitutional mandates and toward centralized authoritarian control - the forerunner of tyranny.

Now, you and I may like the Civil Rights act, the EPA (and any of dozens of other goodies that have been similarly extraconstitutionally enacted), but that does not make them constitutionally legitimate, does it?

As to the rape analogy: Rapes have produced some beautiful babies that were loved and cherished by their mothers, and grew ...


Why would you want to ignore the already existing tyranny in the Jim Crow South?

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link


Why would you ignore the Supreme Court case that determined the constitutional legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Link
 
2012-09-01 10:44:00 PM

HighOnCraic: Why would you ignore the Supreme Court case that determined the constitutional legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Link


I like how he likes to think that he knows more about the US Constitution than the freaking justices of the Supreme Court.
 
2012-09-01 10:45:35 PM

HighOnCraic: Why would you ignore the Supreme Court case that determined the constitutional legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?



Then why did we bother to have constitutional Amendments for things like suffrage, prohibition, etc?

Why not just let the Supreme Court decide EVERYTHING?
 
2012-09-01 10:47:26 PM

Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Why would you ignore the Supreme Court case that determined the constitutional legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?


Then why did we bother to have constitutional Amendments for things like suffrage, prohibition, etc?

Why not just let the Supreme Court decide EVERYTHING?


So what exactly do you propose, Amos? Given that capitalism is failed, given that the American republican system is also failed and is also the root cause of what you contend to be angry about, why are you now defending it? What do you suggest? What solutions are you looking toward?
 
2012-09-01 10:49:01 PM
Look, this "man" was born with scissors for hands. Give him a break.
 
2012-09-01 10:55:40 PM

Amos Quito: Why not just let the Supreme Court decide EVERYTHING?


You do know that the Supreme Court was designed to be the ones to say the final say on what is Constitutional right?
 
2012-09-01 11:03:03 PM

Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Why would you ignore the Supreme Court case that determined the constitutional legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?


Then why did we bother to have constitutional Amendments for things like suffrage, prohibition, etc?

Why not just let the Supreme Court decide EVERYTHING?


You're right. The segregationists would've totally ended Jim Crow laws on their own after having a healthy public debate on the topic.

Oops.

"Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

Link 

/Anyway, this thread has gotten jacked to hell, and I need to pick up cat food.

www.mindpollution.org

Now we're back on track...
 
2012-09-01 11:57:38 PM

Butterflew: shower_in_my_socks: [img41.imageshack.us image 600x325]

what's the deal with paul ryan in suits that are WAAAAAY too big on him??


Maybe he's a Talking Heads fan?

chicagoist.com
 
2012-09-02 12:05:47 AM

Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.


And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.
 
2012-09-02 12:29:53 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.


I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.
 
2012-09-02 12:52:02 AM

HighOnCraic: /Anyway, this thread has gotten jacked to hell, and I need to pick up cat food.

[www.mindpollution.org image 400x600]

Now we're back on track...


I don't think ROM can help us now.
 
2012-09-02 01:34:59 AM

Frederick: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.

I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.


Meh, he's as racist as I am. I am, however, stunningly attractive and much more articulate, as well as possessed of foresight beyond the ken of mortal men.
 
2012-09-02 02:20:05 AM

Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: State-level tyranny is okay. Massive concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of corporations and a wealthy aristocracy is okay. He's fine with tyranny. It's just the federal government that's bad, because... I dunno, he doesn't like the way the word "federal" sounds?


Now where did I say anything like that?

I think it was the thread where you described segregationists as rape victims because the Federal government mercilessly ended Jim Crow laws against their will.


So you don't think Civil Rights were an important enough issue to take the time and trouble to enact legally and properly?

And now Obama signs legislation that suspends habeas corpus and their ain't jack shiat you can do about it.

Precedents. How do they work?


So you're upset that people were forced to NOT be bigoted assholes, and that traitors and defectors who join the enemy to actively work against us are treated as the enemy combatants they are?
 
2012-09-02 02:31:52 AM

Gyrfalcon: Frederick: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.

I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.

Meh, he's as racist as I am. I am, however, stunningly attractive and much more articulate, as well as possessed of foresight beyond the ken of mortal men.


Dude has claimed that the civil rights act was a bigger oppression of Americans then anything in jim crowe ever was, along with other cracker assed shiat.
 
2012-09-02 02:47:32 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Frederick: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.

I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.

Meh, he's as racist as I am. I am, however, stunningly attractive and much more articulate, as well as possessed of foresight beyond the ken of mortal men.

Dude has claimed that the civil rights act was a bigger oppression of Americans then anything in jim crowe ever was, along with other cracker assed shiat.


It's all part of his "government is evil and destructive and oppressive, no matter who they are or what they're doing" schtick. The common people were practicing what they believed in, which he applauds despite it being evil and stupid. When the government decided that enough was enough and cracked down on bigotry and racism, he sees it as just something so cruel and overstepping of bounds.

Which also ties in to his nihilism outlook. He'd be perfectly happy for people to devolve into anarchy and destroy themselves and the world. He doesn't give a shiat about anything except watching the world burn. Since governments generally prevents that, though, it makes him angry, and he vents about it on Fark, while also tossing in usual conspiracy theory idiocy to really show his mental unbalance.
 
2012-09-02 02:56:36 AM

Chariset: It's time for a Scary Thought:

If this man is elected, there will come a day when he meets with a foreign leader whose country has nuclear weapons and whose decision to use them on us rests entirely on Romney's diplomatic skills.

When that day comes, we're all going to die.

 
2012-09-02 03:00:01 AM

HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Why would you ignore the Supreme Court case that determined the constitutional legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?


Then why did we bother to have constitutional Amendments for things like suffrage, prohibition, etc?

Why not just let the Supreme Court decide EVERYTHING?

You're right. The segregationists would've totally ended Jim Crow laws on their own after having a healthy public debate on the topic.

Oops.

"Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

Link 

/Anyway, this thread has gotten jacked to hell, and I need to pick up cat food.

[www.mindpollution.org image 400x600]

Now we're back on track...


Dude, Rom the SpaceKnight is awesomesauce. Never, ever ever compare Rom to Willard.
 
2012-09-02 03:09:20 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Frederick: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.

I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.

Meh, he's as racist as I am. I am, however, stunningly attractive and much more articulate, as well as possessed of foresight beyond the ken of mortal men.

Dude has claimed that the civil rights act was a bigger oppression of Americans then anything in jim crowe ever was, along with other cracker assed shiat.

It's all part of his "government is evil and destructive and oppressive, no matter who they are or what they're doing" schtick. The common people were practicing what they believed in, which he applauds despite it being evil and stupid. When the government decided that enough was enough and cracked down on bigotry and racism, he sees it as just something so cruel and overstepping of bounds.

Which also ties in to his nihilism outlook. He'd be perfectly happy for people to devolve into anarchy and destroy themselves and the world. He doesn't give a shiat about anything except watching the world burn. Since governments generally prevents that, though, it makes him angry, and he vents about it on Fark, while also tossing in usual conspiracy theory idiocy to really show his mental unbalance.


I think you misunderstand. The people also were opposing segregation at a faster pace than people were clinging to it. The people were opposing racism on a larger scale than were instigating it.

I believe what Amos Quito is saying is that the people would have come to the same conclusion without government legislation -civil rights laws. It's idealism.

That is how I have understood his position. He can correct me if I am wrong.
 
2012-09-02 03:51:31 AM

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: But either way, it doesn't matter. We're farked. We've been being farked by the Dems AND the Repubs for SO long that we're never going to recover as a nation.

Actually, no.

We should be throwing all of our support to the Democratic party,

You've resigned yourself to the idea that you're going to get raped no matter what, so you think your only "hope" is to vote for the guy with the smaller dick.

Is that about right?


I've pretty made my position clear about the Democratic Party.

Nothing about it includes anything remotely resembling the word rape. That's your ridiculous delusion.


Who do you intend to tax? The unemployed and underemployed?


He said DEMOCRATS not REPUBLICANS.

The robber barons got fatter pulling the scheme as their pals on BOTH sides of the aisle patted them on the back, doing NOTHING to protect our ability to compete domestically, internationally, or even to survive as an economy.


Bullsh*t.

Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Seriously.


Ooh drama. Too bad you haven't really backed up anything you've said here.

Again, the only thing you should be doing is either supporting the Democratic Party or getting off your ass and joining others to start a viable 3rd party.

You are doing neither, you are hardly worth my time.
 
2012-09-02 03:53:59 AM

djkutch: Eddie Adams from Torrance: So? 211 is a legitimate number for Essential Community Services in many states.

I suppose this is newsworthy in that it's one of the few times where Romney hasn't failed when appearing in public.

Other than telling her to go home to a home that is gone, I agree Romney finally has a campaign success.


What should he have said?
 
2012-09-02 04:08:55 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: djkutch: Eddie Adams from Torrance: So? 211 is a legitimate number for Essential Community Services in many states.

I suppose this is newsworthy in that it's one of the few times where Romney hasn't failed when appearing in public.

Other than telling her to go home to a home that is gone, I agree Romney finally has a campaign success.

What should he have said?


Something along the lines of "I feel your pain". You know, empathy. Not, "it's not my problem".
 
2012-09-02 04:09:01 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: djkutch: Eddie Adams from Torrance: So? 211 is a legitimate number for Essential Community Services in many states.

I suppose this is newsworthy in that it's one of the few times where Romney hasn't failed when appearing in public.

Other than telling her to go home to a home that is gone, I agree Romney finally has a campaign success.

What should he have said?


Literally anything other than what he said.
 
2012-09-02 04:42:55 AM
"We live outside the levee protection that's why we get all this water because they close the floodgates up front and all they're doing is flooding us out down here," she said. "It's very frustrating, very. We go through Katrina and Rita and now we're going through Cindy, Lee and now Isaac."


MOVE, YOU STUPID IDIOT, that is 5 hurricanes. Five.

Translation:

"Because we've decided to live in a river delta, all of you people have to keep paying to rebuild MY shiat. I pay nothing, you pay everything. And I'm complaining that I have to wait for you to rebuild my house and they can't even start until it dries enough to bulldoze at your expense. And I'm mad at YOU for taking so long."
 
2012-09-02 04:50:27 AM

ChaoticLimbs: "We live outside the levee protection that's why we get all this water because they close the floodgates up front and all they're doing is flooding us out down here," she said. "It's very frustrating, very. We go through Katrina and Rita and now we're going through Cindy, Lee and now Isaac."


MOVE, YOU STUPID IDIOT, that is 5 hurricanes. Five.

Translation:

"Because we've decided to live in a river delta, all of you people have to keep paying to rebuild MY shiat. I pay nothing, you pay everything. And I'm complaining that I have to wait for you to rebuild my house and they can't even start until it dries enough to bulldoze at your expense. And I'm mad at YOU for taking so long."


I think it's more complicated than that. What she is saying is that because of the levee system -that didnt use to be there- her area now gets flooded in order to protect other, more affluent, areas. It is very possible that her family owned that home prior to the levee system when she didnt have such problems.
 
2012-09-02 09:12:37 AM

Apos: That was his version of compassion and calm reassurance?

Good Lord.


Worse. That was his version of painfully forced compassion and calm reassurance. That's Romney at 11.
 
2012-09-02 09:33:06 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: djkutch: Eddie Adams from Torrance: So? 211 is a legitimate number for Essential Community Services in many states.

I suppose this is newsworthy in that it's one of the few times where Romney hasn't failed when appearing in public.

Other than telling her to go home to a home that is gone, I agree Romney finally has a campaign success.

What should he have said?


"Oom poppa chuckamaga nauva sing gow
Ding koppawallawally double ching pow
Heavy coppalua cumma ginasing tea
Oom mama chuckamana one is now free"

/MItt's getting really ponderous
 
2012-09-02 11:26:02 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: So? 211 is a legitimate number for Essential Community Services in many states.

I suppose this is newsworthy in that it's one of the few times where Romney hasn't failed when appearing in public.


Try real hard to imagine losing everything and some rich guy telling you to call go back to your destroyed house and call someone [who cares]. How would you feel? Would you want that person making decisions that effect your life?
 
2012-09-02 12:20:57 PM

cchris_39: Take an idiot to a shelter, save them once. Teach an idiot to dial 211.......

/you live in a flood plain, maybe have a plan for when it floods?


Here's an idea, never try to run a political campaign or stage a photo op. You just don't have the touch.
 
2012-09-02 12:59:51 PM

Frederick: ChaoticLimbs: "We live outside the levee protection that's why we get all this water because they close the floodgates up front and all they're doing is flooding us out down here," she said. "It's very frustrating, very. We go through Katrina and Rita and now we're going through Cindy, Lee and now Isaac."


MOVE, YOU STUPID IDIOT, that is 5 hurricanes. Five.

Translation:

"Because we've decided to live in a river delta, all of you people have to keep paying to rebuild MY shiat. I pay nothing, you pay everything. And I'm complaining that I have to wait for you to rebuild my house and they can't even start until it dries enough to bulldoze at your expense. And I'm mad at YOU for taking so long."

I think it's more complicated than that. What she is saying is that because of the levee system -that didnt use to be there- her area now gets flooded in order to protect other, more affluent, areas. It is very possible that her family owned that home prior to the levee system when she didnt have such problems.


Exactly that. Some of the new levee systems they put in place post-Katrina have created soup bowls in areas that were relatively safe. Katrina flooded areas that usually never saw more than an inch or two of standing water on a roadway in a hurricane and when they built more and new levees, they forgot to consider adequate drainage for the areas that are now under ten feet of water.
 
2012-09-02 01:39:12 PM
'Uh Bobby, here's an idea, if these people can't find any bread, why don't they just eat some cake? I think I heard that somewhere before. You know, they could go to the 7-11 bakery.'
 
2012-09-02 04:38:18 PM

Frederick:

I believe what Amos Quito is saying is that the people would have come to the same conclusion without government legislation -civil rights laws. It's idealism.

That is how I have understood his position. He can correct me if I am wrong.


Idealism can be more dangerous than pure evil.

It's the flip side of people running around saying "We don't need government regulations on business, because business people would NEVER do anything to harm their workers or the environment."
 
2012-09-03 07:38:22 AM

jso2897: I can tell by your henna tattoos.


Amos Quito doesn't have henna tattoos. He has prison-fresh Swastika tattoos.

/What I mean is that he's a neo-Nazi.
//Either that or a troll, whichever.
 
2012-09-03 06:10:21 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Frederick: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.

I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.

Meh, he's as racist as I am. I am, however, stunningly attractive and much more articulate, as well as possessed of foresight beyond the ken of mortal men.

Dude has claimed that the civil rights act was a bigger oppression of Americans then anything in jim crowe ever was, along with other cracker assed shiat.

It's all part of his "government is evil and destructive and oppressive, no matter who they are or what they're doing" schtick. The common people were practicing what they believed in, which he applauds despite it being evil and stupid. When the government decided that enough was enough and cracked down on bigotry and racism, he sees it as just something so cruel and overstepping of bounds.



No, you've got it all wrong, lad. I applaud the INTENT and the RESULT of the Civil Rights Act. What I deplore is the fact that the Constitutional process was sidestepped in order to implement the act, and what I despise is the precedent that was set - effectively allowing the Federal Government to behave as though the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land, but merely a handy reference guide to be ignored when it becomes inconvenient.


Keizer_Ghidorah: Which also ties in to his nihilism outlook. He'd be perfectly happy for people to devolve into anarchy and destroy themselves and the world. He doesn't give a shiat about anything except watching the world burn. Since governments generally prevents that, though, it makes him angry, and he vents about it on Fark, while also tossing in usual conspiracy theory idiocy to really show his mental unbalance.


I don't know who you THINK you're describing above,

But it ain't me, babe
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe


/Your defamations
//Try not to be so reckless
///MMMkay?
 
2012-09-03 06:16:13 PM

Frederick: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Sometimes I start to think that you're not a dishonest, disingenuous prick.

And then you go and out yourself again.

And you're generally just a racist troll, but then we already knew that.

I've been following Amos Quito pretty closely. I would be disappointed to know he was racist. Could you point me to evidence of this? It's a rather serious charge.



Serious charge? Coming from these clowns?

Hardly.

If, as Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", then baseless smears and ad hominem attacks are the first.

They have no substantial argument to bolster their position, so they resort to squealing and libelous name calling.

Lulz.
 
2012-09-03 06:47:55 PM

Frederick: Dude has claimed that the civil rights act was a bigger oppression of Americans then anything in jim crowe ever was, along with other cracker assed shiat.

It's all part of his "government is evil and destructive and oppressive, no matter who they are or what they're doing" schtick. The common people were practicing what they believed in, which he applauds despite it being evil and stupid. When the government decided that enough was enough and cracked down on bigotry and racism, he sees it as just something so cruel and overstepping of bounds.

Which also ties in to his nihilism outlook. He'd be perfectly happy for people to devolve into anarchy and destroy themselves and the world. He doesn't give a shiat about anything except watching the world burn. Since governments generally prevents that, though, it makes him angry, and he vents about it on Fark, while also tossing in usual conspiracy theory idiocy to really show his mental unbalance.

I think you misunderstand. The people also were opposing segregation at a faster pace than people were clinging to it. The people were opposing racism on a larger scale than were instigating it.

I believe what Amos Quito is saying is that the people would have come to the same conclusion without government legislation -civil rights laws. It's idealism.

That is how I have understood his position. He can correct me if I am wrong.



Not exactly, as I tried to articulate above, I agree with and the intent that motivated the Civil Rights Act. Bringing an end to legal and codified discrimination on the basis of race was a noble aim, and our nation is far better off as a result. But the Federal Government was NOT Constitutionally endowed with the power to enforce these changes, however noble and necessary, on the States. They could have acquired that power, but a Constitutional Amendment would have been necessary, and they either didn't want to take the time and trouble to go through the legal motions, OR the wanted to see how far they could push "legislating from the bench", so they invoked the then vague (and now All Powerful) "Commerce Clause".

Using this clause to enforce the CRA set a precedent under which the Federal Government could quite literally ignore the protections and limitations set down in the Constitution - provided that they had a cooperative Supreme Court, and this (and similar) decisions have set us on a course that continually leads us closer to centralized authoritarian rule - from Washington, regardless of which party is in power.

Obviously this is far too complex an issue for certain Farkers to comprehend, so they see ANY criticism of the CRA or the way it was enacted / enforced as RACISM!

DERP!~

Simpletons LOVE the idea of authoritarianism when they THINK the authoritarians agree with what THEY want. The problem is that the worm has a habit of turning, and the raw force can turn again to rend.

/Simpletons
//Hope I didn't offend anyone
///Really, REALLY I do
 
2012-09-03 06:52:38 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: jso2897: I can tell by your henna tattoos.

Amos Quito doesn't have henna tattoos. He has prison-fresh Swastika tattoos.

/What I mean is that he's a neo-Nazi.
//Either that or a troll, whichever.


www.lunettesde.com

Your verbal bullets...

They do nothing.
 
Displayed 45 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report