Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
do a quick search on your favorite search engine for something like "diy ar15 lower receiver mold" "casting ar15 lower with resin" then consider once this methods is improved, popular and in demand, handguns would be next, the polymer parts anyway. If you watch any videos on how to assemble an ar15 you will quickly realize how simple it really is. The threat by the gun grabbers may force design changes to the ar15 parts to allow for even more diy for the individual who wishes to assemble one.
when you attempt to assert more control, the less control you will actually have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so how does the voter mix for Trump compare to past elections and presidents? Please factor in actual turn out as well since that also makes a difference.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
funny even the states can't think for themselves, need big brother to handle their own shit.
the levels in the oceans are high enough there are advisories as to how much fish you should eat from those waters as well. I'm not sure what the levels are in the great lakes or if those are even being tracked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
thanks for the stats, very interesting, pretty much cements my opinion on background checks now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I was in favor of the current system though it needs to be far more efficient. But then I listen to a video and background checks are pretty useless as a deterrent to crime. Straw purchases do happen and I would bet a large number are never found out. Just because a criminal has a gun doesn't necessarily mean they will use it for a future crime. Lets be honest here, someone who really wants a gun will get one easily. The resources used for the system should probably be used for crime prevention in general.
Maryland had their bullet case program that wasted over 5 million tax dollars before they did away with it.
California and New York keep trying to come up with ways to restrict Ar 15 like guns and people keep finding ways around them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
there are political advantages to having a divided nation. if you listen to the democratic presidential hopefuls for 2020 that is their platform. they are appealing (pandering) to the minorities and lazy with promises of more entitlements, how does that bring a country together and how does that benefit me and those like me? Say what you will about Trump but the low unemployment has benefited people regardless of race/status etc
these sort of "studies" are insulting and degrading, what does that say about the character of those who believe them true and post positively about them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
The leaking has got to stop though.
not going to happen, some of these networks have cult like followers, it's all about ratings and advertisers, follow the money. dusty is perhaps a bit too idealistic or I'm too pessimistic, their thralls believe everything that is said by them and don't care or probably even know about retractions. Nope the more sensational the better, they thrive on the reinforcement of their wishes they get from the networks. They wanted the collusion to be true so badly, look at the reaction from the report. that sure does say a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
But I don't think news agencies really do what you've described to any significant extent
well that's an opinion after all, and with some networks I would disagree, when I say networks it's because they are in control over their tv personalities, so the behavior they allow is a direct reflection on them.
It would depend on the context.
Now you just count upwards from 1 until you hit a threshold where you say "this is not ok".
as I said opinion/subjective, therefore anyone can determine a level that it becomes fake news
I'm seeing a bigger picture in all of this, especially in recent events where the likes of Shiff and Pelosi make such outrageous and scandalous accusations with no proof. There's no accountability or repercussions for them, the media, pretty much anyway. So here we are, "the boy who cried collusion"
Now when you use the context of a desensitized society is it any wonder why things are the way the are? Those who wish to be heard are attacked, ridiculed or drown out by their opposition. Insults and profanity are common and have little to no impact. It's understandable why some see violence is the only way to be heard, if you can look at it objectively.
I'm sure you aren't old enough to remember when the news was boring a.f. Walter Cronkite for example, it was boring because they were just reporting what actually happened with little to no spin compared to what we see today.
People love this controversy we currently are experiencing, it's the voyeurism in us.
As far as this whole collusion thing, which networks do you think followed and reported it fairly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
you didn't explain why.....
cause you can eat-um and make fishing flys etc with the feathers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hope they lose an example needs to be made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
oh ok so you haven't made any logical conclusions and can't provide any evidence yourself, you just trust Pelosi and take her word for it, that's your choice to do so, many simple minded people have been doing that for a long, long time, so you aren't alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
you are being too analytical, this is a classic example of "the boy who cried collusion"
any so called "news" agency that constantly tries to pass off opinion and conjecture as fact is misleading aka fake. I find very little difference between misleading and fake. In some of these "reports" I would go so far to call them out right lies. Then there are people like that woman? Madcow who exaggerates and sensationalizes so much how can he/she/they be taken seriously?
Now consider the statement from some twits sadly elected to congress who make public states like the earth will end in 10 years or whatever. Would you consider such a person who makes statements like that credible? Whether they are an elected person or tv personality they have full control over what comes out of their mouths, or they should have anyway.
I don't think there's an actual number or number range for how often people have to be wrong or misleading before you can consider them full of shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
there were far more reasons to not vote for Clinton than to vote for Trump so.....love these biased b.s. studies though lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
cheap labor and people to take advantage of is addicting for businesses I'm sure, not that's even remotely possible, if they were deported at a reasonable rate and the process to enter legally was fixed, the legals would replace the illegals. in a perfect world the ways illegals come in would be addressed and drastically cut, many that are already here could stay. It's the constant flow of illegals is the problem imo.
But yeah if they have fake ones, seems they could get social security after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
yeah doesn't add up
the ones with stolen or fake s.s.#s are working low paying jobs I would think, so whatever they maybe paying should be very small
How many of these illegals would have to have stolen or fake numbers to actually offset what tax payer funded services they use? Probably close to 100% I would think. If the argument is they are a net benefit then we have a serious problem with fake/stolen s.s.#s
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
wait, what? you mean this monster didn't obey the law?!?!?! how is that possible? I mean there's a law! Well! let's come up with a term to call these people, how about oh I dunno something like law breakers, no to obvious, how about crime makers, naw maybe criminals?
sounds like a song, you're a law breaker, crime maker don't you mess around with me....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The fact remains that more illegal workers pay into social security than take benefits.
if that is true wouldn't that mean there's a huge number of illegals with fake or stolen s.s. #'s? that sounds like a serious problem if that's the case.
you can't legally get a s.s. # if you are an illegal
if you don't have a s.s. # you can't legally work and they can't take s.s. taxes out
that is how I understand it works, is that correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
some immigrants who are here without legal permission do end up receiving Social Security and other benefits, through bureaucratic mistakes or through deliberate fraud. The Government Accountability Office has even called this a “serious problem,” though the GAO also says that “the full extent of benefit fraud is unknown.”
so it's they aren't suppose to receive rather than can never.
"Illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain Social Security numbers
if an illegal immigrant has a Social Security number, fraud has been committed.
“My understanding is that some illegal immigrants legitimately have an ITIN,” Bagner said. “An ITIN is an individual tax identification number. It is for foreigners who have income from the U.S. that is not subject to Social Security tax but is subject to income tax.”"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't see how you have a point here. This was done using an Ar-15 a weapon which barely had any people murdered so I wouldn't suspect them to actively try to find a gun that barely kills people compared to handgun murders. So do you advocate for California to put gun restrictions on the Ar-15?
sarcasm which G.P. will understand :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How did you get to this conclusion?
post #16 "in the way they "addressed" it without any real conviction or seriousness, but again that's my opinion"
A reduction to an event is not trying to trivialised what occurred but a reduction does minimize the event.
and you are entitled to your opinion
Do you consider reduction of 9/11 bad and how was what she was trivialising?
post #21 "I felt it minimized and trivialized the tragedy hence the controversy and discussions because of, I feel the comment is disrespectful." it's akin to saying "shit happens"
because what she said wasn't wrong
afaik no one is arguing that statement wasn't factually correct so that isn't really the point in my mind.
It is a syllogism. I do that in my debates and in comments.
yeah? how do you do that with opinions and feelings? because that's all this is and all you have asked for. are you going to attempt to factually prove my feelings and opinions are wrong with deductive reasoning?
Do you have the time in the video she said this?
she didn't say it a post someone made said it about her to show why people view this as controversial.
I don't understand the question. Make a hypothetical.
I'll try
Illegal aliens are often hired for dangerous jobs or ones that pay below minimum wage which is some ways reflects back to a point before the civil war where "some people did some things"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
zing!
just another shooting in the very gun restrictive state of Commyfornia, we need more laws!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I was saying do you have a problem with the message or only about the DNC's response?
it's both really, their response sends a message that it was ok
What did you dislike about the comments?
I felt it minimized and trivialized the tragedy hence the controversy and discussions because of, I feel the comment is disrespectful.
My stance is that is that she really reduced what occurred. I don't see a problem with a reduction because the speech was not about 9/11 more so showing that as an example for what she was talking about. If it was specifically about 9/11 or specific terror attacks that made lets say the US go to Afghanistan then it would require more detail.
right, she reduced it to a trivial matter using generic terms which apply to many mundane events as well. Do you think if a loved one was killed in that attack you might take issue with her comment? Do you think we should care what the people left behind think and feel about or is it just their tough luck?
one of the comments on the 2nd video "Some people did something in Sri Lanka..."
then in the video
as post was made "Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorist, instead she refers to it as "some people did something", then goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.
CAIR was not founded after 9/11
so has she clarified, explained or denied the context that her comment is being used in? She may have but i haven't heard it.
do you think there could be any instance in any speech where someone used those words about slavery?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So you have a problem with the Democratic party not addressing what she said?
in the way they "addressed" it without any real conviction or seriousness, but again that's my opinion
Example of "selective moral outrage and classic hypocrisy." or were you just imagining with this comment "Imagine if you will the same words used for the Mosque murders, selective moral outrage and classic hypocrisy."
yes Imagine, imagination, hypothetical
Do you have a problem with what she said?
I believe I have answered that already in post #2 is there something you'd like to elaborate on? I dislike comments like that made about tragedies. share your opinion as well, how do you feel about comments minimizing tragedies? are you ok with what she said I mean personally, since this is all opinion anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you have anything other then your opinion on this?
of course not, you are asking for people's opinions, those are generally subjective words
This isn't about the Democratic party.
I disagree, given their lack of addressing behavior and their new platforms people like her are emboldened to make off hand comments like that rather than thinking before they speak. This is a growing trend in politics, though I see it more often and controversial in the democratic party. the nurses play cards was said by a republican woman, however that comment was not about terrorist or murdered people so....
Do you have an example you can point too?
example of what? someone using the words "Some-people did something" when describing murdered muslims? of course not who would say such a thing? to minimize any sort of tragedy callously and knowingly I find offensive even though I support their right to say such things. I also support the right of people who would speak out against them, protest whatever legal methods they wish to use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"Some-people did something"
Do I have a problem with it.....hmmm that's actually a difficult question.
She has a right to free speech which only needs to protect speech that you don't agree with or is objectionable etc etc.
I'm not surprised by her comment. My understanding that her district was filled with refugees and therefore she was elected. So naturally anything that could or would make her stacked voter base look bad must be down played. Seems like a typical reaction most would make.
What happened is still a unique event. So to minimize it is disingenuous and imo dishonest. It doesn't matter much anyway as she will be re-elected and probably be in that roll for life.
The Democratic party is no more, not in the sense of what it once was and the issues they championed. They are being taken over at a fairly rapid rate and soon it will be complete. This is why she received little to no backlash from within the party, none of any real consequence.
So in reality the objection is more than just the words but the effect it has/had on the party itself.
Imagine if you will the same words used for the Mosque murders, selective moral outrage and classic hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
in a French statue no less, funny the sanctuary states and cities are turning them away........
good thing poetry isn't law, regardless it doesn't say come in illegally does it.
Created:
Posted in:
agreed, the only caveat is firing people to replace them with someone who will work for a lot less. Here's what I mean. At one time there was a fairly common practice to fire long term, older employees. After many years of service they got raises etc. To save money these people would be fired just before retirement. Now who is going to hire someone who has 10 years or less to work before retirement age? Not a lot of openings for people in that position really. While I detest government and it's control, meddling in our lives people need protections as well. Where those cost/benefit lines are drawn I can't really say. But this is part of the reason for anti age discrimination laws.
Good economy and low unemployment rates help with this issue. In some sectors there is more demand than supply of workers. I guess some think "Trump is trying to kill you" by not giving people excuses to stay on welfare because they can't find work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You don't understand he believes women and men should not have equal rights because they are different. They should not have the same job opportunities etc.
I'm going to need some proof that is what he believes, because I believe that to be a lie.
Steven Crowder was sexist so it can be filed as intended to be demeaning and what SNL skits can also be filed as hate speech for demeaning a war vet. Since one does not aim to be a credible news source instead entertainment. It does not follow the same rules as Steven Crowder who makes countless debunk videos, Change my Mind videos and other videos in the line of political commentating instead of being a comedian. I would argue most of them are not posted for comedic purposes instead are created to commentate over politics.
LOL nice try bucko, you claimed I was using hate speech so now you change the focus to what Crowder and SNL said, no need to prove my point, but thanks.
Then why did you commit to a whataboutism then?
because I wanted to see what your motive actually was, it wasn't to denounce speech or what was actually said, aka selective moral outrage, but rather an attack on Steven Crowder, plain as the nose on your face. wataboutism doesn't fit YOUR definition of hate speech either. Just can't keep your foot out of your mouth can you.
I meant him as in if he followed his Bible correctly which I don't think he completely does but I am sure he does as best he can with book filled with falsities.
ohh well let me use your own words then "How is my fault that you didn't quantify(specifiy) how many grown-ups you meant (Crowder)? That fault is on you." you see pedantic
People who claim to be something but are not doing what they are claiming are not what they say they are. A feminist being an anti-feminist is not a feminist. It is that simple and I still don't think you are going to understand that.
no I understand, you think you can label people as you wish, when you wish and how you wish, I get that fully. I also get you think you are the last word on these arbitrary words as to what their definitions are. Someone who claims to be a feminist but doesn't meet your criteria for one, therefore can't call themselves one, yeah I totally understand authoritarianism when I hear it. That's a classic leftist trait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes but as you can see from the video I gave in this post his own Religion and he agrees men and women are different
hate to break it to you, but men and women ARE in fact different, wow can't believe you'd disagree with that.
Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another. It is the use of cruel and derogatory language, gestures or vandalism often directed towards an individual or group.So if the speech is demeaning or brutalizing another then it is considered hate speech.
you really are special aren't you. What i said doesn't fit that definition LOL
post #57
lie, where did I ever, ever use the term hate speech or that joking about a veteran is not allowed? You can't quote it because your statement is a lie.
Here was my reasoning and quoted when I made the response:
But if you want to equate what he said to making jokes about wounded, disabled vets as being the same thing, we obviously have vastly different moral compasses.
They are both jokes but since you consider one worse than the other. You consider it hate speech.
doesn't fit your own posted definition of hate speech (a statement intended to demean and brutalize another. It is the use of cruel and derogatory language, gestures or vandalism often directed towards an individual or group.)
since you think disabled war veterans are a protected group
already said that was a lie, never said that but you keep it up, do you find the sexist joke equal to a racist joke or is one worse than the other?
Now I can't tell if you are a lair or just really dumb.
since you think disabled war veterans are a protected group
yet another lie, I made reference to a single specific instance and you claim I said veterans, so dishonest.
From what you have typed yeah nothing says I am a hypocrite or a liar.
that's correct you are a hypocrite and a liar from what you have typed, not what I typed, I've just quoted you, your words speak for themselves.
That is a big if because he is a Christian,
ahh so all Christians are sexist by your account, now I see
He says he is for women's equality but is against feminism. That is an inherent contradiction because feminism is about equality of the sexes.
it depends on who is defining feminism since many "feminist" groups are vastly different in behavior and mission. So another distortion of the truth or rather you insert your own truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Saying that there is consequences means that you are for legal sanctions to certain speeches or at the very least retaliation. So how are you for freedom of speech again?
Do you believe there are no consequences ever for things you say?
I am not a free speech absolutists so no.
ooohhh so then that makes me anti free speech and you apply the term hate speech for me, even though I never use the term, but doesn't apply to yourself. yeah you aren't a hypocrite or a liar at all.
The problem was this was based on the assumption they were frozen. Before that he said "That's just because we weren't paying attention because she was a woman" and took from 2:56:38 to 2:56:42 to say something else substantial.
rofl you are just in another world aren't you, do the math there, you are talking about 4 seconds which is when he was trying to find out what was going on with the video. So you are saying the person in charge was going to turn everything off before he promoted his mug club, said final words, sign off etc, just an abrupt stop, that's what you want us to believe?
the link you posted obviously wasn't live right? So why would it still be up and or not edited?
you never did answer, does one comment label someone as something forever and permanently?
if he's made more pro equality than anti sexist comments than sexist ones, what's that make him?
do you judge people by the most recent thing they've said?
so he could do a pro equality video and you'd change your mind right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
murderer is a word, hate speech is a recent made up term.
Saying that there is consequences means that you are for legal sanctions to certain speeches or at the very least retaliation. So how are you for freedom of speech again?
ok Mr. Pedantic I'll play your childish games. Did I say there are consequences or did I say there should be consequences? Do you believe there are no consequences ever for things you say? Have you never had consequences for things you have said? keep trying to justify the lies you made and I'll keep showing you are a liar.
He made the comment. He asked whether he was live or not. If he knew he was live he wouldn't even ask the question but he thought the stream ended which is why he said what he said.
are you purposefully distorting the truth or do you have difficulty with the English language? serious question
He asked if people could still see him because the picture went to the logo|
"can people see me or is it frozen" his exact words
"alright we have audio but lost the image" exact words
He obviously KNEW there was audio and kept talking so what you say is b.s. and dishonest. Just more of your lies, how pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
such a silly child playing silly childish games, can't quote what you are talking about but want to appear grown up, fail
KingLaddy01
I don't have time to decode your autism. Either start making sense or do not post at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think one of the best job protections is low unemployment, but there is a fine balance. I was a union rep long ago for a while, until the company went bankrupt. Employees shouldn't be fired because they can be replaced by someone younger and cheaper or any other non good cause reason, but that's just my opinion. While I dislike government controls in this case business shouldn't be allowed to abuse and potentially destroy people's lives by having the ability to fire them at their whim. Unemployment and COBRA insurance is joke, but I guess that's another topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even if you work in a "right to work" state, it is still difficult and often complicated to fire workers, for this reason, many companies opt to hire temp workers on limited contracts (90 days in many cases) so they can let people go at will without having to provide "just cause" and without having to pay unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure I agree with all that, a "right to work" state means you can work there and not join the union, people think it gives you the right to work but it's not like that at all. Anyway why do you say it's complicated or difficult to fire workers? The company I work for just fired a bunch for H.I.P.A.A. violations. Afaik they don't look to fire people, they actually try to retain them because of training cost and staffing shortages. The places I have worked have carefully crafted policies which you will violate and can be fired for if they so choose, so it's not really complicated at all. Usually these are attendance policies. But again why would they want to fire someone? As I said the expense of training etc makes it counter productive to arbitrarily fire an employee especially if they are a good one.
Temp workers come with contracts and they are more trouble then they are worth and expensive imo, for healthcare anyway. But that would be a lengthy discussion.
I've never heard of an instance where the company I work for has fired anyone without just cause. In fact over the years coworkers have been fired whom i thought they should have fired long before they did. always late to work etc etc they were far more lenient than most imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
either way the resources will be less because of illegals right? I mean if more illegals enter, more taxes are taken/needed. Given a finite amount of resources, that means less for actual citizens.
this would also reduce the reason/incentive for illegals to enter, well, illegally. And all levels of law enforcement would be forced to deport illegals and prevent them from entering in the first place.
Imagine if you will for a moment I wave my magic wand and poof, every illegal is gone. Now the money they are using is rather substantial and no longer being used by them. This could be relocated or refunded to the tax payer. Either way it would no longer be used/wasted on criminal aliens who quite frankly don't deserve it when citizens, veterans etc don't have what they need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think there could be a pretty simple solution to this. Rather than the census perhaps there could be a way to make it mandatory that only citizens receive tax payer funded entitlements, and use an e-verify type system and a mandatory employer e-verify. then those actual numbers could be submitted for these funds.
actual tax filings could probably be used as well. Anyway this would give an accurate number of actual citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No such thing as hate speech? That has got to be a joke and I didn't backtrack. Worse equals dislike and since you used it as your whataboutism you must really hate the speech SNL used against Crenshaw.
yup that's my opinion, no such thing, I never used the term even though you incorrectly attributed it to me and continue to lie about it.
oh then there was this lie I forgot about
So you are for speech for consequence not for freedom of speech?
lie, I've explained there can be consequences for speech even if it's protected by the B.O.R.s how you don't know this is mind boggling, for further explanation raise your little hand and ask your teacher.
Let me tell you in a way you can understand. "grown-ups" is a plural. This can be 2-infinity. By you not telling me how much you are talking about this leaves it open ended and can mean you meant that for every single grown-up. Do you understand?
I already said you were pedantic, issue settled
Protection is a sign of control/order not freedom. Protection goes against freedom of speech. If you need to protect freedom of speech then you don't actually have it. Do you understand?
I'm not interest in philosophical discussions in the political forum.
Still doesn't mean he isn't one. He is a Christian who are against equal rights if they followed the New Testament and since he does when he was drunk and thought he was off-camera it shows that just because Warren was a female her opinion can be disregarded.
I'm not judging him one way or the other based on one comment, you are.
How do you know he thought he was off-camera?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
But if you want to equate what he said to making jokes about wounded, disabled vets as being the same thing, we obviously have vastly different moral compasses.
They are both jokes but since you consider one worse than the other. You consider it hate speech.
wow that's about the lamest attempt to backtrack I have ever seen, yup I never used the term hate speech just like I said, just because something is offensive or morally repugnant doesn't mean it's hate speech, because there's no such thing as hate speech, what you actually did was wrongfully assume and then made false accusations on that wrong assumption turning into and perpetuating a lie and put words in my mouth.
Another point that you consider what SNL did was hate speech.
see previous reply, yet another distortion of the truth and another lie
Do you agree with this or are you not a free speech absolutist?
no changes need to be made to the 1a is that plain enough for you now? perhaps you should have asked that first before the lies?
My position isn't that I don't think speech has consequence but you think a joke is a joke but hypocritical when it comes to people you dislike. I'll quote and make sure you see it this time.
that's the point of the thread YOU created LOL your attack on Crowder for a joke he made, then you split hairs by labeling him a political commentator like that is relevant.
How is my fault that you didn't quantify how many grown-ups you meant? That fault is on you.
children can often be pedantic, had I known you were a child I would have tried to be more specific and dumb it down more to avoid that.
Who is protecting this speech and how is control somehow freedom again?
um, seriously? Are you not familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? control? wtf are you even talking about?
you labeled him a sexist, sounds like a personal attack to me. What if he has other videos that show him not to be a sexist, what then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
fine, we'll list your lies
You believe in hate speech? Wow you pretty much admitted to it by saying no joking about a veteran is not allowed therefore you and other right-wingers will force the hand of a comedian to apologise. Who is for free speech again?
lie, where did I ever, ever use the term hate speech or that joking about a veteran is not allowed? You can't quote it because your statement is a lie.
So you are for speech for consequence not for freedom of speech?
lie, I've explained there can be consequences for speech even if it's protected by the B.O.R.s how you don't know this is mind boggling, for further explanation raise your little hand and ask your teacher.
Oh so you don't believe in free speech. Okay.
lie, again nothing you can quote hence just another baseless lie
You have made the claim that he didn't actually mean what he said and said grown ups actually are sexist.
lie, I said grown ups (some since you'd just going to be pedantic) make or have made sexist jokes and or comments.
If it is "b.s" why are you still for me to spew it on? Guess you must really like "b.s.".
what I wrote was "keeping the b.s. in your mouth instead of spewing it on the screen."
Protected speech is a contradiction to free speech and if you don't understand that. You really need help.
if free speech isn't protected then it can't be free, speech is protected by the 1a, you are very confused.
I started to show Steven Crowder's true self. I wasn't crying about a whataboustim.
so one joke labels him as not believing in equal rights?
ah so this is some kind of personal attack on Crowder, now it makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
since there's no quote I have no idea what you are talking about
are you 2 in the same grade?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
your comprehension is like grade school level, I think that's where the problem is
If it is "b.s" why are you still for me to spew it on? Guess you must really like "b.s.".
what I wrote was "keeping the b.s. in your mouth instead of spewing it on the screen."
you accused me of things that are not true, hence you are a liar, I didn't make you say those false accusations you did that all yourself as children often do.
Let's say you are in school sitting at your desk with all your little friends and you start yelling profanities. While that is free speech do you think there would be consequences for doing so? As I said there are consequences even for protected speech which does not mean I "don't believe in free speech" as you wrongfully claimed aka lied about.
It must be a conservative thing where they think everyone is a liar because they are one.
that's not true, you so far are the only proven liar. but you always have the opportunity to correct yourself.
you have yet to explain what you mean by Crowder showing his true self, what actions lead you believe he portrays himself one way but is really something else?
do try to explain if you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
More you don't know what you are talking about. Steven Crowder doesn't directly impact laws but Crenshaw does.
what does that have to do with anything?
Oh so you don't believe in free speech. Okay.
trying to keep up the lie still? try harder
"You see grown ups do make jokes like that, joke as in they don't really mean what they are saying."You have made the claim that he didn't actually mean what he said and said grown ups actually are sexist.
keep trying to twist the truth and maintain your lies.
perhaps you are not familiar with the different types and labels for humor "off color" "dark" "sarcastic" just to name a few and yes adults to say things they don't really mean as a joke to elicit a reaction or over exaggerate a point. When you become an adult perhaps you'll understand this type of societal interaction and expression.
Focus more and keeping the b.s. in your mouth instead of spewing it on the screen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
well anyway, there's the whole salt shaker lol
safe rooms, stuffed animals etc all provided for TDS sufferers a very sad state to be sure. The feeble minded snow flakes will be the ruin of the U.S.
There should be a telethon to raise money for TDS like Jerry Lewis did for muscular dystrophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What happened to it's just a joke?
you'll have to ask the person who started the thread that was angered enough by a comedian to start this.
Created: