"Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, what the hell man? Is there something in the water? That'll be it, seriously. We always assumed they'd go crazy at the end, mostly from realizing some of their dearest beliefs were losing their place. But really --and obviously-- there was something in the water.

--//--

I might be arsed to look into how many people really believe this stuff, and what parts of it exactly do they believe. I'm sure somebody has bothered to look by now.

[Seabass]

Well, what the hell man? Is there something in the water? That'll be it, seriously. We always assumed they'd go crazy at the end, mostly from realizing some of their dearest beliefs were losing their place. But really --and obviously-- there was something in the water.

--//--

I might be arsed to look into how many people really believe this stuff, and what parts of it exactly do they believe. I'm sure somebody has bothered to look by now.

You jest, but google "lead poisoning crime".


On a related note, here's the actor Jim Caviezel, star of Thin Red Line and The Last Temptation of Christ, casually expressing concern over the adrenochroming of children.

Jim Caviezel Decries “The Adrenochroming of Children,” As If That’s a Thing
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... ts-a-thing

[Brian Peacock]

Stress, trauma, and brain damage. Just saying.

[Tero]

Jan 6 rioters were dim:
A lot of these defendants… they’re all fucking short-bus people,” Albert Watkins told Talking Points Memo. “These are people with brain damage, they’re fucking retarded... But they’re our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our coworkers—they’re part of our country. These aren’t bad people, they don’t have prior criminal history. Fuck, they were subjected to four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since fucking Hitler.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-sha ... e-retarded

[Cunt]

That isn't as funny as the fact that January 6th was the scariest thing most Democrats have ever experienced.

Do they still have the fences and armed guards surrounding the federal buildings in Washington? Wouldn't want those delicate elected officials to feel unsafe...

[Seabass]

That isn't as funny as the fact that January 6th was the scariest thing most Democrats have ever experienced.

Do they still have the fences and armed guards surrounding the federal buildings in Washington? Wouldn't want those delicate elected officials to feel unsafe...

The black civil rights movement of the '60s caused property damage. Was that civil rights movement good or bad?

Since ALL civil rights movements cause property damage, should there be no civil rights movements?

[Cunt]

That isn't as funny as the fact that January 6th was the scariest thing most Democrats have ever experienced.

Do they still have the fences and armed guards surrounding the federal buildings in Washington? Wouldn't want those delicate elected officials to feel unsafe...

The black civil rights movement of the '60s caused property damage. Was that civil rights movement good or bad?

Since ALL civil rights movements cause property damage, should there be no civil rights movements?

Rights are best when they are available to everyone, rather than being doled out to certain special groups. Of course, you would have to support voting rights for people you hate, but that's kind of the point.

[Seabass]

That isn't as funny as the fact that January 6th was the scariest thing most Democrats have ever experienced.

Do they still have the fences and armed guards surrounding the federal buildings in Washington? Wouldn't want those delicate elected officials to feel unsafe...

The black civil rights movement of the '60s caused property damage. Was that civil rights movement good or bad?

Since ALL civil rights movements cause property damage, should there be no civil rights movements?

Rights are best when they are available to everyone, rather than being doled out to certain special groups.

Rofl. Yes, no shit, Sherlock. That's the whole fucking point of civil rights movements INCLUDING BLM.

Of course, you would have to support voting rights for people you hate, but that's kind of the point.

What?

[Seabass]

You still haven't answered the question, Cunt.

The black civil rights movement of the '60s caused property damage. Was that civil rights movement good or bad?

Since ALL civil rights movements cause property damage, should there be no civil rights movements?

[Cunt]

That isn't as funny as the fact that January 6th was the scariest thing most Democrats have ever experienced.

Do they still have the fences and armed guards surrounding the federal buildings in Washington? Wouldn't want those delicate elected officials to feel unsafe...

The black civil rights movement of the '60s caused property damage. Was that civil rights movement good or bad?

Since ALL civil rights movements cause property damage, should there be no civil rights movements?

Rights are best when they are available to everyone, rather than being doled out to certain special groups.

Rofl. Yes, no shit, Sherlock. That's the whole fucking point of civil rights movements INCLUDING BLM.

Of course, you would have to support voting rights for people you hate, but that's kind of the point.

What?

Well, Sherlock, you didn't investigate very hard.

Human Rights Commissions, such as are in Canada, grant certain rights ONLY to certain racial groups.

You can't be a victim of racism if you aren't of the 'right' race.

That means human rights are only available to certain special groups.

I prefer that rights and laws be equal for everyone, with justice being blind to immutable characteristics.

Of course, you might prefer that only the weaker races have access to certain legal remedies, and that might be correct.

But I prefer equal treatment under law.

As to the civil rights movement, I like most of it, but it IS a very broad question.

Starting the US involved violence. I don't approve of all of it, while I do like the country better than most.

Are you just looking for something to use to start your namecalling? Try this - I don't think you are smart enough to see the consequences of treating people fairly. Here's a hint - it doesn't come out equal, if people are free.

[Tero]

No need to investigate! Nothing to see here. Move along!

9D4E49CC-C39B-4E14-BA0D-9765D7214FA1.jpeg (103.05 KiB) Viewed 1373 times

Maybe go back to Benghazi?

[Seabass]

That isn't as funny as the fact that January 6th was the scariest thing most Democrats have ever experienced.

Do they still have the fences and armed guards surrounding the federal buildings in Washington? Wouldn't want those delicate elected officials to feel unsafe...

The black civil rights movement of the '60s caused property damage. Was that civil rights movement good or bad?

Since ALL civil rights movements cause property damage, should there be no civil rights movements?

Rights are best when they are available to everyone, rather than being doled out to certain special groups.

Rofl. Yes, no shit, Sherlock. That's the whole fucking point of civil rights movements INCLUDING BLM.

Of course, you would have to support voting rights for people you hate, but that's kind of the point.

What?

Well, Sherlock, you didn't investigate very hard.

Human Rights Commissions, such as are in Canada, grant certain rights ONLY to certain racial groups.

You can't be a victim of racism if you aren't of the 'right' race.

That means human rights are only available to certain special groups.

I prefer that rights and laws be equal for everyone, with justice being blind to immutable characteristics.

No shit, fool. Problem is, the people administering justice can often be racist, and historical racism still has effects on how justice is applied today.

Of course, you might prefer that only the weaker races have access to certain legal remedies, and that might be correct.

The "weaker races"? Tell me more.

But I prefer equal treatment under law.

You mean, what BLM wants?

As to the civil rights movement, I like most of it, but it IS a very broad question.

So you like the black civil rights movement of the '60s, despite the property damage that it caused? So now explain why the property damage cause by black civil rights movement of the '60s was acceptable, but the property damage caused by BLM is not.

Starting the US involved violence. I don't approve of all of it, while I do like the country better than most.

Irrelevant.

Are you just looking for something to use to start your namecalling? Try this - I don't think you are smart enough to see the consequences of treating people fairly. Here's a hint - it doesn't come out equal, if people are free.

What you're not smart enough to see, Cunt, is that black Americans aren't "free" if they are a permanent undercaste.

[Brian Peacock]

..

I prefer that rights and laws be equal for everyone, with justice being blind to immutable characteristics.

Of course, you might prefer that only the weaker races have access to certain legal remedies, and that might be correct.

...

Perhaps you can help me make sense of this by giving some examples of stronger and weaker races?

[Cunt]

Rofl. Yes, no shit, Sherlock. That's the whole fucking point of civil rights movements INCLUDING BLM.

I thought 'BLM' stood for 'Buy Large Mansions', but maybe they have spent more on better stuff.

Have they? Where is their GIANT money going?

I prefer that rights and laws be equal for everyone, with justice being blind to immutable characteristics.

No shit, fool. Problem is, the people administering justice can often be racist, and historical racism still has effects on how justice is applied today.

Of course, but saying so doesn't do anything, except make you a whinger.

What can be done, what law needs correcting, what non-racist answers do you offer?

Of course, you might prefer that only the weaker races have access to certain legal remedies, and that might be correct.

The "weaker races"? Tell me more.

I think you are just trolling, but if you aren't, you can look into Canada's Gladue Principle with regards to sentencing.
https://www.wlu.ca/academics/faculties/ ... index.html

Myself, I disagree, because I think singling one race out as 'weaker' is insulting. Like saying that brown people can't control themselves if you insult their imaginary friend...pretending they aren't smart enough to be civil in the face of such insult is suggesting they are 'weaker people'.

The Gladue principle is a bit murkier, since the communities most indigenous people live in are FAR from being 'equal' to the rest of Canada.

I don't like the principle, but don't oppose it because even though it IS certainly racist, it is also an effort to correct serious problems in sentencing.

You mean, what BLM wants?

Other than Marxism and big mansions for the leaders, I don't see anything they support.

I mean, the protests, sure, but where are they putting their money? How can someone objectively tell the difference between what they really want, and a Democrat Party fundraising arm?

As to the civil rights movement, I like most of it, but it IS a very broad question.

So you like the black civil rights movement of the '60s, despite the property damage that it caused? So now explain why the property damage cause by black civil rights movement of the '60s was acceptable, but the property damage caused by BLM is not.

Rioting, burning and destroying property to protest something is easy to oppose.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they might have focused their efforts on government, instead of retail stores and neighbourhoods.

Oh, by the way, were the riots focused on Democrat-run cities and states?

What you're not smart enough to see, Cunt, is that black Americans aren't "free" if they are a permanent undercaste.

You sure do think poorly of those 'black Americans'.

Maybe you should listen to more than one kind of 'black American'. I could suggest Thomas Sowell, or Candace Owens, or, if you like a lighter take, the Hodge Twins.

Or you could just keep the diverse voices out, and listen only to the blue-anon 'black Americans'.

[Seabass]

Rofl. Yes, no shit, Sherlock. That's the whole fucking point of civil rights movements INCLUDING BLM.

I thought 'BLM' stood for 'Buy Large Mansions', but maybe they have spent more on better stuff.

Have they? Where is their GIANT money going?

I prefer that rights and laws be equal for everyone, with justice being blind to immutable characteristics.

No shit, fool. Problem is, the people administering justice can often be racist, and historical racism still has effects on how justice is applied today.

Of course, but saying so doesn't do anything, except make you a whinger.

What can be done, what law needs correcting, what non-racist answers do you offer?

Of course, you might prefer that only the weaker races have access to certain legal remedies, and that might be correct.

The "weaker races"? Tell me more.

I think you are just trolling, but if you aren't, you can look into Canada's Gladue Principle with regards to sentencing.
https://www.wlu.ca/academics/faculties/ ... index.html

Myself, I disagree, because I think singling one race out as 'weaker' is insulting. Like saying that brown people can't control themselves if you insult their imaginary friend...pretending they aren't smart enough to be civil in the face of such insult is suggesting they are 'weaker people'.

The Gladue principle is a bit murkier, since the communities most indigenous people live in are FAR from being 'equal' to the rest of Canada.

I don't like the principle, but don't oppose it because even though it IS certainly racist, it is also an effort to correct serious problems in sentencing.

If you want to discuss the Gladue principle, start another thread.

You mean, what BLM wants?

Other than Marxism and big mansions for the leaders, I don't see anything they support.

I mean, the protests, sure, but where are they putting their money? How can someone objectively tell the difference between what they really want, and a Democrat Party fundraising arm?

As to the civil rights movement, I like most of it, but it IS a very broad question.

So you like the black civil rights movement of the '60s, despite the property damage that it caused? So now explain why the property damage cause by black civil rights movement of the '60s was acceptable, but the property damage caused by BLM is not.

Rioting, burning and destroying property to protest something is easy to oppose.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they might have focused their efforts on government, instead of retail stores and neighbourhoods.

Here you go again, reverting to reducing a civil rights movement to looting and rioting EXACTLY as racists did against the civil rights movement of the '60s, all while ignoring the fact that ALL civil rights movements cause property damage.

Oh, by the way, were the riots focused on Democrat-run cities and states?

What you're not smart enough to see, Cunt, is that black Americans aren't "free" if they are a permanent undercaste.

You sure do think poorly of those 'black Americans'.

No, Cunt. I'm not the one who thinks black Americans became and undercaste because they make "shit choices". I think it happened because of the fucking racism. The racism that you want to do nothing to address because it's natural.

Maybe you should listen to more than one kind of 'black American'. I could suggest Thomas Sowell, or Candace Owens, or, if you like a lighter take, the Hodge Twins.

Or you could just keep the diverse voices out, and listen only to the blue-anon 'black Americans'.