Henry was gun ho advocating all those death when a president - who lied daily - was in office.

Prove it.


If that's the standard, we never left.

We never did, or will.


 

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

How about some more Bernie to lighten the mood...
 

 
Commie comedy: head, er, side splittin'.

It's false, not that you care.

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1/BILLS-117hr1ih.pdf

fargon wrote:

So the Democrats want to make it easy to vote what's wrong with that?

 
Did I say anything was wrong?

No, I did not. I posted without comment (other than the implied high-larious!).

Suppose you have a kid...who finds that he has the urge to fuck a toaster. In the past, he'd either keep it to himself and learn to live with it, or, if he mentioned it to someone else, they'd tell him he was crazy and pretty much the same thing would happen. Now, he goes online and finds that there's a whole community dedicated to toaster-fucking. Hell, there's an entire Reddit about it (I have no idea if there is actually a toaster-fucking Reddit). So he starts talking online to toaster-fuckers world wide, and they tell him that it's a wonderful hobby, and completely normal, and that anyone who opposes him is oppressing him. This ability to connect can be a wonderful tool for people who are actually facing oppression, but it also magnifies the fringe, and the deviant and the dangerous. Couple this with a media that wants to celebrate anything that is against traditional Western mores and common sense, and pretty soon you have Congressmen introducing bills that toaster-fuckers are a Constitutionally protected class, and anyone who dares say 'Uh, dude, you shouldn't do that” is ostracized. And so the kid winds up burning his dick off.  -Weird Dave @ Ace of Spades

cog wrote:

*Hitler used similar reasoning.  It must be right.  He got popular.
 

 
*An example? Just one? Pretty please?

Clodfobble wrote:

henry quirk wrote:

and pretty soon you have Congressmen introducing bills that toaster-fuckers are a Constitutionally protected class, and anyone who dares say 'Uh, dude, you shouldn't do that” is ostracized. And so the kid winds up burning his dick off.

Which is his right, no? Surely you agree that if he wants to burn his dick off, that's his choice and his consequences.
 

 
Dumb questions from smart women are sxxxy...give us another.

...or...

Mebbe just focus on what the funny is actually about.

Clodfobble wrote:

You've done this several times now, henry--fallen back on "it's obviously a joke" any time someone points out a flaw in your logic. It's a rather transparent ploy, and makes it easy to dismiss your hardline philosophical beliefs as a joke, too.

Either the kid has a right to fuck a toaster, because he's not harming you or your property--or you feel like* you should get to warn him where he should and shouldn't put his dick.

*Note I said "feel like," because I know you believe that you shouldn't get to tell him what to do with his dick. This is precisely the sort of case where people who are all "I'm logical, fuck your feelings" are unable to recognize that they are bowing to their feelings, all the time. Funny is just as much of a feeling as irritation, by the way, and is often brought in to mask it.

 
Not as smart as I thought.

Of course he can stick his willie in a toaster if he likes, and of course -- if he brings such things to my attention -- I can tell him he's a fukin' idiot.

The two do not exclude one another.

My hardline philosophy obligates me to recognize his life, liberty, and property are his. Ain't nuthin' in there about respectin' his bad, stupid, or insane choices; ain't nuthin' in there sez -- when he parades his insanity or stupidity -- that I must sit quiet.

You haven't revealed a flaw in my logic: you revealed you don't know diddly.

As I say: not as smart as I thought (or you think).

And: the point of the piece still escapes you...that's funny in itself.

it has been, and continues to be, in some places, literally illegal to be homosexual.

If natural rights belong to one, they logically must belong to all.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.  F Bastiat

So: abolish or -- at least -- rein in the Law (Maker) and his Financier, not the Free Man.

Flint wrote:

what?