patrick.net

BTW most Iranians I have meet are similarly spoken. IOW not what the media would have you believe.

The right wing angry mobs are the ones with guns. Like the other crazed Bundy incident last year in the Oregon WIldlife refuge.

Somehow they and their group got off easy after taking over a wildlife refuge with guns. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html?_r=0

I have infinitely more respect for the Occupy Protests of the left than I do those morons protesting the government in Oregon. The same government that subsidizes their ranching.

THe leftist authoritarians you are talking about are about as small a percentage of the country as the right wing nutjobs, but the left wing nuts aren't as stupid, as arrogant or as armed as the right wing nut jobs.

This is easy?

www.youtube.com/embed/1sR1hGpZQ5U

www.youtube.com/embed/FMri9dQgJ28

rando says

There are no right-wing mobs. Not in America.

What America are you talking about? How about protesting against military funerals, does that count?

See Marcus...trolling can be fun, even in the extremely light fashion you've engaged in.
Now step back, and RELEASE your IGNORED PRISONERS!

www.youtube.com/embed/gb2zIR2rvRQ?start=21&end=63

marcus says

rando says

Did you watch the video?

Yes. I was just kidding you

From my experience, Persians might be cocky bastards but they aren't jihadis or religiously motivated. They have more history than the sand dwellers and don't feel like they have to blow themselves up to achieve greatness.
Go figure.

The Bundy mob is not a rightist mob. They are grifters who ar egettinga free ride on govt land and not paying the fees. Obama as usual does not have the guts to stand up to them. Probably blames the Russians.

Nobody cares about protests- that is constitutional- but violently stopping Presidential rallies, speech events by conservatives is what the left does. Nobody on the right will violently stop a Hillary rally or a Rosie O'Donnell rally .

The modern left is a threat to the American way of life and is filled with hate in their hearts.

T L Lipsovich says

"You fucking ignorant, stupid shitlords...!!!!"

In all fairness they outsourced the sign to me. They are lazy Liberals after all.

Patrick says

We need more Iranians like this guy. He's a far better American than the yahoos who simply refuse to allow any discussion they don't agree with ahead of time.

Iranians are not like the Arabs. Far more intelligent and progressive. Most Iranians i have known are atheists.
All they have to do is overthrow their rotten government.

lostand confused says

They are grifters who ar egettinga free ride on govt land and not paying the fees.

Tell that to the Paiutes

Iran is predominantly Shiites which is why they are the enemy of the House of Saud as they are Sunni.

Iran also has the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel.

There are also the Bahai in Iran who are heavily persecuted.

The wack jobs are a minority but they have the guns. Turns out the 2nd amendment can be pretty handy.

marcus says

Somehow they and their group got off easy after taking over a wildlife refuge with guns.

They're nuts, but are they telling anyone that they may not speak freely?

Quigley says

From my experience, Persians might be cocky bastards but they aren't jihadis or religiously motivated. They have more history than the sand dwellers and don't feel like they have to blow themselves up to achieve greatness.

Go figure.

Also usually value education and not having 4 or more kids

indigenous says

also has the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel.

Largest minority group in Beverly Hills

lostand confused says

The Bundy mob is not a rightist mob. They are grifters who ar egettinga free ride on govt land and not paying the fees.

Those aren't mutually exclusive things, and yes, the Bundy mob was rightist. Here are some clues:
- waving confederate flag, check
- white nationalism, check
- pro-gun, check
- anti-Obama, check
- cowboy hats, check
- upheld as heroes by Fox News and other conservative media, check
- the name Cliven, check
- incestuous relations with sisters, check

The only way they could be more rightist is if they used the words negro and color people. Or if they said blacks were better off as slaves.

www.youtube.com/embed/agXns-W60MI
Shit, is this guy the speech righter for Donald Trump?

rando says

They're nuts, but are they telling anyone that they may not speak freely?

Right wingers don't need to protest their batshit ideas because they are already the laws. Now if we get rid of unjust laws set by the right, you can bet your ass they would be forming protest mobs and shouting down ideas. Here are some examples of such unjust laws.
- anti-nudity laws
- anti-obscenity laws
-- on broadcasts
-- vocal
-- t-shirts
- anti-prostitution laws
- anti-pornography laws
- restrictions on purchasing alcohol on Sundays
- anti-desecration laws

Remember that guy who was arrested and convicted of taking a photograph of himself with a Jesus statue that looked like it was fellating him? That's a freedom of speech issue.

Classic Daily Show coverage of Bundy and the hypocrisy of Sean Hannity.

www.youtube.com/embed/kMbhQceS49k

Dan8267 says

- anti-nudity laws

- anti-obscenity laws

-- on broadcasts

-- vocal

-- t-shirts

- anti-prostitution laws

- anti-pornography laws

- restrictions on purchasing alcohol on Sundays

- anti-desecration laws

Not all of these (though many) are right-wing laws, but there is a much more important difference. These are laws that apply equally to everybody and it is very easy to avoid getting in conflict, whether you like them or not (this is not a justification but a simple observation regarding those laws). The "laws" pushed by the leftists/cultural-marxists are not just laws per se, they have a very individual component in all of them which makes them not apply to everybody, say if you qualify as an "oppressed" minority/(non-)gender/culture du jour, then you can make up any claims against non-qualifying victims since it's all subject to interpretation or even engage in violating the same laws without repercussion. It's easy to prove that you didn't walk around naked or illegally purchased alcohol on a Sunday, it's close to impossible to prove that you didn't "insult" or "harass" that person, because muh feelings. And that is what makes today's laws of the left far more heinous as compared to today's laws of the right.

mell says

The "laws" pushed by the leftists/cultural-marxists are not just laws per se, they have a very individual component in all of them which makes them not apply to everybody, say if you qualify as an "oppressed" minority/(non-)gender/culture du jour, then you can make up any claims against non-qualifying victims since it's all subject to interpretation or even engage in violating the same laws without repercussion. It's easy to prove that you didn't walk around naked or illegally purchased alcohol on a Sunday, it's close to impossible to prove that you didn't "insult" or "harass" that person, because muh feelings. And that is what makes today's laws of the left far more heinous as compared to today's laws of the right.

Yes, I love this comment.

What NPR and the NY Times and the rabid packs of leftists who deny free speech to, say, Milo are demanding is separate laws for separate classes of people.

Leftists are enemies not only of free speech, but of universal equality before the law. As well as enemies of objective standards of proof.

rando says

Leftists are enemies not only of free speech, but of universal equality before the law.

Of course, leftists are conservatives just like rightists and Islamists. All conservatives are against equality under law, free speech, and free thought. To be for those three things is, by definition, liberalism.

mell says

cultural-marxists

There ya go, unwittingly regurgitating this garbage.

I haven't seen Democrats this mad since Lincoln freed the slaves.

That you know of.

anonymous says

And the thing about my jokes is, they don't hurt anybody.

Once viewed, the damage is done and irreversible.

anonymous says

You can take 'em or leave 'em -

mell says

Not all of these (though many) are right-wing laws, but there is a much more important difference. These are laws that apply equally to everybody and it is very easy to avoid getting in conflict, whether you like them or not (this is not a justification but a simple observation regarding those laws). The "laws" pushed by the leftists/cultural-marxists are not just laws per se, they have a very individual component in all of them which makes them not apply to everybody,

Which of these laws were broken by the MILO protesters?

What are the "laws" of the leftists/cultural-marxists that offend you so much? Why don't you give us a rundown including who introduced them and who voted for them starting with the 1969 federal hate crimes act that is the basis for everything that followed. Be sure to include the state laws in leftist/cultural-marxists states like Ne,Ks,Tx,Ar. Yes they are there. We will be waiting. Forever.

anonymous says

I have always noticed that people will never laugh at anything that is not based on truth.

The very definition of humor is to point out things that don't make sense.

bob2356 says

What are the "laws" of the leftists/cultural-marxists that offend you so much? Why don't you give us a rundown including who introduced them and who voted for them starting with the 1969 federal hate crimes act that is the basis for everything that followed.

All legal favoritism based on race or sex is in effect overt discrimination against others based on race or sex.

So government contracts which deliberately favor, say, companies owned by women are clearly and overtly discriminating against men purely because they are men, and not because they have done anything wrong except being born male.

Similarly for government-based scholarships which discriminate on the basis of race or gender. "Grants.gov is a database of federally funded grants for African-American women, as well as women of other cultural and ethnic groups." etc

"Hate crimes" also give special status to minorities which make crimes against them different, giving them a higher status by law.

Title IX has also led to pervasive discrimination against men via "he didn't call me back after" kangaroo courts which can be used by women to get back at men after consensual sex, by merely claiming it was not consensual later, even much later.

If we're all going to get along, we should all have equal rights as human beings, not special legally elevated rights as a member of some favored group.

rando says

"Hate crimes" also give special status to minorities which make crimes against them different, giving them a higher status by law.

You keep saying that, even though I have disproved it on your own site. (I tried to find the link but the thread might have been deleted.) The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on this issue decades ago. At least since the unanimous SCOTUS decision, the question has "never really been controversial," but you persist in claiming the opposite of reality. Anyone can be wrong, but it takes a liar to continue repeating the same disproved assertion.

You "disproved" nothing.

Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court held that the statute violates the First Amendment directly by punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court was correct. Punishing "offensive thoughts" is a violation of the first amendment.

The US Supreme Court is incorrect and its reasoning is muddled and politically motivated.

rando says

US Supreme Court

is the last word and their unanimous decision remains the law of the land.

When one person commits violence against another, proving the "offensive thoughts" (aka mental state, in Latin mens rea) has been part of American law since the founding of the Republic, in fact it's been part of western law for thousands of years. Hate crimes laws go back more than a century. All policy is, by definition, politically motivated. You pretend the divided Wisconsin decision wasn't, while alleging that a unanimous SCOTUS decision was, even though the SCOTUS decision was the one consistent with precedent and all subsequent American law.

Patrick, I suspect your decision to remain a tenant instead of becoming a homeowner may have given you some sort of complex about "status", and especially a resentment of people whom you suspect of having or seeking higher status than you. Your one sentence about hate crimes used the word "status" twice:

rando says

"Hate crimes" also give special status to minorities which make crimes against them different, giving them a higher status by law.

You seem to have a bizarre fixation that, for example, a black guy who got dragged to death by KKKlansmen in a truck was claiming or accorded, somehow, higher status than you. It's neither rational nor accurate. If some BLM people did the same to punish white people for electing DJT, the legal case would be the same. Hate crimes statutes name classifications that violent criminals have exploited to divide Americans.

Trump speaks freely by twitter.He may get us all killed. So much for free speech in the hands of a maniac.

Appended because your comment length limit malfunction has not been addressed: In contrast, ordinary crimes committed against "minorities" (every human is a member of at least one minority) are prosecuted without regard to their membership in "minorities," for example if you steal a car or cash simply because you wanted a car or cash, it doesn't matter who owned it.

Also, the now infamous BLM four have been charged with hate crimes perpetrated against a white guy.

curious2 says

Also, the now infamous BLM four have been charged with hate crimes perpetrated against a white guy.

Regardless the fact remains that hate-crime is subject to "severe" interpretation and it is more often than not used against those who are "perceived" as guilty-by-birth oppressors du jour. It is one of the worst laws ever to be introduced by any country and a yuge step into the wrong direction. It lines up exactly with what Nazis, Stalinists, Communists, cultural-marxists and any other radical, illegitimate gang of ruling killers did, basically criminalizing "perceived" thought and guilt. There is already a slight moral component like premeditation for murder but that one can easily be proven objectively. Nothing more should have ever been introduced, and all crimes should carry the exact sentence depending on premeditation or not, no matter what the motive was.

Gary Anderson says

Trump speaks freely by twitter.He may get us all killed. So much for free speech in the hands of a maniac.

Run along to Syria, It's safer there.

mell says

Regardless the fact remains that hate-crime is subject to "severe" interpretation and it is more often than not used against those who are "perceived" as guilty-by-birth oppressors du jour. It is one of the worst laws ever to be introduced by any country and a yuge step into the wrong direction.

There are dozens if not hundreds of hate crime laws at the federal and state level. Which "it" is the one you are referring to? Ever look into who introduced and passed the various "leftists/cultural-marxists" hate crime laws? I didn't think so.

rando says

All legal favoritism based on race or sex is in effect overt discrimination against others based on race or sex.

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

Patrick says

He's a far better American than the yahoos who simply refuse to allow any discussion they don't agree with ahead of time.

So you are saying the MILO has a right to speak but protesters don't have a right to speak out against him?

Newspeak is alive and well at patnet. Orwell would be proud.

bob2356 says

So you are saying the MILO has a right to speak but protesters don't have a right to speak out against him?

I'm saying protesters don't have the right to stop Milo from speaking.

bob2356 says

Every single law ever passed is legal favoritism that is in effect overt discrimination against some group to the benefit of others.

@bob2356 that's not true.

Does the law against murder deliberately benefit one race or another?

mell says

It is one of the worst laws ever to be introduced by any country and a yuge step into the wrong direction. It lines up exactly with what Nazis, Stalinists, Communists, cultural-marxists and any other radical, illegitimate gang of ruling killers did, basically criminalizing "perceived" thought and guilt.

That sounds like hyperbole, and you seem perhaps to have lost perspective. I wonder if you might have conflated two discrete concepts: (1) hate crimes vs (2) "hate speech," including campus speech codes, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc. In America, hate crimes are crimes against persons or property that are motivated by a discriminatory animus as part of a larger pattern of dividing people against each other and America against itself. In America, the original examples were the KKK trying to reignite (literally) the Civil War by burning people's houses down, and burning crosses on their lawns.

The Nazis used violence to disrupt and destroy political parties they disagreed with, including notably communists. You might want to draw a comparison to the DNC and/or BLM orchestrating violence at one or more DJT rallies, if you want to say that the "left" copied Nazi tactics.

Laws against hate crimes go back to reconstruction, and specific intent crimes go back further, much more detailed than the mere existence of premeditation. Census workers and the Pony Express were attacked by anti-federalists, and the federal government responded with federal laws crimininalizing those attacks, based on the existence of (a) premedition including (b) the specific intent to shut down the Census or the Post Office. Realistically, I don't know if America could even have had a federal government without those protections, because convictions might have been impossible in state courts. That became really clear in the Civil Rights cases, for example.