Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2014-04-17 04:10:11 PM  

Gulper Eel: You ought to read the article, then.


I clicked the link, and the very first sentence gave me a concussion.

I realize how frightening it is to contemplate a world where gay men can no longer be dragged behind your pick-up truck with impunity, but I do not feel victimized by this new state of affairs.  Unlike the author.  Jesus, grow a pair, man.  What a god damn whiner.
 
2014-04-17 04:10:11 PM  

whidbey: Gulper Eel: whidbey: Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.

Thank you for stating so clearly that she's the bigot.

Not the medieval shiats who carved her up when she was a child.
Not the goons who forced her into an arranged marriage.
Not the savages who threaten her life to this day, and have tailed her around the world.
Not the professional victims at CAIR who see a bigot behind every package of bacon.
Not the useful idiot snowflakes who are uncomfortable with what she has to say about their faith.
Not the easily-cowed administrators who couldn't be bothered to learn the first thing about her until the heat was on, and then promptly folded.

Nope, SHE's the Islamophobe. (shun.jpg)

Not only should we have the right to call out this monstrousness, we have the duty to do so, to offend the easily-offended (especially those who use 'offense' as a pretext to shut down debate), and whatever may be most noxious to their adherents and defenders, to do those very things and then some.

Yes, even if she hangs out with those awful neocons sometimes.

Dude whatever it is you're so slyly trying to defend, it means I probably have to read tfa, so no.

Here are the points I'm concerned with:

1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence


God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.
 
2014-04-17 04:10:14 PM  

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.


I see you have the usual plethora of ad hominems, and no actual facts. Keep on keepin on!
 
2014-04-17 04:12:19 PM  
Oh right, another "you're the bigot for calling me a bigot" articles. No, I will not tolerate your close-minded opinion. I stopped reading after about three sentences.
/pre-revisionist definition of marriage my ass
 
2014-04-17 04:13:23 PM  

lantawa: meaningful debate about political methodology.


Meaningful debate like this?

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.

 
2014-04-17 04:14:36 PM  
And using the phrase cum-spewing?  How juvenile, son.  Use the real words, not your vile gutter slang.
 
2014-04-17 04:15:36 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company?

It's not. Why not watch the video and get back to me?

Because I have work to do as well. Why not just answer the simple question?


It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."
 
2014-04-17 04:16:30 PM  

BSABSVR: And using the phrase cum-spewing?  How juvenile, son.  Use the real words, not your vile gutter slang.


'star spangling'
 
2014-04-17 04:18:40 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?


I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.
 
2014-04-17 04:19:07 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.

Is it something I said that's making you not want to actually explain your statements or offer any sort of evidence or logic behind them? Because this might surprise you, but your assertions are not self-evident. They seem disconnected, jarring, and paranoid, and if you can't actually back them up they're going to keep seeming disconnected, jarring, and paranoid.


When a political movement seeks to not disclose its techniques for beating its opponents, then it falls to deduction and observation to arrive at conclusions.  I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.  It is a curious phenomenon, and not one that I'm particularly afraid of.  I'll give you jarring and disconnected as a correct view that *you* may have, but it's as clear as day to me when you look at the global political machines that exist throughout the different cultures.

I've explained myself as best I can, and have offered up a few research tools for the uneducated.  There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.  Upthread, someone said that it's the literal FIRST time that they've ever heard of Baathism.  Sorry, but that's just indicative of someone who really needs to study up on their politics, if they intend to post in Politics threads.
 
2014-04-17 04:19:18 PM  
Freedom of speech =/= Freedom from repercussions.
 
2014-04-17 04:22:46 PM  

lantawa: I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.


"I can't prove it, I just know it's true"


lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


Please provide a detailed list of examples of Baathist influence, including citations and explanations of how that particular event shows Baathist influence.
 
2014-04-17 04:23:01 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.


So, I was right. It's just the new "OMG SOCIALIST/MARXIST" with a dash of SAUL ALINSKY and FASCISM/NAZI thrown in for good measure.

Never heard that stuff before.
 
2014-04-17 04:23:07 PM  

Jjaro: And the evidence is the lack of the same sort of public calls/petitions of disdain against Obama or Hillary for not supporting gay marriage on the national level until it become political beneficial for them to do so.


Are you seriously attempting to draw an equivalence between not advancing the cause of gay marriage, and actively working against it? Those two are precisely equal to your addled brain?
 
2014-04-17 04:23:15 PM  

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


And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.


HA!  When you put it that way it makes it sound so much more reasonable and traditional...
 
2014-04-17 04:24:27 PM  

BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".


There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.
 
2014-04-17 04:24:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?

I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.


Lord, you're tiresome. How about no, for reasons previously stated.
 
2014-04-17 04:24:55 PM  

grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."


Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr
 
2014-04-17 04:25:24 PM  

lantawa: how about giving me some feedback on the Baathist movement and the points that I've brought up.  You know, real discussion.


Um, I see your tirade more of a smokescreen to distract from the real issues, that making bigoted statements do have consequences. As for "shutting down debate," repeating the same fallacious claim over and over after called on it isn't "discussion."

Diversity of opinion =/= tolerance of bigotry

now back to your eagle-squirting
 
2014-04-17 04:26:39 PM  

Jjaro: God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.


God forbid you summarize the argument so we don't have to click on that utter garbage.
 
2014-04-17 04:27:04 PM  

lantawa: BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".

There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.


Huzzah! A thousand cheers for you making an actual concrete assertion. Now provideany credible evidence this is so. Even "scary socialist" Europe tends towards multiparty representation.
 
2014-04-17 04:27:18 PM  
Mentat: that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

How does your last sentence follow from the previous one? It is not bigoted to dislike someone for holding odious views. Their views are part of who they are. You can't really separate the two. When those people are also friends and family, then sure, it puts you in a more conflicted position. You have to decide if what you like about a given person outweighs what you don't like enough that you still want to associate with them.

For some people close to you, you've obviously decided that your ties to them are more important than their odious views. That's fine. Deciding otherwise is fine too. It's still not bigotry.
 
2014-04-17 04:27:55 PM  

lantawa: When a political movement seeks to not disclose its techniques for beating its opponents, then it falls to deduction and observation to arrive at conclusions.  I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.


So instead of pointing at examples or presenting a trend from known events, you're saying you can't back up your assertions. In fact, you're saying you don't actually have anything which which to back your assertions.

The correct response to [citation needed] is not "It's a secret and they won't tell us!" It's "Here are some news reports, studies, statements, and papers that back up what I'm saying." You're trying to connect Baathism to Western left-wing politics without anything more than a vague fog of intellectual persecution to back it up.
 
2014-04-17 04:28:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?

I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.


The video really has nothing at all to do with this topic where  people used their free speech to shiat on a bigot. But yeah institutionalized censorship is bad...
 
2014-04-17 04:28:37 PM  

lantawa: BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".

There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.


Citation Needed. If this is true, show us a specific event in which this has happened. Otherwise your claims are meaningless noise. If you want people to take you seriously and not lump you in with Creationists, Geocentrists, Truthers, and Birthers, you need to actually support your claims with evidence.

You have a thesis, but it needs support. Otherwise you lack credibility.
 
2014-04-17 04:29:23 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr


Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.
 
2014-04-17 04:30:42 PM  
As a liberal, I admit to personally participating in a conspiracy to permanently quash the free speech rights of everyone who does not agree with me entirely.  In return for immunity, I will also confess the names of my co-conspirators: they precisely match the names of anyone who ever voted for a democrat.

My role in this conspiracy was to tell people they were being bad people when their opinions were inhumanely shiatty, sometimes even hurting their feelings, essentially as the most evil agents of the conspiracy.

I also didn't buy products from companies that had inhumanely shiatty opinions.
 
2014-04-17 04:31:08 PM  

lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


I'm trying to assume you're not a troll, so I'll offer some constructive criticism.

Asserting an outside influence from a specific force without being able to offer evidence of that specific force exerting influence is paranoia. It is a sign of schizophrenia. Without evidence, your claims have no more weight than Lyndon LaRouche supports claiming modern politics is a plot of the British royal family to take over the United States. They're only superior to assertions that political leaders are aliens in the sense that there is evidence the groups involved in your scenario actually exist.
 
2014-04-17 04:31:40 PM  
I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.
 
2014-04-17 04:32:30 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.


It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.
 
2014-04-17 04:32:53 PM  

lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States


Yeah, they're the ignorant ones...comparing Baathists to American politics is totally legit.  Just like comparing Obama to Hitler.  Only the ignorant people don't see the connection.
 
2014-04-17 04:33:10 PM  

TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.


I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.
 
2014-04-17 04:33:54 PM  

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.


You don't know any teabaggers, huh?
 
2014-04-17 04:34:54 PM  

Headso: UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.

It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.


Oh, thanks. Yes that would be bad. Probably why the founders saw fit to put free speech right up front.
 
2014-04-17 04:36:29 PM  

Bloody William: TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.

I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.


"Hey, look. We can use this new polarizing buzzword to antagonize people when we talk about propaganda techniques that have been applied on all sides of debates to one degree or another for centuries! And it's not the Nazis for one! Hurray!"

The only way to beat that nonsense is to ignore it. Don't mock it. Don't pay attention to it. Just ignore it, shake your head, and talk with *sensible* people you disagree with. If someone can't debate or discuss a situation without that kind of crap, they're not worth talking to. Yes, that's being judgemental. No, I don't care what people who oppose me think of that.
 
2014-04-17 04:36:44 PM  

Bloody William: TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.

I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.


They're going to make Saddam look like Cecil Rhodes.
 
2014-04-17 04:37:08 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States

Yeah, they're the ignorant ones...comparing Baathists to American politics is totally legit.  Just like comparing Obama to Hitler.  Only the ignorant people don't see the connection.


My god, they both led countries.  Neither one lowered the capital gains rate to 0%.  Both gave speeches to large audiences in a public square in front of their country's capital.  Both had treaties with france.  The parallels don't stop there.
 
2014-04-17 04:37:16 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: colon_pow: Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x377]


But who photoshopped it?
 
2014-04-17 04:38:19 PM  

s2s2s2: UrukHaiGuyz: colon_pow: Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x377]

But who photoshopped it?


Ba'athists. Are you even paying attention?
 
2014-04-17 04:38:45 PM  

Jjaro: 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.

It wasn't baseless. As I said, I am speaking from personal experience. And the evidence is the lack of the same sort of public calls/petitions of disdain against Obama or Hillary for not supporting gay marriage on the national level until it become political beneficial for them to do so.


You called a specific group of people who signed a petition against Eich for supporting Prop 8 "hypocrites".

Unless you have "personal experience" that these people gave someone on "their team" (your words) who did the same thing a pass, your charge of hypocrisy is baseless.
 
2014-04-17 04:39:49 PM  
Apparently "baathist liberals" is going to take the place of "fabian socialist" and "alinskyite tactics" to make people who have never opened a book past the cover sound like they know farkall about politics.
 
2014-04-17 04:40:03 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: How about no


Ignorance is bliss!
 
2014-04-17 04:40:32 PM  
It's not too bad over here just yet, it's Europe and others that have caught it pretty bad.

Hate speech laws, jailed holocaust deniers, internet filters, and the treatment of investigative journalists is becoming concerning all over.
 
2014-04-17 04:40:56 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Headso: UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.

It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.

Oh, thanks. Yes that would be bad. Probably why the founders saw fit to put free speech right up front.


yeah, which is why he had to link to a speech about  a Canadian hate speech law I assume...
 
2014-04-17 04:41:00 PM  

whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence


Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.
 
2014-04-17 04:42:22 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.

I'm trying to assume you're not a troll, so I'll offer some constructive criticism.

Asserting an outside influence from a specific force without being able to offer evidence of that specific force exerting influence is paranoia. It is a sign of schizophrenia. Without evidence, your claims have no more weight than Lyndon LaRouche supports claiming modern politics is a plot of the British royal family to take over the United States. They're only superior to assertions that political leaders are aliens in the sense that there is evidence the groups involved in your scenario actually exist.


I can see how what you are saying is true. The humorous way to approach that perception would be to say that yes, I'll go study it out and bring back some citations.  More seriously, I guess I have to admit that it is a thesis without background citations.  So, that admission should please the butthurt in this thread.  Okay.  In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.  I admit that just posting a couple of Baathist links by Wiki and a blog are insufficient evidence for the disbelievers.

TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.


"The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades.  You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it.  I'll wait for your admission.
 
2014-04-17 04:42:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How about no

Ignorance is bliss!


I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.
 
2014-04-17 04:43:10 PM  

Nabb1: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.

I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.

Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that - but breaking it down to the essential elements, there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public, one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever. He'll be fine, I am sure, but I just don't know if that's something we want to see on a regular basis.


Well half the board did resign when he was named and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with his views on gay marriage.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-r es ign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/

//your blog sucks
 
2014-04-17 04:43:18 PM  

lantawa: Upthread, someone said that it's the literal FIRST time that they've ever heard of Baathism.  Sorry, but that's just indicative of someone who really needs to study up on their politics, if they intend to post in Politics threads.


For the record, first time I'd heard the term used in association with any type of political 'movement' in the US (or the West in general).
 
2014-04-17 04:43:27 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.


The discussion of David Irving is a good start.
 
Displayed 50 of 743 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report