Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Republican case for the Universal Basic IncomeFollow

#202 Jan 31 2014 at 8:57 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right?

Actually, no, that would be illegal. We've talked about this before, haven't we?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#203 Jan 31 2014 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji is one of those "The pesky Civil Rights Act stands in the way of true liberty" Rand Paul types.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#204 Jan 31 2014 at 9:41 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Gbaji is one of those "The pesky Civil Rights Act stands in the way of true liberty" Rand Paul types.

Worse, he believes it only applies to the government, as evidenced from his fairly frequent "I could start a private business and decide not to hire black people because it's my money" theories.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#205 Jan 31 2014 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Jan 31 2014 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.


Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.

____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#207 Jan 31 2014 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,343 posts
.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#208 Feb 01 2014 at 3:12 AM Rating: Good
******
44,298 posts
Criminy wrote:
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
Colin Powell wasn't that bad.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#209 Feb 01 2014 at 5:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
Colin Powell wasn't that bad.


He was more of a puppet that ****** off conservatives when he jumped ship to support President Obama.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#210 Feb 01 2014 at 5:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,240 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Yeah because the one thing they need is an Uncle Ruckus on the stage.
Colin Powell wasn't that bad.


He was more of a puppet that ****** off conservatives when he jumped ship to support President Obama.
Pay back is a *****.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#211 Feb 01 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
In the south, you know why most people send their kids to private schools? Better football programs since they're able to recruit players easier than public high schools can. So there's your higher education right there.
#212 Feb 01 2014 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.


I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#213 Feb 01 2014 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.


I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.

I'm sure they'd get a fair share of the Muslim vote. Religious extremism seems to share a lot, regardless of denomination.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#214 Feb 02 2014 at 12:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I can't imagine why the GOP gets 10% of the minority vote. Maybe if they re-branded and put some brown people on stage during their conventions, that would fix the problem.


I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.


None of that matters when everything that's relevant to everyday activities are hindered by Republican practices, laws and beliefs. So, you have two choices:

1. Democrats: Morally disagree with you, but acknowledges your daily struggles and attempt to make laws to help you.
2. Republicans: Morally agrees with you, but doesn't believe that there's any systematic favoritism against you and not only claims laziness is the root of your own problems, but creates and supports the laws that are part of the systematic favoritism.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#215 Feb 02 2014 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
I thought a very substantial amount of minorities voted Republican because they agree with Republican social moral values regarding anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.

6% of African-Americans, 27% Hispanics, 26% Asians, 38% "Other" (Native American? Less than 2% of the voting pop anyway) in 2012.

So better than 10% (not that I was trying to be academic with that number) but poorly enough for Obama to mop up the field with less than 40% of the white vote. The 2016 demographic concern for the GOP is that the Democratic candidate is pretty much guaranteed to do better than 40% with whites but also probably won't lose much of the Black/Hispanic/Asian vote. Particularly in the relevant states.

Part of the problem with basing your hopes on social conservatism is that those issues erode as "issues". From Pew Research last June:
Quote:
Latinos’ views of same-*** marriage have changed dramatically in recent years. In 2012 for the first time, more Latinos said they favored same-*** marriage than opposed it (52% versus 34%) according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey. This is a reversal from six years earlier, when one-third (31%) of Latinos favored same-*** marriage and more than half (56%) opposed it. This shift in views tracks with that of the general public, whose opinions on same-*** marriage have also changed in recent years.

The best Hispanic turnout for Republicans in decades was by far the 44% Bush got in 2004 when Rove ran the big *** scare campaign to win anti-SSM votes. That particular drum won't beat twice because people aren't as afraid of it any more.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2014 5:57am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#216 Feb 03 2014 at 7:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Elinda wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools.

Nah, they don't. They send them to good public schools.

Yeah, here's my anecdote: While raising our kids we were living in a pretty upscale town with good schools. We also had one of the best private, college prep schools in the area housed in our town. Our next door neighbor taught there. This meant his kids could attend the private school tuition free. The oldest did. The second and youngest didn't. He was a budding musician and our public high school had a really robust music program, so he opted for the public high school.


I think the bigger point, which has been glossed over by three people now, is that "he could afford it" because he taught there. Ask most people in upscale neighborhoods why they send their kids to the local public school instead of the local private school, and 9/10 of them will include "cost" as part of the equation. Well off people don't have infinite amounts of money (and they're usually well off because they prioritize what they spend money on). Also, realize that their property taxes are paying for the local public school (and is likely a large part of the reason why it's better than the public school in the low rent district). Money is absolutely a factor. If you're paying $30k/year in property taxes, it's going to skew your decision quite a bit.

When I said "people who can afford to do so", I wasn't talking about the high 5 figure/low 6 figure crowd living right at the end of their means in an upscale neighborhood in a million dollar home. Lots of people who can "just barely" afford to move into the upscale neighborhoods to so precisely because the public schools are better. But they can't afford to pay the extra money it'll cost to send their kids to a private school as well. It's a choice, and it absolutely revolves around cost.

If those people could take the cost for the public school in their area and use it in a voucher to pay for private school? Most of them would do it in a heartbeat. I guess the part of this entire conversation that I find strange is that the counter argument more or less rests on the assumption that people would choose to send their kids to private schools if they had the choice. If not, then why oppose vouchers? It's only a problem for the existing public school system if people actually do choose to spend those dollars somewhere else.

So it's more than strange to argue that people wouldn't choose to send their kids to private school, isn't it?

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 5:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Feb 03 2014 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If someone wants to make a school that caters only to black muslims, they can too. Cause.... Liberty, right?

Actually, no, that would be illegal. We've talked about this before, haven't we?


Yeah. We've talked about sarcasm before too. You still have a hard time with it, apparently.

Oh, and we've also discussed the "complex question" fallacy before too. Want to know why it's relevant? Because while the issue I brought up was about religious schools, Joph tossed skin color in as well. He complicated the issue with a second factor that actually is illegal to discriminate on with regards to education. You *can* have a religious school and require that only those who are members of the religion may attend. You *can't* have a school that is segregated by skin color.

It's not about a Christian or Muslim school. But "black" or "white" that is the problem. But that's not what I was talking about. Joph injected race into the discussion where it had no place. Obviously, the same rules we have now for private schools would still apply under a voucher system. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise, or why someone would think that because we introduce vouchers, suddenly we'd have to change the rest of our rules with regard to discrimination.

It was a silly point when Joph made it. I suppose my mistake was giving a snarky response rather than explaining where he went wrong. My bad.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218 Feb 03 2014 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, ***, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?
No. Why would it? You're not getting the point. We're putting the education dollars in the hands of the parents. If someone wants to run a school and not allow certain students to attend, that's their choice to not accept those dollars (but then why bother, right?). I'm not sure how or why this would be a factor.

Silly me, being the person to first mention race...

Oh, wait. I guess I wasn't that silly after all but was in fact responding to you directly stating that schools should be allowed to prohibit based on those exact criteria.

Backpedal faster! Harder! Faster! Harder!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Feb 03 2014 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, ***, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?
No. Why would it? You're not getting the point. We're putting the education dollars in the hands of the parents. If someone wants to run a school and not allow certain students to attend, that's their choice to not accept those dollars (but then why bother, right?). I'm not sure how or why this would be a factor.

Silly me, being the person to first mention race...

Oh, wait. I guess I wasn't that silly after all but was in fact responding to you directly stating that schools should be allowed to prohibit based on those exact criteria.


Sigh. More complex question fallacy. I was speaking of there being no need to pass a new law if we created vouchers. That's the question that was asked, right?

The ability for private schools to discriminate on those factors would remain exactly as it is right now. Meaning that you could discriminate based on *** (you can have all boys and all girls schools, right), and you can discriminate based on religion (currently legal), and I suppose socioeconomic status (whatever you think that means, but I don't think it's currently prohibited), but you can't discriminate based on race.

I wasn't even thinking about race when I answered the question. I discounted it because race is currently already illegal to discriminate against. I was speaking of the other things and saying that schools could if they want, but most wont because they'd just be limiting their potential pool of revenue, so it's not a factor.

Quote:
Backpedal faster! Harder! Faster! Harder!


Not a backpedal at all. He asked if I thought we should pass a new law to prevent private schools from discriminating, and I said no. Again, racial discrimination is already illegal. So his question really only pertains to forms of discrimination which are not currently illegal but we might think should be prohibited if we extend public money to them in the form of vouchers.


It is telling that you zoomed right in on race though. It's like the ringing of a bell for you isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Feb 03 2014 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's the question that was asked, right?

Not really. The question was obviously whether or not students would be protected based on those criteria. Trying to turn it into a lame semantic argument now is... well, maybe not beneath you but still pretty pathetic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Feb 03 2014 at 9:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the question that was asked, right?

Not really. The question was obviously whether or not students would be protected based on those criteria.


No. The question was:

TirithRR wrote:
Will it be coupled with a law that says these private schools can't deny students entry based on race, ***, religion, socioeconomic status, etc?


He was asking if vouchers would be contingent on passing a new law. I said no. Want to know why? Because the existing laws already do that, to precisely the degree needed.


I interpreted his question within the context of the current requirements with regard to public school acceptance. Given that this exact point had already been raised (I think Smash argued that public schools would cost less per student if they could pick and choose their students like private schools can) it seemed the more relevant angle. It's why I responded with a statement about costs and profits for the schools, and not about some kind of social equality thing.

Public schools are required to provide education for every single student in their respective areas. Period. Private schools are not, and would not be required to with the voucher system. That's what I was saying. This does not mean that we eliminate existing laws regarding discrimination though, and my response should not have been interpreted to mean that. Clear enough?


Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#222 Feb 03 2014 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the question that was asked, right?
Not really. The question was obviously whether or not students would be protected based on those criteria.
No.

Well, yes. But you rock on with your bad self pretending otherwise. Boy, yeah, you got me there, Gbaji!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#223 Feb 03 2014 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
/shrug

What I find interesting is that you automatically assumed that because I said we should *not* pass a law that would prevent private schools which accept vouchers from discriminating on the basis of race, ***, religion, or socioeconomic status that this meant I was proposing that we repeal all such existing laws. It's another case of the liberal tendency to conflate failing to do something with actively doing the opposite. So not giving people free food is taking food from them. Not raising taxes on the rich is giving the rich money. And now, failing to pass a new law expanding prohibitions on discrimination is the same as eliminating the existing prohibitions against discriminating on the basis of race. Been pointing this out for years now, so I figure I'll point it out here too.

It's just such a consistent but flawed thought process. And I'd discount it, but it absolutely permeates the very basis of liberal political thinking. Just making you aware of it, in case you didn't realize *why* you responded to me the way you did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#224 Feb 03 2014 at 10:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
/shrug

What I find interesting...

Given your bizarre interpretation, I wouldn't doubt it. You once again sure got me there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#225 Feb 04 2014 at 12:58 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Look, I try hard to contain my nails when I cut them, so that I can bin all the cuttings hygienically. I will not be held responsible for the occasional one that SPROINGS off into the middle distance, ok? It's small, it's off white, it's very hard to find, and there's a 50% chance that I will be the one treading on it in bare feet in the future. Smiley: glare
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#226 Feb 04 2014 at 3:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,298 posts
I find it interesting that he's playing the discrimination card after all his anti-Muslim rants.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#227 Feb 04 2014 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
I think the bigger point, which has been glossed over by three people now, is that "he could afford it" because he taught there. Ask most people in upscale neighborhoods why they send their kids to the local public school instead of the local private school, and 9/10 of them will include "cost" as part of the equation.

Nope. Almost none do, actually. Generally they don't see "the loacl private school" whatever the fuck that means (it's apparent, incidentally, that you know zero parents who live in wealthy zip codes...unless you count me and Nexa, I guess) as better in quality or they'd send their kids there. A fair amount of them send their kids for additional school work, Kumon or whatever, so they're spending the money on it, just not on private school. Because public schools in wealthy zip codes are generally fantastic, send a lot of kids to tier 1 universities, etc., and the parents and communities can fund programs you don't see at other public schools. Our town swim and diving team is nationally ranked, and the golf team was the best in the country a few years ago.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#228 Feb 04 2014 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, Smash. The reason why parents in Winnetka, IL send their kids to New Trier High School isn't because of its academic record but because they can't afford private schools.

Duh.

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 8:02am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#229 Feb 04 2014 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reading the Wiki on New Trier led me to Winnetka which led me to Liz Phair who is apparently FIFTY GOD DAMNED YEARS OLD WTF??

I feel old. I'm going back to bed Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#230 Feb 04 2014 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,298 posts
Get off your own lawn.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#231 Feb 04 2014 at 8:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Reading the Wiki on New Trier led me to Winnetka which led me to Liz Phair who is apparently FIFTY GOD DAMNED YEARS OLD WTF??

Aging well, though.

Edit: Apparently aging well because she's 46.

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 9:32am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#232 Feb 04 2014 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hang on now. You're not suggesting that Wikipedia was wrong, are you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#233 Feb 04 2014 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Hang on now. You're not suggesting that Wikipedia was wrong, are you?

Well, it does have her graduating form high school in '85...at 23 years old if the birthday is correct. Which would seem a little odd. I'll just fix that, shall I? The last update was made based on a shot of an ID from a DVD bonus track on one of her albums where it appears the date is '63. I'll take her at her word that she wasn't held back 5 years in high school.

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 10:06am by Smasharoo

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 10:06am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#234 Feb 04 2014 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
I'll take her at her word that she wasn't held back 5 years in high school.

So now who's being naive?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#235 Feb 04 2014 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
******
44,298 posts
Maybe she chose to stay in high school for five years. Liberty, Murca, Freedom, Troops, 9/11, etc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#236 Feb 04 2014 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
So now who's being naive?

Well, I didn't believe the part about her "taking many other advanced classes".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#237 Feb 04 2014 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, it says she went to New Trier High School so maybe if her parents had sprung for her to go to a half-decent private school instead she would have graduated before her mid-20s
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#238 Feb 04 2014 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I find it interesting that he's playing the discrimination card after all his anti-Muslim rants.


I find it interesting that you label anything I've ever posted as an "anti-Muslim rant".

The world is full of grey, even if many people insist on seeing only black and white.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#239 Feb 04 2014 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,298 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I find it interesting that he's playing the discrimination card after all his anti-Muslim rants.
I find it interesting that you label anything I've ever posted as an "anti-Muslim rant".

The world is full of grey, even if many people insist on seeing only black and white.
That's so adorable! You went with a black and white statement then ******* about black and white statements in only two sentences. You really are a caricature.

Edited, Feb 4th 2014 10:33pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#240 Feb 04 2014 at 9:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I find it interesting that he's playing the discrimination card after all his anti-Muslim rants.
I find it interesting that you label anything I've ever posted as an "anti-Muslim rant".

The world is full of grey, even if many people insist on seeing only black and white.
That's so adorable! You went with a black and white statement then ******* about black and white statements in only two sentences. You really are a caricature.


You completely failed to understand what I was talking about. It's not about statements, btw. Think broader.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Feb 04 2014 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,298 posts
gbaji wrote:
Think broader.
Post something that requires it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CST
Elinda, Samira, Anonymous Guests (61)