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.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk) divider line 744
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6034 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-17 03:03:25 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.

Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.


Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?
 
2014-04-17 03:03:46 PM

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and  she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.


When you want to get around to addressing what I said, as opposed to what the voices in your head said, I'll be right here.
 
2014-04-17 03:04:07 PM

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".
 
2014-04-17 03:04:11 PM

cchris_39: /proud bootstrappy bigot.


you could have erased the rest of your whining and just posted this
 
2014-04-17 03:05:09 PM

Gulper Eel: You mentioned Ahmagonnagityousucka. Funny you should mention him. Columbia University invited him to speak. They did it right. And in the end, he revealed himself as a buffoon.


And the Right excoriated them for it.  They claimed it would legitimize his positions and give him a platform to expose his ideas, the same argument they used against giving trials to accused terrorists, too, BTW.  That's the farking point, that the RW is suddenly trying to pretend that they care about free speech but only do now that it is coming out against them.

Gulper Eel: Brandeis did it wrong, and with a vastly less objectionable speaker.


Great, you are right, Brandeis farked up.  Now, explain why one fark up by one university in the entirety of this country is supposed to represent a new insurgence of Leftist censorship.  Because it doesn't.  What it does represent is that this particular university skittish as hell about inviting Muslim reprisals against their students.  It sucks, but is understandable.
 
2014-04-17 03:06:01 PM

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


ahhhh, the conservative victim. That train is never late!
 
2014-04-17 03:06:08 PM
How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate - from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage

Without reading TFA let me guess:

1. bombing brown people=good
2. global warming=wealth distribution
3. I have a right to be a homophobic bigot


did I miss something?
 
2014-04-17 03:06:17 PM

cchris_39: stuff


So, your point here is that you take offense at being called a racist, but not enough to change your behavior?  The REAL problem is that liberals are being mean to you?

Oh, and BTW:

"If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined"

There's a name for this belief.  It's called "white supremacy."  If you don't like that fact, then perhaps you need to make some changes.
 
2014-04-17 03:07:21 PM
Meh. Free expression is and always will be under attack from the expansive fringeosphere. Not worried I'll be denied the right to call you a douchebag.
 
2014-04-17 03:08:03 PM

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


lantawa: But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.
 
2014-04-17 03:08:30 PM

Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative? There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance." I'm speaking from personal experience. I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage. If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.


Well, I think there is some intellectual dishonesty at play here. From the beginning of Obama's statements on gay marriage, while he was initially in favor of "civil unions" over "marriage", he was clear in advocating these unions have all the same protections and rights as marriage. Now were there people criticizing him over his unwillingness to go big, of course. But it's important to note that having a prominent Senator, and potential President, on the side of full legal recognition of same-sex couples had great potential, and was a step forward.

None of that is the same as denying rights.
 
2014-04-17 03:09:05 PM

Gulper Eel: When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.


I was unaware I was still allowed to own slaves.
 
2014-04-17 03:09:25 PM

heap: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.

I aint suggesting solutions, I'm content to look at reality and find it royally frigged.

There are just moments where it's clear that botulism has gotten into the American Experiment's petri dish - this is one of them.


I don't disagree with you, but you're blaming the victims instead of the source of the toxin - a corporatist Supreme Court and the politicians who created it.
 
2014-04-17 03:10:11 PM

MurphyMurphy: menschenfresser: MurphyMurphy: Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.

Right, and don't forget which party has been crusading to strip down any remaining workers' rights in favor of all the cards being held solely by the employer - Just the word "union" is enough to get most of them riled up. Yep, employers can do whatever the fark they want and employees don't matter. "Right to work" and all that. Don't need a reason to fire people in most states now because somehow giving workers any rights is "socialism." As if individual workers are totally able to take on corporations they work for as if it were an equal footing and no rights for employees are needed. Think about that, dumbasses.

"Right to work" is a loaded topic I'm not about to dive in to... but it really is far from on-topic.

You'very always been able to be fired from a private enterprise for any or even no reason at all.

What is and has been illegal is being fired for a very specific list of protected things. And the freedom to say whatever you want is not amongst them.


I concede that 'right to work' isn't exactly on-topic, but it struck me that the people saying (incorrectly) that "free speech" means anyone should be able to say what they want and not get fired, are the same people who crusade for employees to have no protection versus their employers. I agree with you about speech not being protected for termination purposes and certainly am not defending this knuckle-dragger who was let go, just pointing out what seems to be hipocrisy.
 
2014-04-17 03:10:28 PM

Aldon: Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?


Possibly, but that's largely because phrases like 'bottom line' mean different things when you're talking about a product that is given away.

In other words, loss to their image mattered more than financial loss - both could be described as 'bottom line' in this case, where in other businesses it might not compare the same.

In other, other words, when you're a mozilla-like company that seems to exist on banked goodwill, pissing on that goodwill will hurt you quicker than in another, more common business setting.
 
2014-04-17 03:11:52 PM

grumpfuff: Gulper Eel: When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.

I was unaware I was still allowed to own slaves.


you just have to call them interns
 
2014-04-17 03:12:02 PM

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


I was going to take the time to address this, but it wouldn't penetrate, so why bother?  You're a proud bigot and there's nothing else to be said but that.

This is the part where social consequences come into play.
 
2014-04-17 03:12:11 PM

cchris_39: If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),


We already know. Was there actually a point to this demonstration?
 
2014-04-17 03:12:12 PM

Gulper Eel: So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.


And it's impossible to believe that the victim of such violence might - MIGHT, mind you - harbor a few metric tons of resentment over not only the subculture that allows (or demands) this violence, but the larger culture that has not uprooted it; while also combining the many, many stripes of the "culture" (which encapsulates 20-25% of the world's population, so yeah, there's going to be diversity there) into a single one and condemning the whole thing?

We shouldn't give a megaphone to a rape survivor who wants all men castrated, either.
 
2014-04-17 03:14:50 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I don't disagree with you, but you're blaming the victims instead of the source of the toxin - a corporatist Supreme Court and the politicians who created it.


well, blame wasn't my intent.

I suppose it works, tho - I just can't help but notice the whole country is now playing the FRC/Moral Majority game from the 80s, and I don't like it.

You're playing the game you were given. Perhaps it might be more succint to say that I aint hating the playa, my disapprobation is squarely directed at the game.
 
2014-04-17 03:15:15 PM

Dimensio: In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


Then why aren't they running Obama out of office for the same thing?... they held the same position about marriage at the same time?

The stupid... it burns.
 
2014-04-17 03:15:35 PM

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


Like the Tea Party members when meeting their elected representatives?
 
2014-04-17 03:16:45 PM
Brandeis farked up. Mozilla was well within its rights to force out the officer who would be the face of the company for being personally and politically against the perception of that company, especially after his appointment caused a significant amount of internal unrest, including three board members resigning in protest. This wasn't because of OKCupid posting a mean message on their Web site. It wasn't about the homogay lobby. It was about Eich's appointment stirring up more shiat for Mozilla than he was worth.

As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.
 
2014-04-17 03:18:00 PM

heap: Aldon: Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?

Possibly, but that's largely because phrases like 'bottom line' mean different things when you're talking about a product that is given away.

In other words, loss to their image mattered more than financial loss - both could be described as 'bottom line' in this case, where in other businesses it might not compare the same.

In other, other words, when you're a mozilla-like company that seems to exist on banked goodwill, pissing on that goodwill will hurt you quicker than in another, more common business setting.


Private businesses exist for one reason, and that always involves money...but not always in the same way so that's why I said "bottom line".
 
2014-04-17 03:20:23 PM

Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."


O rly?

/angry at him for being against it when it became more politically convenient
 
2014-04-17 03:20:56 PM

Dr Dreidel: And it's impossible to believe that the victim of such violence might - MIGHT, mind you - harbor a few metric tons of resentment over not only the subculture that allows (or demands) this violence, but the larger culture that has not uprooted it; while also combining the many, many stripes of the "culture" (which encapsulates 20-25% of the world's population, so yeah, there's going to be diversity there) into a single one and condemning the whole thing?

We shouldn't give a megaphone to a rape survivor who wants all men castrated, either.


All religions, Islam, Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. should be publicly criticized, every day of the week, by anyone willing to take on the responsibility, because they are all, without exception, superstitious drivel.  Why someone would volunteer to take on the responsibility should never matter.  They should be applauded simply for opposing balderdash.
 
2014-04-17 03:21:02 PM

HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".


That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..
 
2014-04-17 03:21:45 PM

Gulper Eel: Care to defend what Brandeis did?


They denied her the honorary degree, but offered to have her come and debate her point of view which is "Islam must be exterminated".  And given her history, I can kind of get where she is coming from, but there is no obligation to let her get the degree and speak at commencement.

Keep in mind that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia U, most of the people who were outraged about Ali not speaking were calling to his speaking engagement cancelled.

That's not an apples to apples comparison, but it;s as close as we can get .  Ali was given an opportunity to make her case, she chose to complain to her wingnut friends.  Brandeis should have googled her, rather than giving her an opportunity based on her publicity bio.  They farked up in multiople ways here, but this has nothing to do with the freedom of ideas.
 
2014-04-17 03:21:51 PM

Aldon: Private businesses exist for one reason, and that always involves money...but not always in the same way so that's why I said "bottom line".


yah - if I was clear as mud w/ that one, I was agreeing, but clarifying. Mozilla is in a situation that makes it more vulnerable to image issues than Home Depot, for example. The fact that their product is free, and their competition is free...gives a certain measure more freedom to the consumer to say 'frig you' if their image isn't what's wanted.
 
2014-04-17 03:22:25 PM

Infernalist: When you want to get around to addressing what I said, as opposed to what the voices in your head said, I'll be right here.


I addressed exactly what you said - that some ideas are preposterous and retarded. I brought up TFA's example of Brandeis first inviting Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak while praising her courage, and then weaseling out of their commitment under heat from the politically-correct idiots in their student body. Your remarks  defended this sort of anti-intellectualism, if not the outright lying by the college's administration as to why they did what they did. The whiners, in this case, were the students. They feel uncomfortable that their faith was being challenged? Too farking bad. Having beliefs challenged is what they signed up for, even if they were too dim to understand it when they applied.
 
2014-04-17 03:22:41 PM

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


What the fark are you talking about?
 
2014-04-17 03:22:42 PM

grumpfuff: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

O rly?

/angry at him for being against it when it became more politically convenient


It didn't kill enough brown people or pump up the Halliburton enough.
 
2014-04-17 03:23:50 PM

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


If that mere disagreement is "lalcks/gays/mexicans" ought to be treated like property, yes.
 
2014-04-17 03:24:03 PM

Bloody William: As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.


Uh.... The Spectator isn't a U.S. publication...
 
2014-04-17 03:24:25 PM

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


Rubbish.  The Baathists used the Iraqi government to shut down dissent through violence and intimidation of violence.

Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right.  If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.
 
2014-04-17 03:25:31 PM

Infernalist: Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right. If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.


my bet was 'people are arguing with a quotebot'.
 
2014-04-17 03:26:12 PM
Does this mean that in a few years, we are going to need affirmative action for bigots? If they become a minority class, won't that make them a protected class?
 
2014-04-17 03:26:36 PM

Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative?  There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance."  I'm speaking from personal experience.  I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage.  If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.


You made a baseless accusation of hypocrisy. The burden's now on you to show they are hypocrites; apparently you can't, so admit that in the absence of actual evidence of hypocrisy you were wrong to make the charge.
 
2014-04-17 03:26:37 PM

BSABSVR: Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?

If that mere disagreement is "lalcks/gays/mexicans" ought to be treated like property, yes.


You mean those aren't "mere disagreement?" You mean I'm not just "asking questions?"

I think we need to study it out.
 
2014-04-17 03:27:41 PM

Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?


liberals are bad, a bloo blah bloo
 
2014-04-17 03:27:47 PM

Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?


He's really angry at the people that exist in his head.
 
2014-04-17 03:28:30 PM

s2s2s2: Does this mean that in a few years, we are going to need affirmative action for bigots? If they become a minority class, won't that make them a protected class?


They'll be moved to the front of the line for shiat-shoveling jobs and cleaning bus station bathrooms.
 
2014-04-17 03:29:14 PM

Shamwow: Like the Tea Party members when meeting their elected representatives?


Exactly so. Either be ready to debate and not yell past the person you disagree with, or take your Gadsden flag and go the fark home.

BSABSVR: Brandeis should have googled her, rather than giving her an opportunity based on her publicity bio.  They farked up in multiople ways here, but this has nothing to do with the freedom of ideas.


But having made their bed, they were too chickenshiat to sleep in it.
 
2014-04-17 03:29:29 PM
heap:
...You're playing the game you were given. Perhaps it might be more succint to say that I aint hating the playa, my disapprobation is squarely directed at the game.

Fair enough.
 
2014-04-17 03:30:48 PM

Jackson Herring: Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?

liberals are bad, a bloo blah bloo TOTALLY JUST LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN!!11! BE AFRAID!

 
2014-04-17 03:32:08 PM

Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-17 03:32:31 PM

whidbey: They'll be moved to the front of the line for shiat-shoveling jobs...


They better start taping their mouths shut, then, or the pile they're shoveling will never get any smaller.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:31 PM
cdn.niketalk.com

The edification of this emancipation reaps destruction of the paradigm that shifted into the systemization of coalescing facts discussed in bath houses. To disagree is to disregard the amalgamation of gentrification of liberalism and the vociferation of mesmerizing dedication.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:33 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.


You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. And obtuse; you seem to be obtuse, as well. Maybe you can settle your thoughts with a nice canine dish and some beer. That'd probably get you back on track so that a meaningful dialogue could be initiated.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:41 PM

sprawl15: Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?

[i.imgur.com image 437x394]


i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 744 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report