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  
•       •       •

6033 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (19 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
 
2014-04-18 12:40:01 AM

grumpfuff: In order to call you wrong, I'd first have to figure out what the fark you're saying.


Something about how people online not shutting up and accepting his bullshiat is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights
 
2014-04-18 12:41:27 AM

scottydoesntknow: Diogenes: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 240x243]

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.

It's like Seth Rogen and Ron Perlman had a really ugly baby.


which was dropped on the floor a few times by the doctor who delivered him
 
2014-04-18 12:42:47 AM

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: You think that I'm worried about conforming to some standard that THIS PLACE mandates?

No.  You're not even worried about backing up your claims with evidence.

Diversity of opinion is great, but I expect someone to be able to back up their opinions.  It will almost certainly not change my mind (though it's been known to happen), but I frequently say/think, "I don't agree with that dude, but his opinion is well-reasoned and his ability to make his case is impressive".

Then there are whiners who scream suppression!! when someone dares to ask them for some sort of evidence to back up their claims.  They're called wusses


Not whining, dude. It's all good.  Speak.  Opine. It's your right, right or wrong.
 
2014-04-18 12:46:59 AM
All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.
 
2014-04-18 12:47:45 AM

Lionel Mandrake: grumpfuff: In order to call you wrong, I'd first have to figure out what the fark you're saying.

Something about how people online not shutting up and accepting his bullshiat is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights


No.  Sorry.  Your trololo statement would be incorrect. Simplistic much? Very mighty. Great arbiter you ....prostration for your Majesty is from you expected, not forthcoming......
 
2014-04-18 12:55:12 AM

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: grumpfuff: In order to call you wrong, I'd first have to figure out what the fark you're saying.

Something about how people online not shutting up and accepting his bullshiat is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights

No.  Sorry.  Your trololo statement would be incorrect. Simplistic much? Very mighty. Great arbiter you ....prostration for your Majesty is from you expected, not forthcoming......

i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-04-18 01:10:05 AM
NEWSFLASH: "Free Speech may have unintended consequences on your social life and career when people realize you're an enormous douche.  Your loudmouthed, poorly thought out opinions have ramifications on what people think of you."

Yes, truly, RIP free speech... No wait actually, RIP personal responsibility.
 
2014-04-18 01:10:10 AM

i466.photobucket.com

 
2014-04-18 01:10:23 AM

Bucky Katt: All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.


You are the perfect spokesperson for the Fark Dependents
 
2014-04-18 01:13:18 AM

lantawa:


Is that a Baathist?
 
2014-04-18 01:14:49 AM

DeArmondVI: lantawa:

Is that a Baathist?


No, man.  It's Frank from Blue Velvet.  He's the new Islamic spokesperson.
 
2014-04-18 01:19:35 AM

The_Forensicator: Bucky Katt: All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.

You are the perfect spokesperson for the Fark Dependents

media0.giphy.com
 
2014-04-18 01:23:29 AM

lantawa: DeArmondVI: lantawa:

Is that a Baathist?

No, man.  It's Frank from Blue Velvet.  He's the new Islamic spokesperson.


Looks like he needs to mellow out with a Heineken.
 
2014-04-18 01:24:40 AM

Bucky Katt: All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.


Am I still a Rightwing Apologist regardless of the fact that I am on the Democrats side for this issue?

/Seriously, I would really like for people to remember me when I agree with their PoV and not for when I disagree with their PoV
//Still have no probs with what we did to Eich. Wont ever lose sleep over it or anything.
///My slashies are longer than my comments? Well, I had to stretch them out till three.
 
2014-04-18 01:39:48 AM
Wow. A name-dropping Steyn rant gets over 600 comments? Good on you, Submitter. Would not have thought of that.
 
2014-04-18 01:50:24 AM
Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.  Out of 100,000 immigrants, it is entirely reasonable to think that a number of Iraqi Baathists could come into the U.S. under the guise of being refugees.  But doubters, you just go lalalala no proof, you mad, etc,, etc.  You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.  Here's the article:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s
 
2014-04-18 02:34:02 AM

lantawa: [i466.photobucket.com image 300x400]


What's an Islamist? You mean a Muslim?
 
2014-04-18 02:36:57 AM

lantawa: Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.  Out of 100,000 immigrants, it is entirely reasonable to think that a number of Iraqi Baathists could come into the U.S. under the guise of being refugees.  But doubters, you just go lalalala no proof, you mad, etc,, etc.  You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.  Here's the article:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s


Yes, it's entirely possible that some of them are Baathists. It's also entirely possible that the vast majority of them are simply immigrants looking to make a better life for themselves.

You seem to really be scared of Muslims.
 
2014-04-18 03:04:35 AM

Nabb1: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.

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.


Problem is that oftentimes, laws refer to marriages by the name "marriage", meaning you'd either have to rewrite all those laws to include civil unions, or declare that for the purposes of laws, civil unions are legally marriages, which would once again start the rage machine.
 
2014-04-18 03:54:16 AM

grumpfuff: So, I went to Rutgers. This year, for commencement, they invited Condi Rice and are awarding her an honorary degree. They did not ask the student body for opinions like they claimed, nor did they ask any teachers. Pretty much the entire campus is disgusted with the idea of her speaking, and even more so at the idea of giving her an honorary degree.

Are you saying that if they succeed in their effort to change speakers, they're..idk..anti-Condi or whatever?

Shouldn't they get a say about who speaks about what, seeing as how they're farking paying for it?


Rutgers is the taxpayer-supported state university of New Jersey so by your logic all commencement speakers should have had to pass muster with the likes of Chris Christie and John Corzine and the fine intellects of the New Jersey state legislature.

(howaboutno.jpg)

No, the college leadership gets to make the final call on who the speaker is. If they want to offer students the chance to offer up opinions beforehand, great. I think it would go a long way toward revealing the vacuousness of the student body's professional whiners-in-training.

CanisNoir: I think the problem is that she generalizes the entire Islamic faith and there are many modern moderate Muslims that are painted with that broad brush. The Brandise(sp) issue is nuanced imho. That said, I think Islam is taking the heat because dickish leaders use it as a motivating force for the masses to obtain their personal secular ambitions.


Too farking bad. As a Catholic I have to take the heat because a bunch of pedos got into the priesthood and a bunch of creep bishops and cardinals covered for them, back when I was a kid. Obviously I would not have been in the position to have done anything about it as it was happening, but it sure as shiat is still my responsibility to see to it as a parishioner that current leadership is ensuring that kind of abuse never happens again.

Sauce for the goose: if pedophile priests and the likes of Cardinal Bernard Law are my problem, then for the Brandeis Muslims all the bin Ladens and Taliban and Ahmadinejads and Tsarnaevs and Attas and female genital mutilators and honor killers and Egyptian rape-gangs and suicide bombers are most assuredly their problem.

The students were confronted with a victim of the faith they profess to hold...and proceeded to whine that SHE was the problem.

Which proves Ali's point about the flaws of their faith.
 
2014-04-18 04:16:47 AM

Gulper Eel: The students were confronted with a victim of the faith they profess to hold...and proceeded to whine that SHE was the problem.


Ignoring the rest of your post because I'm tired of your "ALL NJ IS BAD BECAUSE REASONS" crap, the problem wasn't that she was a victim of the faith. The problem was that she claimed all people who hold that faith are the same way.

So, according to you, it's perfectly ok for me to say all Catholics are pedophiles.
 
2014-04-18 04:20:54 AM

lantawa: [i466.photobucket.com image 300x400]


God dude you really proved to be utterly full of shiat here.

Thanks for smearing it all over the forum walls.
 
2014-04-18 04:36:11 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: IlGreven: Lionel Mandrake: SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.

Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views

I think the more apt comparison is to Melody Hensley and her "I got PTSD from Twitter" comment. Many of the people who condemned Eich still defend Hensley even after she threatened to report active duty military who merely questioned whether she had PTSD (although probably belligerently, as in "biatch, I know what PTSD is, and you don't have PTSD").

And it's relevant as Hensley is the Washington DC Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit secular (read: atheist) org that has furthering "freedom of thought" in its mission statement.

/But it's okay because she's a feminist. Right, Rebecca Watson?

I don't think armchair psychologists should be diagnosing people they find distasteful from across the internet, but that's just me.

Wondering how hyperbolic that Twitter PTSD was meant though, really hoping she wasn't trying to be serious.


Well, her first reaction to people expressing disbelief that she could have it (though again, through the belligerence) was to block people and try and get them reprimanded, rather than provide some small proof of her claim. To me, that is not a free thinker, and it's my biggest issue with her and the people she rolls with (PZ Myers' "FreeThought" Blogs...which stamps out any dissension when people try and call him or any of his buddies on their bullshiat).  Basically, they're atheists with a dogma, and if you don't agree with their dogma, then you're shunned...which was the kind of thinking that most nonbelievers left their faiths to get away from.
 
2014-04-18 04:43:49 AM

stpauler: In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.


Well of course, everyone knows it's the liberals on the left that hate blacks, feminists, atheists, human rights campaigners and people from East Africa.

This was the sentence where I knew I was reading a paper from Bizarro World.
 
2014-04-18 04:52:17 AM

SauronWasFramed: // Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Obama's shift of opinion was a huge, broad arc all the way from "I don't care, I think probably no but do what you want" to "I don't care, I guess some of the states officially want it so I guess the feds will err on the side of recognizing more of the state institutions".  HUUUUUGE leap between widely disparate opinions there.

// Kinda weird that he actually DID catch a lot of shiat from the leftwards end of the media for it... especially given that the role of the president is primarily foreign policy, not domestic.  Domestic policy he doesn't make, he just suggests, advises and executes.
 
2014-04-18 04:52:34 AM
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s


Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.

The number of Iraqi immigrants in the United States tripled between 1980 and 2007, from 32,121 to 102,000. Most of this growth occurred during the 1990s.

You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.

So, from a perfectly acceptable and valid immigration article from a perfectly legitimate site...in which you laboriously managed to prove that, yeah, there's kind of a lot of Iraqi refugee-immigrant type folks gadding about....

...you still cannot back up your claim that there is Baathist infiltration in our government because --

CTRL+F "Baathist", Results: PHRASE NOT FOUND.

You continue to fail to properly back up your ultimate conclusion.

You instead ASSUME with no evidence whatever except rampant goofballism from some non-credible blog that merely because there's a verifiably true large number of something scattered around here, that a fraction of that something has just simply got to be baath-ed in evil.

Give me something, anything at all about "Baathist infiltration of the Federal government" from Red State, or The Blaze.

In other words stop spraying spit all over my monitor and make a damn effort.
 
2014-04-18 06:38:35 AM

grumpfuff: The problem was that she claimed all people who hold that faith are the same way.


You misrepresent (or at least misunderstand) her position. The pissing and moaning stems from this passage in this interview:

Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?
Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.
Reason: Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world's 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, "defeat Islam"?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they're the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, "This is a warning. We won't accept this anymore." There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Reason: Militarily?
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
Reason: Are we really heading toward anything so ominous?
Hirsi Ali: I think that's where we're heading. We're heading there because the West has been in denial for a long time. It did not respond to the signals that were smaller and easier to take care of. Now we have some choices to make. This is a dilemma: Western civilization is a celebration of life-everybody's life, even your enemy's life. So how can you be true to that morality and at the same time defend yourself against a very powerful enemy that seeks to destroy you?
Reason: George Bush, not the most conciliatory person in the world, has said on plenty of occasions that we are not at war with Islam.
Hirsi Ali: If the most powerful man in the West talks like that, then, without intending to, he's making radical Muslims think they've already won. There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it.
Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, "Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," he's wrong?
Hirsi Ali: He's wrong. Sorry about that.


Well, look at that. They exchanged ideas. Why would that be such an intolerable stretch for the Brandeis students? Her position is defensible on the grounds that Islam is different from other major religions in that it is expressly intended to have both spiritual and political components, and as such should be confronted by free nations as inimicable to what they stand for.

Should Brandeis have invited her in the first place? Probably not as a commencement speaker - the idea being that somebody with controversial ideas should be brought to campus to debate rather than to give an address in a form where there's no opportunity for rebuttal.

Of course, the college could have, I dunno, spent two minutes with Google and figured all this out ahead of time. Since that was too intellectually taxing for the administration to have considered, then it's understandable that their students are similarly weak-minded and can only manage to make vague noises about "hate speech" as if the phrase is a magic talisman to fend off all disagreement.
 
2014-04-18 07:12:30 AM

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, 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).


Except that the position at Mozilla does have something to do with his views. Mozilla is more than an organization that develops software. Part of their philosophy is making the world a better place for everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. They are an organization that gives away their products for free to achieve these goals. Not only do they give it away at no cost but they make the source code available so the curious can use it as a learning tool or derive their own software from it. It's a big deal to have someone at the highest position in your organization who doesn't support equality when your organization is telling the world they support equality and making the world a better place.
 
2014-04-18 07:32:59 AM

numbquil: It's a big deal to have someone at the highest position in your organization who doesn't support equality when your organization is telling the world they support equality and making the world a better place.


Until that someone at the highest position at long last takes his finger out of the wind and "evolves" in the correct direction, for which he gets HERO tags and a supporting chorus of nothing-to-see-here-move-alongs.
 
2014-04-18 07:36:54 AM

Gulper Eel: numbquil: It's a big deal to have someone at the highest position in your organization who doesn't support equality when your organization is telling the world they support equality and making the world a better place.

Until that someone at the highest position at long last takes his finger out of the wind and "evolves" in the correct direction, for which he gets HERO tags and a supporting chorus of nothing-to-see-here-move-alongs.


Stretching really hard there for a bsabvr.
 
2014-04-18 07:42:31 AM

The_Forensicator: Bucky Katt: All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.

You are the perfect spokesperson for the Fark Dependents


Back from Stormfront I see. You get coached in the fine art of being wrong about everything all the time and posting the most insipid woo ever while over there?
 
2014-04-18 07:43:21 AM

IlGreven: Crotchrocket Slim: IlGreven: Lionel Mandrake: SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.

Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views

I think the more apt comparison is to Melody Hensley and her "I got PTSD from Twitter" comment. Many of the people who condemned Eich still defend Hensley even after she threatened to report active duty military who merely questioned whether she had PTSD (although probably belligerently, as in "biatch, I know what PTSD is, and you don't have PTSD").

And it's relevant as Hensley is the Washington DC Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit secular (read: atheist) org that has furthering "freedom of thought" in its mission statement.

/But it's okay because she's a feminist. Right, Rebecca Watson?

I don't think armchair psychologists should be diagnosing people they find distasteful from across the internet, but that's just me.

Wondering how hyperbolic that Twitter PTSD was meant though, really hoping she wasn't trying to be serious.

Well, her first reaction to people expressing disbelief that she could have it (though again, through the belligerence) was to block people and try and get them reprimanded, rather than provide some small proof of her claim. To me, that is not a free thinker, and it's my biggest issue with her and the people she rolls with (PZ Myers' "FreeThought" Blogs...which stamps out any dissension when people try and call him or any of his buddies on their bullshiat).  Basically, they're atheists with a dogma, and if you don't agree with their dogma, then you're shunned...which wa ...


Why on earth is anyone ever obligated to disclose any medical information on the internet?
 
2014-04-18 07:49:15 AM

whidbey: lantawa: [i466.photobucket.com image 300x400]

God dude you really proved to be utterly full of shiat here.

Thanks for smearing it all over the forum walls.


Thanks for sharing.  The fact that you are taking great umbrage at that picture lets me know of your greatly dickish viewpoint.
 
2014-04-18 08:07:50 AM

Kittypie070: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s


Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.

The number of Iraqi immigrants in the United States tripled between 1980 and 2007, from 32,121 to 102,000. Most of this growth occurred during the 1990s.

You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.

So, from a perfectly acceptable and valid immigration article from a perfectly legitimate site...in which you laboriously managed to prove that, yeah, there's kind of a lot of Iraqi refugee-immigrant type folks gadding about....

...you still cannot back up your claim that there is Baathist infiltration in our government because --

CTRL+F "Baathist", Results: PHRASE NOT FOUND.

You continue to fail to properly back up your ultimate conclusion.

You instead ASSUME with no evidence whatever except rampant goofballism from some non-credible blog that merely because there's a verifiably true large number of something scattered around here, that a fraction of that something has just simply got to be baath-ed in evil.

Give me something, anything at all about "Baathist infiltration of the Federal government" from Red State, or The Blaze.

In other words stop spraying spit all over my monitor and make a damn effort.


You know, it's unfortunate for you that you lack vision and intellect in regard to this topic. And maybe, just maybe, the sprayed spittle on your monitor is coming from your own flapping pie trap. You've assigned some arbitrary standard that you've declared I must meet.  The nature of Baathist existence of one of clandestine and hidden political activity.  The actual name "Baathist" cannot be used by people who believe in this political movement, because Baathism was totally dismantled in Iraq by the U.S. occupying forces, and Baathism, as a named political movement, would meet with ZERO tolerance from Western leadership.

What I've been trying to convey to you fine folk, and what some of you seem totally unable to wrap your tiny, tunnel-vision wet brains around, is that the METHODOLOGY of Baathist political techniques has been adapted into radical Western political activity.  This is a CORRECT observation on my part  It's too bad for your stunted world views that some of you here are unable to take the time to research this yourselves in order to broaden your world knowledge.  But by all means, just go along with the program.  We'll all get to our destinations in due time.
 
2014-04-18 08:15:12 AM

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


Slow golf clap for Dick Cheney eventually coming around to accept that his own gay daughter should have rights.

And who are these "other Republicans" who supported GM before Obama and Clinton? Because Republicans are pretty famous for a complete lack of empathy for any situation that doesn't directly affect their own lives.
 
2014-04-18 08:15:37 AM

grumpfuff: lantawa: Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.  Out of 100,000 immigrants, it is entirely reasonable to think that a number of Iraqi Baathists could come into the U.S. under the guise of being refugees.  But doubters, you just go lalalala no proof, you mad, etc,, etc.  You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.  Here's the article:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s

Yes, it's entirely possible that some of them are Baathists. It's also entirely possible that the vast majority of them are simply immigrants looking to make a better life for themselves.

You seem to really be scared of Muslims.


Not scared.  Just don't like 'em.  Muslim customs and practices, by actual observant Muslims, are incredibly third world and backwards.  Just think of me as one of the deeply entrenched commentators on these threads, but instead of hating Christians and religion in general, I have a deep disdain for Islam in particular.  then we can get along just fine.  It'll be like one big happy family, and we can all continue to hurl happy, jolly insults at each other.
 
2014-04-18 08:26:20 AM
So let me get this correct:

1. A same sex couple brings a complaint against a business for discrimination: they should have just taken their business somewhere else and let the free market decide.
2. A private dating site shows it's displeasure of the views of the CEO by staging a one day "boycott" (defined as redirecting users to a protest page but letting them continue since we know basement dwellers whacking off can't summon the energy to click a link) and the CEO steps down: OHNOES GUBMNT OPPRESSION.

Makes sense to me.
 
2014-04-18 08:34:14 AM

Barricaded Gunman: And who are these "other Republicans" who supported GM before Obama and Clinton?


It's easy to express support when you have more to gain than to lose.

But, since you wanted an example...The legislators who put same sex marriage over the top in New York were three Republicans, Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti and and Steve Saland - and their votes were of particular interest because virtually everything is a party-line vote in the NY state legislature, but they stepped away from that and put their careers on the line to do the right thing.

And the loudest voice against same-sex marriage in New York was/is a Democratic senator from the Bronx who is a Pentecostal minister in his spare time, but a full-blown homophobe (with a heaping helping of war-on-women) all the time.

Somehow, the party that professes to stand strong for equality and a woman's right to control her body can't seem to track down a primary opponent for him. It must be really difficult to find liberal pro-choice Democrats in the Bronx.
 
2014-04-18 09:07:34 AM

lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.


"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!
 
2014-04-18 09:28:31 AM

theknuckler_33: lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.

"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!


Right under your little nose, in the referenced Fark article, was a reference to Baathism. I wonder why?  FTFA, as follows:

I'm opposed to the notion of official ideology - not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like 'multiculturalism' and 'climate change' and 'marriage equality'. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion - immigration, Islam, 'gender fluidity' - the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it's worth: you'll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots' charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we're headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights - like freedom of expression - come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.

Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers:  Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree.  You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.
 
2014-04-18 09:38:52 AM

lantawa: You know, it's unfortunate for you that you lack vision and intellect in regard to this topic.


You're using the wrong word.  The right word is imagination.  You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your claim, and still push it as the Truthtm.  And you've gotten more laughable and transparent as the thread has continued.  You have a paranoid assertion that you're sure is true, but have nothing to support it.  Some guesses and vague Glen-Beck-chalkboard connection between there being immigrants and that some of those might be bad.  That's it.

lantawa: You've assigned some arbitrary standard that you've declared I must meet.


Providing evidence isn't an arbitrary standard.  It's the standard for any useful discussion on any topic of debate.  At all.  Ever.  You literally can not get less arbitrary than that.
 
2014-04-18 09:48:00 AM
How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate the corporate/wealthy owned Right's ability to spread bullsh*t/propaganda and subvert Democracy for  their own greedy selfish aims.


True.
 
2014-04-18 09:51:12 AM

mrshowrules: Not one of the examples demonstrates Government stopping free speech.


only the Government is 'murica can interferre with Free Speech.  when a Company/Corporation does it, its good for business so its ok.

just remember: Government:bad  
Big Business:good.
 
2014-04-18 09:55:02 AM

Khellendros: lantawa: You know, it's unfortunate for you that you lack vision and intellect in regard to this topic.

You're using the wrong word.  The right word is imagination.  You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your claim, and still push it as the Truthtm.  And you've gotten more laughable and transparent as the thread has continued.  You have a paranoid assertion that you're sure is true, but have nothing to support it.  Some guesses and vague Glen-Beck-chalkboard connection between there being immigrants and that some of those might be bad.  That's it.

lantawa: You've assigned some arbitrary standard that you've declared I must meet.

Providing evidence isn't an arbitrary standard.  It's the standard for any useful discussion on any topic of debate.  At all.  Ever.  You literally can not get less arbitrary than that.


This is a poorly delivered message, tardy participant in the thread.  It (your message) is the usual vomited herpaderp of dull, brainwashed dogmatists everywhere.  Look at the post directly above your post.  The Fark article itself contains a reference to Baathism.  But to you, it's all oh so obscure and oh so ephemeral.  And BTW, vision and imagination would be pretty much synonyms, so suck it, Francis.
 
2014-04-18 09:57:15 AM

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.

"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!

Right under your little nose, in the referenced Fark article, was a reference to Baathism. I wonder why?  FTFA, as follows:

I'm opposed to the notion of official ideology - not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like 'multiculturalism' and 'climate change' and 'marriage equality'. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion - immigration, Islam, 'gender fluidity' - the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it's worth: you'll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots' charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we're headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights - like freedom of expression - come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.

Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers:  Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree.  You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.


Perhaps the better course of action would be to realize that no one is trampling on your right to free speech. Having the right to free speech does not guarantee you a forum at a university or a business, but you are free to self-publish your thoughts or start a blog or even talk on the street corner. If a radio station, tv network, or university doesn't want to have you talk, that is not suppression of your speech rights. And saying mean things to people with nutty ideas is also not suppression, it's ridicule... something you seem perfectly fine engaging in yourself (you dirty Baathist!).
 
2014-04-18 10:02:29 AM
My unprofessional, completely unscientific analysis of this thread leads to three equally-possible conclusions. Either:

1) Certain posters on here are unbelievably masterful trolls and are full of troll win, or

2) Some of us in here are in dire need of serious psychological care, or

3) Why not both?

Seriously, there's some very bizarre stuff being tossed about that makes it seem like there are some very unbalanced and paranoid individuals expressing their delusions. We shouldn't mock them (unless they're trolling) because they clearly need support and care. I can only speak for myself here, but to me it's not fun attacking people who have actual mental issues and aren't just being toolboxes.  We should be supportive of people regardless of their political leanings or mental states because we're all part of the human community. We have to look after one another and this includes people who have ideas opposite to our own. Why yes, I'm a libby lib liberal but I'm still here for anyone I can help if that's possible. This thread makes me feel... concerned!
 
2014-04-18 10:07:34 AM

Linux_Yes: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate the corporate/wealthy owned Right's ability to spread bullsh*t/propaganda and subvert Democracy for  their own greedy selfish aims.


True.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali a somali-born American women's rights and atheist activist is the corporate/wealthy owned Right?

Really?
 
2014-04-18 10:13:12 AM

theknuckler_33: lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.

"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!

Right under your little nose, in the referenced Fark article, was a reference to Baathism. I wonder why?  FTFA, as follows:

I'm opposed to the notion of official ideology - not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like 'multiculturalism' and 'climate change' and 'marriage equality'. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion - immigration, Islam, 'gender fluidity' - the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it's worth: you'll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots' charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we're headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights - like freedom of expression - come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.

Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers:  Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree.  You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.

Perhaps the better course of action would be to realize that no one is trampling on your right to free speech. Having the right to free speech does not guarantee you a forum at a university or a business, but you are free to self-publ ...


Mayhaps we are all just one big family of happy,jolly ridiculers.  That would be so hot and spiffy, donchaknow.
 
2014-04-18 10:17:36 AM

lantawa: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree


You probably could've cited that passage about 400 comments ago.
 
2014-04-18 10:30:18 AM

Gulper Eel: lantawa: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree

You probably could've cited that passage about 400 comments ago.


I could have, but I was dealing with a hajj stampede at that time. In the future, I'll try to post more succinctly, then duck and cover as I low crawl out of harm's way.
 
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