RE: Curiouser and Curiouser

RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 4:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest? Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it. Sure it was. You're now doing what you're trying to condemn her for. Sure he did and what pray tell us did he condemn her to...she's already married to bill so how much worse can it get.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 4:41:57 AM)
Isn't this the same school where a lot of parents were trying to get them to stop her from coming to the graduation and speaking. I seem to remember reading about it a while back and they were concerned about it taking the focus off the graduates and making it into more of a anniversary special. They also mentioned that seating would be limited because of her appearance and many family member would have to miss it if she came.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 4:47:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, which approach is correct? Should Elam be prosecuted for inciting hate and violence? Or does his right to freedom of speech over-ride all other considerations? Free speech trumps, Tweak. Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about the Jews. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? My "rantings about the Jews".....? What idiocy is this? I have never made any comment good bad or otherwise about "the Jews". If you want to insist otherwise, please produce the evidence. Remember that Israel doesn't equate to "the Jews" nor do "the Jews" equate to Israel. So you will need to find some occasion where I "ranted" about "the Jews" specifically. Good luck trying - you are going to need it! Of course if you are going to make such sweeping false claims, you need the widest possible interpretation of 'freedom of speech'. In this particular case, it looks more like you need the "freedom to lie", while remaining free from liability for the consequences of your lies. When you are right, you are right. I honestly don't remember you ever using the word jew. So lets fix that shall we... Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about Israel. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws?

DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 5:44:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom The Left's religion is collectivism, and the denial of individual rights. Right spring from membership in the collective -- based on race, sex, gender, clique, friends, associates, etc. You have no individual worth except insofar as your membership in one of these groups grants you worth in their eyes. The biggest group of all is the government. Hence, great governmental power to dictate what you can and cannot do in the economic sphere and as we can now all see, in the sphere of speech. Christianity is bad (I'm an atheist, not an advocate for that, fyi). Islam is good. That kind of stuff. Science is subject to this, too. While creationism is more the province of the religious, it is not exclusively so, but "climate change deniers" have now been compared to Nazis and others. So much for science. If the government didn't have this power over us, it wouldn't matter. The left usurps government because they are the ultimate power lusters. Take it far enough, and you have radical Marxism, communism. The right's religion is God's will. We can't understand our purpose without reference to God. If you are a fundamentalist, then the Bible or whatever other tract you use is God's will. So you end up with prohibitions on various sexual behavior, or if you are fortunate enough to live in Afghanistan, you can be a pregnant woman and get stoned to death by your own family for adultery. Obviously, even Rick Santorum (who is a populist and religionist, and therefore closer to being a fascist) wouldn't advocate that. If you take the right all the way over, you end with up with a theocracy. See Iran for further information on how's that's working out. If you combine leftism and theocratic rightism, you get fascism. This is the rejection of reason in both the economic and the personal spheres of existence. It is the elimination of all individual rights. Sure the "will of the people" can replace God, but it's all the same. You have no economic rights, no rights of expression, no Bill of Rights at all. See North Korea. In his actions and in his caprice for rights and desire for power, Obama and his wife are both fascists. They lack the apparatus, the bloodlust, and perhaps the "will" of Kim Jong-un, and so there are no pogroms or political prisoner camps. But the lust for power is the same. Hence their antipathy to entrepreneurs, to the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment and certainly the 5th and 8th amendments. Arguments could be made for the others, too, I'm sure. I'm so sick of crazies trying to tell me what it is I believe.

DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 5:45:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest? Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it. Sure it was. You're now doing what you're trying to condemn her for. Sure he did and what pray tell us did he condemn her to...she's already married to bill so how much worse can it get. Damn you truly are stupid. You don't even know who the thread is about. Go troll somewhere else.

thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 7:24:09 AM)
Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind Dck the dumb things you say[8\|].Since that is where your moronic delusions occure that would be the only place anyone would hear it. when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? What sort of people find jokes favoring bigotry to be funny????bigots??? Here is the thing. I don't believe foolish idealogue liberals like the Obamas College graduates,successful economically and socially are foolish while bankrupt bigots living in a trailer park opine as to how qualified they are to comment on those who have achieved so much more.[8\|] deliberately want to create a nightmare society. They simply wish to impose their values, with the very best of intentions, for our own good. Why do you feel that it is better to be a bigot than not to be a bigot? They wouldn't wind up needing the thought police at all, if everyone would simply obey without question. We would not need the police at all if everyone would simply obey the law.

thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 7:25:28 AM)
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr From a link on the OP link: quote: The first lady spoke on Friday to graduating high school students in Topeka, Kansas, and in remarks released over the weekend, Obama said students need to police family and friends because federal laws can only go so far in stopping racism. You are mistaken as usual she said no such thing “There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.” You clearly do...why??? So ... an exhortation for us to "police" each other? We also read the op and realize that you are not being truthful. Weird. I thought that was the government's job (sort of). The use of the word kind of bothers me. "Police". You made the word up so I can see why it bothers you to know that we know you are lying about her saying it. Does that mean we arrest people? If you were to consult a dictionary befor posting you would not look so stupid. No. That would be silly. Do we accuse them, publicly or indict them? "Name and shame"? Kinda like when we post your own bigoted bullshit back for you to try to defend[8\|]. Not only is the idea of setting neighbor upon neighbor Orwellian but it's been done outside of literature. In one instance, it made for a very ugly society that affected the world in horrid ways. And yet we have a poster here who seeks to set neighbor against neighbor because he does not like the new neighbor who is an ex-con Is "dear leader's" wife calling for the beginning of the end of free speech/free association/free thought? Only in the minds of morons. While she has no power of her own, she has notoriety and a certain gravitas with people (especially in a society where celebrities are worshipped) and should be a bit more carefully at how she wields her influence. So while decrying an illusionary assault on your freedom to spew vile filth you would seek to shut "the bitch "up cuz you dont like the shit she is saying....how could anyone expect less from you? She's either incredibly ignorant of the power of her words or incredibly hell-bent on an Orwellian nightmare society. Shame on her, either way. Shame on you for thinking anyone here believes your moronic tripe.

thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 7:29:02 AM)
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic No, DC, I'm not telling you what you shouldn't say. [:D] Let's go with, not the topic that interested me over my coffee. My take on the op-ed (and I'm familiar with the Washington Times) That international embarasement with a circulation of hundreds[8\|]? was that they plucked some low-hanging fruit lines from the First Lady's speech, and used that to get into a subject where I have some pretty strong opinions. Declarations from on high about what it is, and isn't, acceptable to think. There have been numerous declarations from on high about what to think about child molesting,rape,pillage and plunder and the like...why is it that the only declarations you dislike are the ones that enhance punishment for behaviour you agree with?[8\|] I suppose others could find something else to see in it. Sane people everywhere see it differently than you. Hell, I could see a pretty good tangent on what happens when some dumbass kid decides to start shit with Grandpa at the Thanksgiving table. [8D] Why is it that in your zip code that speaking the truth is limited to adults. But hey, let's talk about assigning a criminal case sentencing enhancements, based on the unpopular personal beliefs of the defendant. They have committed a crime by their thoughts. Orwell nailed the language of totalitarianism. Thoughtcrime. That might be true for morons who cannot and willl not learn how to speak english. There is an enhancement for using a gun during the commission of a crime. There is an enhancement for committing a crime against a cop. There is an enhancement for committingf a crime against a minor. You dont like an enhancement for committing a crime against a group you dont like???Why does this bogotry not suprise anyone[8\|] I expect some poster/s couldn't get past the name of the source when they jumped in to reply, but the headline was a question - "Is America starting to target thought crime?" Of course, George Orwell scared the crap out of me at a tender young age, so my answer to that question is always going to be "starting???" Dude!!!look up conspiracy laws....those are thought crimes and have been since chist was a crossing gruard I'm a militant when it comes to free speech, DC, because once we start criminalizing beliefs, Havent we have criminalized the belief that you can murder your neighbor and take his shit? Havent we have criminalized the belief that you may assault children? Havent we have criminalized the belief that you can take things that don't belong to you? there's no traction on the slope. The slope only exist in the minds of bigots who feel that their abililty to be rude in public is being challanged. That means I wind up defending the right of people to say some pretty awful things. Defending their right to say them is different than telling then what puerile fools they are for having said them. I also support putting free speech to creative use in saying better things right back to them (but I'm 47, and I still would know better than to start shit with Grandpa at Mom's Thanksgiving dinnertable). Which would speak directly to a lack of intestinal fortitude or that you agree with grandpa's bigoted shit. She told them go forth and spread political correctness, DC; to make sure that their elders think right. I see the connection. Should you ever actually learn to read the english language perhaps you might find that little quote for us in the mean time those of us who do read and write above a fifth grade level know that she said no such thing.

thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 7:45:40 AM)
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom The Left's religion is collectivism, and the denial of individual rights. Right spring from membership in the collective -- based on race, sex, gender, clique, friends, associates, etc. You have no individual worth except insofar as your membership in one of these groups grants you worth in their eyes. The biggest group of all is the government. Hence, great governmental power to dictate what you can and cannot do in the economic sphere This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. and as we can now all see, in the sphere of speech. Have you a turd in your pocket? Christianity is bad (I'm an atheist, not an advocate for that, fyi). Islam is good. This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion That kind of stuff. Science is subject to this, too. Only in the minds of morons. While creationism is more the province of the religious, it is not exclusively so, but "climate change deniers" have now been compared to Nazis and others. No they have not. They have been compared to that which is more ignorant than a stone. So much for science. If the government didn't have this power over us, it wouldn't matter. It does, so it does mater. The left usurps government because they are the ultimate power lusters. In your zip code the right does not lust after power[8\|] Take it far enough, and you have radical Marxism, communism. Since it is pretty clear that you have no clue as to what marxism is now would be the time to hit amazon and educate yorurself. The right's religion is God's will. We can't understand our purpose without reference to God. If you are a fundamentalist, then the Bible or whatever other tract you use is God's will. So you end up with prohibitions on various sexual behavior, or if you are fortunate enough to live in Afghanistan, you can be a pregnant woman and get stoned to death by your own family for adultery. Obviously, even Rick Santorum (who is a populist and religionist, and therefore closer to being a fascist) wouldn't advocate that. If you take the right all the way over, you end with up with a theocracy. That is what you said in the first sentence about the left[8\|] or are you saying that they are both the same? See Iran for further information on how's that's working out. Check the vatican to see how that is working out. If you combine leftism and theocratic rightism, you get fascism. Perhaps a survey course in political science might help to disabuse you of your ignorance? This is the rejection of reason in both the economic and the personal spheres of existence. While you are at amazon you might want to pick up a fucking dictionary. It is the elimination of all individual rights. What individual rights exists without the state? Sure the "will of the people" can replace God, but it's all the same. You have no economic rights, no rights of expression, no Bill of Rights at all. See North Korea. Since it is clear that you have never been there and all of your knowledge of that place comes from those who have a vested interest in getting you to hate them...it would seem that you are once again spouting ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. In his actions and in his caprice for rights and desire for power, Obama and his wife are both fascists. They lack the apparatus, the bloodlust, and perhaps the "will" of Kim Jong-un, and so there are no pogroms or political prisoner camps. A quick trip to google could disabuse you of your ignorance here. The u.s. has more people locked up than any nation on earth. But the lust for power is the same. Hence their antipathy to entrepreneurs, Would you have any validation for this ignorant unsubstantiated opinion?

tweakabelle -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 8:15:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, which approach is correct? Should Elam be prosecuted for inciting hate and violence? Or does his right to freedom of speech over-ride all other considerations? Free speech trumps, Tweak. Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about the Jews. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? My "rantings about the Jews".....? What idiocy is this? I have never made any comment good bad or otherwise about "the Jews". If you want to insist otherwise, please produce the evidence. Remember that Israel doesn't equate to "the Jews" nor do "the Jews" equate to Israel. So you will need to find some occasion where I "ranted" about "the Jews" specifically. Good luck trying - you are going to need it! Of course if you are going to make such sweeping false claims, you need the widest possible interpretation of 'freedom of speech'. In this particular case, it looks more like you need the "freedom to lie", while remaining free from liability for the consequences of your lies. When you are right, you are right. I honestly don't remember you ever using the word jew. So lets fix that shall we... Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about Israel. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? Unfortunately for your idiotic insinuations, Australians are free to make whatever political criticisms they like. Ironically enough, the only recent attempt to close down political criticism here was initiated by your Zionist mates, as can be seen here. I'm happy to report it failed miserably and ended up doing far more damage than good to the Zionist cause, while our rights of free speech and freedom of political criticism were affirmed when the case was thrown out. It takes a particular kind of stupid to be persuaded that any criticism of a State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid is racist. If you are unable to distinguish between political criticism and inciting hate, as your posts indicate you are, perhaps you ought to think twice before attempting to lecture those of us who can.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 8:47:18 AM)
quote: Where did he condemn her? The text I quoted clearly portrayed the First Lady as wishing she could call out the law on folks who voiced unacceptable opinions. If Rich disagrees with that characterization, I'm sure he'll say so. As if that text were not condemnatory enough, the poster went on to say, "Here is the thing. I don't believe foolish idealogue liberals like the Obamas deliberately want to create a nightmare society. They simply wish to impose their values, with the very best of intentions, for our own good. They wouldn't wind up needing the thought police at all, if everyone would simply obey without question." quote: and since when was voicing your opinion on what someone said mental policing? See post 30 and post 37 re policing. Moreover, you missed the key point. Mrs. Obama did not say "yet," so Rich was condemning her thoughts (as he imagined them) rather than her words. quote: it's just a shame she's white Mrs. Obama is white? quote: otherwise he could have been called a racist too and we all know how fun it is to call someone a racist. If there's a post where I called someone a racist "for fun," please bring it to my attention. Otherwise, I'd prefer to be left out of this surreal sentence. quote: Now lets see how long before someone else reads your post and jumps on the "he condemned her" wagon. Other posters' words are not my responsibility. If you have an issue with someone else's post, please confront him or her directly.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 8:53:34 AM)
quote: she's already married to bill so how much worse can it get. You're confusing past (Hillary Clinton) and present (Michelle Obama) First Ladies.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 9:33:26 AM)
quote: Whenever you are looking for a speech, try American Rhetoric. They tend to get the "as delivered" transcripts up within a couple of days as well. Great resource. Thanks! I didn't know about this. The as-prepared/delivered distinction brings to mind a tidbit from my Wilson House tours. Having been a professor, Wilson was used to thinking on his feet and lecturing without notes. Even as President, he generally spoke from just a shorthand outline. The only way we know what he actually said in most cases is thanks to newspaper stenographers.

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 9:42:29 AM)
On the phone while out having a cigarette, so just briefly here. DC, while I certainly wouldn't expect it of ken, you understand the concepts of both friends, and inside jokes. I can find plenty that comes out of the First Lady's mouth to condemn, without resorting to the MSNBC standard

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 9:53:02 AM)
quote: DC, while I certainly wouldn't expect it of ken, you understand the concepts of both friends, and inside jokes. I can find plenty that comes out of the First Lady's mouth to condemn, without resorting to the MSNBC standard Ah. The tricky part of an inside joke in an outside medium is that those of us not in on the joke can only go by what's actually said/written. I don't know "the MSNBC standard." My TV viewing is pretty much limited to Downton Abbey, though Golden Girls reruns have been a godsend during hospital stays--which, ironically enough, are also the only times I think to watch Jeopardy! I recently tried getting into The Big C on Amazon Prime, but the characters were so overblown and the plots so unlikely that it crossed the line into farce.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 10:35:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Interesting thing with that quote from Mrs. Obama, Michael. Did you hear a wistful "yet" in the back of your mind when she talked about no court cases for jokes or comments the "right sort" of people don't find funny? Given that Mrs. Obama didn't say "yet," we've now moved into the realm of condemning her for (imagined) thoughts--aka "thoughtcrime." Isn't that the very sort of mental policing/projection the thread was launched to protest? Actually. DC, it was a reference to the commentators over on the left who manage to hear all sorts of words that weren't said. I'm betting DaddySatyr will catch it. Sure it was. You're now doing what you're trying to condemn her for. Sure he did and what pray tell us did he condemn her to...she's already married to bill so how much worse can it get. Damn you truly are stupid. You don't even know who the thread is about. Go troll somewhere else. Yup, you are right, I totally fucked up that one. But it gave you an excuse to call someone stupid so quit crying.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 10:42:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, which approach is correct? Should Elam be prosecuted for inciting hate and violence? Or does his right to freedom of speech over-ride all other considerations? Free speech trumps, Tweak. Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about the Jews. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? My "rantings about the Jews".....? What idiocy is this? I have never made any comment good bad or otherwise about "the Jews". If you want to insist otherwise, please produce the evidence. Remember that Israel doesn't equate to "the Jews" nor do "the Jews" equate to Israel. So you will need to find some occasion where I "ranted" about "the Jews" specifically. Good luck trying - you are going to need it! Of course if you are going to make such sweeping false claims, you need the widest possible interpretation of 'freedom of speech'. In this particular case, it looks more like you need the "freedom to lie", while remaining free from liability for the consequences of your lies. When you are right, you are right. I honestly don't remember you ever using the word jew. So lets fix that shall we... Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about Israel. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? Unfortunately for your idiotic insinuations, Australians are free to make whatever political criticisms they like. Ironically enough, the only recent attempt to close down political criticism here was initiated by your Zionist mates, as can be seen here. I'm happy to report it failed miserably and ended up doing far more damage than good to the Zionist cause, while our rights of free speech and freedom of political criticism were affirmed when the case was thrown out. It takes a particular kind of stupid to be persuaded that any criticism of a State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid is racist. I didn't insinuate anything but I am not surprised that you would say I did. I merely changed the word jew to Israel because it seemed to bother you. As for my mates, I have never heard of them but again am not surprised you would lie and claim they were my "zonist mates". Seems to be sop with you. quote: If you are unable to distinguish between political criticism and inciting hate, as your posts indicate you are, perhaps you ought to think twice before attempting to lecture those of us who can. You spew hate in the majority of your posts regarding Israel. It's not hard to distinguish at all. It you have a problem with me commenting on it, I suggest you use the hide feature.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 10:46:25 AM)
For some reason I switched her into clinton. I'm gonna go with no caffeine and not enough sleep. Sorry about that.

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 10:52:19 AM)
quote: Remarks as prepared are in the link DC posted earlier. If memory serves, DS has both Ken and me hidden, hence his not seeing the repeated postings of the link. Good thing he's not a liberal, insulating himself from outside opinions. [:)]

thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 10:59:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi For some reason I switched her into clinton. I'm gonna go with no caffeine and not enough sleep. Sorry about that. one vote for caffeine deprivation one vote for just plane fucking stupid as usual.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625