Comments 1 - 40 of 80 Next » Last » Search these comments
He had a couple of excellent lines when describing leftist hate and intolerance for reasoned discussion:
"allahu-akbar shouting types"
"virtue signalling identity politics"
"empowerment through accusation"
He's also very perceptive to note that it's extremely disturbing for white leftists to see a brown guy telling them that they are the ones spouting hate speech. He's right about all of it.
I don't know. He's probably Islamic. Can't be trusted. Probably doesn't even understand how evil his own religion is. I can't believe you like this guy.
Did you watch the video?
Yes. I was just kidding you Patrick becasue of how you rail on Islam. The guy was actually pretty cool. I don't know what kids these days are thinking, giving the left a bad name.
I thought his comment comparing leftist protestors to Islamic mobs was quite insightful.
They are very similar in psychology, both groups composed of people desperate to demonstrate their virtue to the other members of the crowd by publicly accusing the victim of thoughtcrime or heresy.
I thought his comment comparing leftist protestors to Islamic mobs was quite insightful.
The left, the right, and Islamic mobs are all conservative tribes. Very much the same.
There are no right-wing mobs. Not in America.
All angry mobs are leftists these days.
There are no right-wing mobs. Not in America.
All angry mobs are leftists these days.
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.
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
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.
"You fucking ignorant, stupid shitlords...!!!!"
In all fairness they outsourced the sign to me. They are lazy Liberals after all.
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.
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.
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?
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
also has the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel.
Largest minority group in Beverly Hills
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?
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
That you know of.
And the thing about my jokes is, they don't hurt anybody.
Once viewed, the damage is done and irreversible.
You can take 'em or leave 'em -
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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:
"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.
Comments 1 - 40 of 80 Next » Last » Search these comments
www.youtube.com/embed/F5FGDFKeg9k
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.