Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the words-were-said dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is James Burkhardt with some additional details on the court decision against Richard Liebowitz:
I feel the need to jump in before Sanford shows up to troll. I want to highlight something clear from the Judge's words, but not this article. Rule 68(D) only applies when the offer is deemed reasonable. When you read the ruling from the judge this is made clear: they spend a lot of time discussing the normal recovery from such a suit, how bad the pattern of facts in the case are for Liebowitz and his client, and how their offer is significantly in excess of the fees expected from a license. This makes the settlement reasonable. If the defense offered a $20 settlement, it would have a far higher bar to be considered reasonable.
In second place, we've got an anonymous commenter with an excellent response to the question of what the difference is between fascists and anti-fascists:
Anti-fascists only seem to cause violent reactions in the presence of fascists. Fascists, on the other hand, seem to cause violence wherever they appear, whether antifa are there or not.
I know not everyone will agree that's a fair characterization, so for our first editor's choice on the insightful side, here's Stephen T. Stone with a response that is largely the same but leaves a bit more room for criticism of anti-fascist tactics:
Antifascists commit acts of violence to defend themselves or others, even if the threat is only a perceived one.
Fascists commit acts of violence to terrorize people out of participating in society.
(If that still seems unfair, I can't help you.)
Next, we've got a comment from That One Guy with a good reminder about blaming copyright filters for the ways they can be manipulated:
Not quite, the source of the problem is those that are either ignorant or indifferently malicious and pushing for/mandating those things.
Remove the politicians and groups that are constantly pushing to put The Holy Copyright ahead of anything and everything out of the equation and a whole slew of problems go away, including the one mentioned here, whereas if you just removed the filters they'd come up with some other boneheaded 'solution' to screw things up.
Filters are a problem, but they are not the source of the problem, that honor goes to the fools that are used to push such rubbish and the greedy and/or corrupt individuals and groups that do the pushing.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad with a response to the recent article pointing out how the White House's own content moderation policies look a lot like the ones Trump is complaining about:
But what else would you expect from a left-wing rag like *checks notes* the Washington Examiner?
In second place, it's Qwertygiy with a response to the failed attempt to claim muting a video game character can violate the player's First Amendment rights:
There is no free speech in video games.
You have to pay $9.99 for the DLC.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Tanner Andrews, who was not so sure about the resolution of a trademark dispute with Viacom over the word "slime":
Sorry, not convinced
When I think of slime, I certainly do not think of some kid in NZ.
Indeed, slime is the very essence of Viacom (Nickelodeon), and it works the other way, too. When someone says Viacom, many people think "slime".
And finally, though I tend to think "straw man" accusations get thrown around a bit too wantonly in a lot of debates without actually accomplishing much, we've got an anonymous commenter with a version I've never seen before that I can't help but love on its own merits:
That right there is enough strawmen to need to qualify for a parade permit.
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"fascists"/"antifascists"
It seems wrong because "fascists" are mainly politicians or at least officials serving a fascist government while "antifascists" are civilian protesters. Their opponents in favor of fascist ideology are more like "ultrarights" or something. Antifascists clash more frequently with police and other state authorities than the ultrarights. Of course, that is not entirely unexpected since fascists want more police and state authority and antifascists less.
And it's not exactly like the U.S. is generally moving into a direction unpopular with ultrarights. The ongoing concentration of executive overruling power in the single-person office of a president, to a non-trivial degree exacerbated under the Obama presidency, is very much supporting their leader-craving idea of authority.
And whenever a position of supreme power is created, people undeserving of the forward trust in such a position will gravitate towards it.
At any rate, the "natural enemy" of antifascists are fascists or would-be fascists, namely state actors. The natural enemy of ultrarights are people being different from themselves in opinion, skin color, gender, or whatever else while not accepting and/or supporting their natural superiority often asserting itself in the inability to usefully participate in society.
I'll readily admit that antifascists can easily clash with ultrarights but that does not make the ultrarights "fascists", more like fascism fanboys. The fangirls seem to be a lot less visible, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The distinction between “fascist” and “fascist fanboy” stops existing when the so-called “ultraright” supports and enables fascists. If you do not resist evil, you go along with it.
Oh, and by the by: Nobody uses the term “ultraright”. Use either “far right” or “alt-right”. Better yet, use a far more accurate term: “White nationalists”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Nobody uses the term “ultraright”."
Someone does. Are you "literally" going to "decimate" everyone who chooses not to use your words and phrases, zis zat and ze other zing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not…really? I mean, yeah, maybe there’s a handful of people who happen to use it, but that’s about it.
…the fuck are you smoking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was implying that you are a fascist asshole by attributing a 1943 German accent to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral of the story: Don’t be “that guy”
Well he failed miserably because no one, except you, who for all we know is the OP, knew what the fuck he was on about. And he was also being “that guy” by going on about the literal Latin meaning of decimate. And no one likes “that guy” because he a pedantic prick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sean Hannity, or one of its derivatives, most likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Barrels, and it is all your fault. Ever since I inquired as to what an Apache Attack Helicopter was, I can relate, I too identify as one now. Look it up on YouTube if you want to see my smoking barrels, I know you want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, look, it’s the same anti-trans joke every right winger knows and tells every time they want to belittle, demean, and ultimately dehumanize trans people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you rumpled foreskins ever come up with a single original thought in your entire lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you "literally" going to "decimate" everyone who chooses not to use your words and phrases, zis zat and ze other zing?
Okay, now you're just messing with them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, but “White nationalists” not necessarily. They can be, of course.
https://rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
There is nothing here that says anything about skin colour; and in fact, there are proto-fascist régimes in Africa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think we're specifically discussing America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's amazing that you guys are actually giving awards to people who advocate, obfuscate, or whitewash mob violence (at least when it's only used against the "right" people). Violence against anyone, and in any form, is never acceptable in a civilized society, and that includes violence or threats of violence to "deplatform" bad people who express bad thoughts. Mob violence is never an acceptable form of "democracy in action." That's why we have laws, constitutional rights, and a justice system, as well as many legal alternatives that people can utilize to combat real or perceived "fascism."
It's disappointing that Leigh Beadon (and by extension, Mike Masnick) not only fail to condemn violence, but appear to advocate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi, Herrick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure Jhon boy. It’s only ok when you do it eh? By the way you threaten to rape anyone today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You'll have to let him grieve.
Officer Baby Flashbang got his immunity revoked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, let me explain it to you right wing idiots. When we see weak-kneed idiots who want to portray us in a negative way, like that NGO jerk, we are well within our rights to bash his head in. And that goes for anyone on this forum, too. If you want to point out that our members have knives, brass knuckles, long rifles and the will to use them on anyone that crosses us, that’s fine. But if you want to paint us as criminals or miscreants, well, we’re going to bash your fucking head in, just like that Andy jerk. And by the way, if we see him again, he better learn how to run a little faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you’re going to false flag, at least make it believable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Last month, conservative journalist Andy Ngo was attacked while covering an Antifa protest in Portland, Oregon. He suffered multiple blows to the head, had milkshakes filled with quick drying cement thrown at him and his GoPro camera stolen. Throughout the entire ordeal, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) told police to stand down.
To make matters even worse, Ngo, who is openly gay, was attacked during pride month. And no LBGT organization stood up to condemn Antifa and offer support to Ngo.
Ngo appeared on "The Ingraham Angle" to discuss the attack, offer insight into the group and where he plans to go moving forward.
"It took several hits to my head to realize, 'Oh, I'm getting beaten up right now.' I've never been in a fight. I've never been arrested. I don't drink or do drugs so it was just...I've never encountered anything near it so it was just, I think by the third punch, I was hoping and wishing it'd stop, but it continued," Ngo recalled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait - were they chocolate milkshakes? Or strawberry? Because that changes EVERYTHING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/07/28/antifa-attacked-journalist-andy-ngo-now-hes-ope ning-up-about-what-hes-learned-n2550737
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That isn’t a citation of fact. That’s just the source for your copy-pasting. What proof can you offer, if any, that the milkshakes thrown at Andy Ngo were filled with quick-drying cement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Interesting that you insist on spreading the thoroughly debunked falsehood about the cement.
Ngo should be happy that someone think's he actually a journalist. He can join the ranks of press assaulted by opponents and police.
If one right-wing journalist assault makes Antifa terrorists, then there is no argument what that makes Trumpers:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporter-arrested-assault-journalist-rally-1444834
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The man who died after being shot by Washington state police Saturday while tossing lit objects at vehicles and buildings outside an immigrant detention center self-identified as an anti-fascist, or "antifa," who was motivated by the recent immigration raids and deportations launched by the federal government.
Willem Van Spronsen, a musician and carpenter from Vashon Island, near Seattle, showed up outside a privately owned detention center for Immigration and Customs Enforcement around 4 a.m. Saturday, hours after an organized protest at the facility, armed with a rifle. He began throwing "incendiary devices" at vehicles, lighting one car on fire, and attempting to burn buildings and a propane tank, according to Tacoma police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, yes, he’s the reason antifascists are now one step closer to being treated as terrorists, we get it.
Incidentally, that designation would allow the government to treat anyone who participates in an antifascist action or is part of an antifascist group (regardless of whether the action/group is violent) as a terrorist. I can’t fathom how many U.S. citizens could have their civil rights violated by the government if that “antifascists = terrorists” designation comes to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Antifascists commit acts of violence to defend themselves or others, even if the threat is only a perceived one.
Fascists commit acts of violence to terrorize people out of participating in society.
(If that still seems unfair, I can't help you.)
Yeah, this guy was OK to toss firebombs and try to blow up propane tanks with a long rifle because.. HE HATES TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! YOU HATE TRUMP! FIREBOMBS ALL AROUND!
Who’s a terrorist? Not him! Not me! Not you! We’re just responding to ACTUAL THREATS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t condone the actions of Willem Van Spronsen. But I do understand his intent. It was less about “hating Trump” and more about “shut down the concentration camps on American soil”.
Depends on who you ask. Ask the government, and they’ll likely tell you that anyone who criticizes and insults the government could possibly become a terrorist — if they aren’t one already. (Ask the FBI, and they’ll tell you to wait five days so they can arrest one…that they likely made themselves.)
In fairness to Van Spronsen, American concentration camps exist and are holding Repugnant Cultural Others (according to Trump, anyway) in isolation away from the rest of the population. That is an actual threat to Americans, especially since ICE is now arresting and detaining American citizens based primarily, or possibly only, on their ethnicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is an unfair characterisation since this never was about a lack of common culture (I mean, what does our current president have to do with culture?) rather than a lack of common values. You know, those black and green bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The term “Repugnant Cultural Others” refers not to “common culture”, but to the idea that everyone sees a certain set of people as “repugnant” to some degree. (For example: Trump sees people of color in general as repugnant, given his racist attacks on Mexicans and Black Americans such as Elijah Cummings and Colin Kaepernick.) When you view someone as an RCO, you will treat them less than human — because you already see them as less than human.
To Trump and his supporters and allies, South and Central American immigrants are RCOs. That means they’re not likely to care about the concentration camps — or the people dying in them — unless someone they don’t see as an RCO but is technically part of the group (e.g., an undocumented immigrant living next door to them) suffers the fate of other people in the RCO group. Not giving a shit about the lives of other people is easy when you don’t think those people are even people to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thing that gets to me is that we all have already learned these lessons, from history. We've been here before. Justifying violence is just wrong.
You are wrong to justify violence, every time.
Stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are wrong to justify violence, every time.
You are factually incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Am I a racist, too?
We've been here before, the 1960's. Yuck. We have to learn the same lessons over and over again.
There is no place for violence in American Society. There may well be a place to apply violence to Defend American Society against foreigners, yes. Absolutely. We don't like everybody, that's for sure, sometime foreigners are insufferable and we have to destroy them in order to stand up for our own laws, our own system, our own closely held beliefs. Yes.
But not INSIDE our system, we have laws that allow open discussions and open competition of ideas. No violence INSIDE the American system, no, it's just wrong. The Anti-Fa guys are NOT JUSTIFIED in their use of VIOLENCE, they are WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
Use your words. Use violence, we lock you up, because you don't belong in American Society. You belong in PRISON! Take each and every one of those motherfuckers who publicly tortured Andy Ngo and LOCK THEM UP!
MAGA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We punch Nazis. And red hat fascists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You say “defend American society against foreigners”, and I hear “defend American society against brown people and Muslims”. Funny how dogwhistles work.
You sound like a more unhinged, more racist Donald Trump.
“…unless you’re a cop, in which case you get qualified immunity and the right to kill people without any practical accountability.” — you, probably
And what of Trump supporters who have attacked journalists and have planned attacks against Trump’s perceived enemies — do they get a free pass for their violence because you want to literally kiss Trump’s ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that's right. I'm an American. I believe in American Law, the American System, and the fact that we have one and only one American President at one time.
If Donald J. Trump called upon me to pick up a rifle and shoot you right between the eyes, I would do so, feeling duly authorized by the President of the United States and Leader of The Armed Forces. In fairness, I would have done the same thing for Barry. I didn't like him, but he got himself elected, and I'm an American, so I would have respected his wishes the same way. Boom, same same. Outside something with that type of specific "call of duty" to "honor and my country", no violence allowed. Got it? POTUS says do it, I do it. Other than that, no violence. None. Use violence, go to jail.
About your other horseshit, who fucking cares about dog whistles. You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“I hate violence…unless it’s to kill people I don’t like, in which case sign me the fuck up for the bloodletting.” — you, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We Americans, including my long linage dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the most violent motherfuckers God has ever brought forth on Planet Earth. Yes, that's right. We proved that to the British, we've proven it to the whole world, again and again, over and over.
AND, SIMULTANEOUSLY, we are intellectuals of the first order. Read our laws, study our history, try to comprehend how our founding father described the important qualities of man, his weaknesses, strengths, motivations and connection to God. It all fits together.
Reasoned violence. We execute people, no problem, I think we might have a few next week. That should be good. Stay within the law, reap the benefits of the best society in the world. Break the law, go to prison. Screw with us as a foreigner, and Goodbye Forever!
Get it? There is a connection between the violent urges and the ability to channel those urges into protecting your country, your neighbors, your friends and your family. Americanism! It's great! Go buy a gun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which one of those was police officer Timothy Loehmann protecting when he shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice? Which one was being defended when Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and killed nearly 200 people? Which one was Dylann Roof acting in service of when he walked into Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, pulled out a gun, and killed nine Black people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Honest, I was just following orders.'
I found it rather telling and funny that they went from 'Violence is bad' straight to 'If an authority figure told me to blow your head off that's good enough for me'.
Apparently in their current deranged ranting whether something is acceptable or not entirely depends on whether someone in authority tells them to do it, a mindset that dictators and tyrants the world over have and will continue to cherish, and one that is decidedly un-american.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
Tell that to the US Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines, you asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
“I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II).
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound for any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the authorization order, he wrote that U.S. Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.
The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. Maritime Court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
I'm talking about patriotism and you're talking about the Supreme Court. Who are you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
Last I checked the Supreme Court was American. Do you not like the Supreme Court, Hamilton? How very un-American of you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He probably stopped liking the Supreme Court when they let females serve on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they let females serve on it.
Maybe if they were serving drinks instead that might change his viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
Look, we make room for every idiot view as long as you stay inside the law. Those anti-fa assholes should be locked up, that's fact. There are more Americans just like me than anyone thinks, and we're all connected on a secret network, ready to deploy on a moment's order. We all learned, as children, that if the president tweets "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country", we should rise like a tide of Trump Zombies, with rifles, bibles and flags, and enforce the Will of Trump, Amen. You were warned. Watch the tweets. You'll see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
So no, then. Thanks for confirming.
Maybe stick to writing Melania Trump fanfiction instead next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are a violent, murderous sociopath. Congratulations, you’re fit for police service!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, just to be clear, you are defending the street thugs that as a group beat and tortured Mr. Ngo (on camera), you are defending the crazy person with fire bombs and a rifle that the police had to shoot dead (because you imagine ICE are Nazis), but you are criticizing me because I am willing to risk my life (and end yours) to defend my country, my values, my family and friends.
Who's the wack job, wack job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This coming from the guy who believed Massachusetts tiger fairies were going to descend upon Shiva Ayyadurai's court case and nuke Masnick from orbit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Treasured by children and storytellers for over 75 years, Tajar Tales has delighted many generations of children. First published in 1924, author Jane Shaw Ward created the stories about Tajar in a children's camp in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Retold in camps and family circles ever since, these delightful folktales remain rich in fantasy and imagination.The story takes place in a forest camp near the end of camping season. The whimsical Tajar is "something like a tiger, something like a jaguar, and something like a badger." He loves to dance in the moonlight, but must not be seen by the campers, because "if you see him once, you would forget what he looked like, but if you should see him twice you would forget to forget what he looked like and that would be quite fatal." His forest friends include charming old Madam Witch,who makes her home in a magic tree, and the Range Ranger who "ranges the ranges in that region" and is responsible for the forest and its creatures.
yeah, I totally get that, dancing in the moonlight is delightful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just in case you don’t understand the inference, any family with old money, like 10 generations old, goes to camps that teach this folklore, as young children. Idiot foreigners just don’t get it, but that’s kind of the point, understand, idiot foreigner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that all the Tajars in Massachusetts done fucked up trying to kill off this website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Must have been hard to have all your “friends” go and leave you alone all summer. Would explain some of your bitterness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m American, born and raised by American-born-and-raised parents, and I’ve never heard that folktale in my life, or any variation of it. More importantly, why in the hell was it brought up in this thread?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I’m the goddamn batman
I’m not going to say you are retarded hamilton. Because that’s a slur now. I am however going to say you act like whatever we call those kinds of people now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Honest, I was just following orders.'
Tell that to the US Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines, you asshole.
Sure thing - fuck them too, if that's the level of stupidity they've got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey hamilton if you ever actually tried to pick up a rifle you’d shit yourself and shoot you tiny dingle off in that order. You can’t even talk tough without sounding like a scared bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You shouldn't overgeneralize your experiences. Sorry, I don't actually have an idea what this is supposed to be about but who could resist a cheap shot like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you love the American system and American laws, just not the part of the highest law of America that says the President does not have absolute power and cannot, in fact, authorize someone to commit murder?
So like, you're just openly and proudly a fascist, basically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you condemn President Obama when he ordered the murder via offensive drones of U.S. citizens without due process?
If you did not condemn his actions and speak up for the Constitution, then you support the murder of citizens by presidential decree when it is convenient for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we did. So you ready to fuck off then or do you have another whataboutobama? That as Indy said “should be in a museum!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=drone+strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And now with the part where you are fucking off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Precisely how many years did you spend in school in order to develop such a learned way of expressing yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of failing out of grade school, you seem to be having some trouble with basic reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I did, and I continue to do so. To the point it annoys a lot of my liberal friends because I am so critical of Obama. The drone apparatus he constructed and the extra-judicial killings it enacted were (and are) atrocities. As, in fact, were many of the "perfectly legal" uses of drones and other military actions under his administration. Obama is no longer president. None of these problems have been solved.
...Next question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the reply. You did stand up for the Constitution and you are to be commended for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you condemn President Obama when he ordered the murder via offensive drones of U.S. citizens without due process?
We did. Many times. Here's just one example:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/17184921151/obama-administration-briefly-conside rs-developing-explicit-rules-killer-drones-abandons-process-after-romney-loses-election.shtml
The tribalism some people have in which they assume that we must not have criticized the previous administration is really kind of annoying.
There's a search engine. Use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a search engine. Use it.
See, right there - that's your problem.
To these people search engine usage is the equivalent of devil worship because... Google, Megaupload, blargha flargha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you feel about the following statement:
When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re a bit late to the actual thread bro. Which is too bad because yo boys got their shit pushed back in too and you might have learned a thing or two about embarrassing yourself. Except we all know you mouthbreathing shitminglers would rather eat actual shit then voluntarily lean something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'd think that with the confidence exuded by Hamilton and his army of TOR-generated IP addresses, Trump's 2020 presidency was a done deal. But nah, Hamilton continues to get triggered over copyright trolls getting handed to him because reasons.
I don't know what's sadder - that he thinks Trump is that unassailable in the eye of the public, or that Trump is under threat from a small nobody website that his hero Shiva Ayyadurai failed to toss into the wood chipper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'd think that with the confidence exuded by Hamilton and his army of TOR-generated IP addresses, Trump's 2020 presidency was a done deal. But nah, Hamilton continues to get triggered over copyright trolls getting handed to him because reasons.
He seems pretty upset about the whole Copyright troll thing for some reason. Who know trolls have a union and stick up for each other?
A couple wacckos on the left, and it's an army of terrorists all of a sudden. Nevermind all the violence from Trumpers - that's just protecting 'Murica!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/politics/suspicious-packages-arrest/index.html
RedHatFascist s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ProTip: In Markdown, you must escape the octothorpe (backslash followed by the character — \#) if it sits at the beginning of a line and you want it to show up in your text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. TY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“You say “defend American society against foreigners”, and I hear “defend American society against brown people and Muslims”. Funny how dogwhistles work.
You sound like a more unhinged, more racist Donald Trump.
“…unless you’re a cop, in which case you get qualified immunity and the right to kill people without any practical accountability.” — you, probably
And what of Trump supporters who have attacked journalists and have planned attacks against Trump’s perceived enemies — do they get a free pass for their violence because you want to literally kiss Trump’s ass?
made the Last Word by Gary