The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[Torie]

I would like to believe this is but trolling, but ...

Makes sense. Basically, it's saying, "Okay, we'll give you food stamps paid for by the American taxpayer. But if we find out you're using assistance for shopping at Victoria's secret, or going to the movies, then we take it away."

Similar to mandatory drug testing for welfare.

Liberals should learn to compromise.

Unless I'm missing something, if so please elaborate.

Wouldn't a law such as this violate some of the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Doubtful. You can't take a law passed by a few idealistic bleeding hearts 50 years ago the basis for taking apart what the country always has been.

         

[Torie]

This thread starts off already bad and degenerates fast.

Well I joined it, for better or worse, after noting your post.

[Torie]

In fact, [Nick Clegg] was one of the best leaders ever. He took what he knew would be a politically damaging step to allow the UK to have a stable government in a time of financial crisis when that is what the UK really needed, and acted with honor and steadfastness in the coalition, even when it was politically difficult for him to do so. I salute him for his courage - and for putting Britain first over any party interest. Kudos to him. Would that more politicians act so selflessly.

Yes, I am quite proud of that post actually. It came from the heart, and I felt just so much better having pounded out the keyboard letters, and hitting the "post" button. I wish Clegg were around to read it.

[Torie]

Sen. Franken (D-MN) is officially a YES.

Another self-hater.

Sen. Franken (D-MN) is officially a YES.

Another self-hater.

It's an honor for me to be quoted here when calling traitorous Jews what they are: people who deliberately bring insecurity and terror to their fellow Jews, people who trample on the most beautiful heritage the world has ever known, whether it be out of true self-hatred or sheer opportunism. Please continue to spread my message in the future. Some people could learn from that, even here.

Your 'message' is just as offensive as people calling conservative blacks 'self-haters'. Maybe you ought to think that people should be able have diverse views on politics without having to worry about what they'll be called based on their religion/ethnicity.

It is not white people's place to call conservative blacks "self-haters", but other black people could do that, although they would, in my opinion, obviously be wrong (and probably offensive, but when did that become a crime?). As a Jew, I don't care if my message is offensive to other Jews, because I'm telling the truth and they need to hear it. Either they know I'm telling the truth or looking in the mirror hurts, but eventually they'll hopefully understand what I'm saying.

Sure, people can have a "diverse view on politics". A Jew can be a conservative, a liberal, a socialist, a moderate, I don't care. But a Jew cannot turn against his own people. The nonsensical idea that a Jew can "legitimately" undermine his fellow Jew's security and his right to live in our own country needs to be scorned again and again. The nonsensical idea that a Jew can do the anti-Semite's work (and worse, rendering this work "legitimate" in the eyes of "the world"), like a true Court Jew who bows down to his king, without facing harsh judgment and condemnation from his community needs to be scorned again and again, until everybody knows that one cannot simultaneously stab his fellow Jew in the back and be considered respectable.

Listen, I am a cultural secular WASP and a strong supporter of Israel. Always have been. The reason I think your comment is offensive (the bit in bold), is that many Jews don't believe in good faith that the Iran deal threatens Israel's security, and indeed might enhance it. If they thought otherwise, they would oppose the deal. It's a judgment call. That judgment might be wrong (I don't know enough about the Iran deal, and what the options are at this point (the sanctions regime might be effectively dead now no matter what happens for example), to have an opinion myself), but just because the judgment is wrong, does not make such Jews self haters, or indifferent to Israel. I might add that Alan Dershowitz who opposes the deal, suggests that probably the best option at this point, given what he views as the incompetent negotiating, is for Congress to embrace the statement of intent in the preamble of the deal that Iran is never to have nukes, and vote to grant POTUS authority to use force if that is necessary to take out Iran nukes if and when they come into being to carry out the intent of the preamble. In his view, the milk now has largely been spilt, due to Obama's ineptitude.

Your comment was reported, which is why I am weighing in here. I don't think it a violation of the TOS myself (it is your sincerely held opinion), but I hope you will ponder what I am saying, and think about walking your comment back, and just suggest perhaps that it saddens you that so many Jews just have such poor judgment as you see it on this matter. JMO. Take care.

[Torie]

It's kind of sobering when one of my more creative efforts at word smithing gets into the penalty box. I guess that implies that most of my posts are not good enough to even make it into the penalty box, stuck as they are in the innermost ring of Dantean hell.

[Torie]

This is beyond terrible and should be ban-worthy.

Hopefully we will not have redux. We shall see.

[Torie]

DavidB can explicitly condone terrorism yet IndyTexas saying mean things (in an obviously unserious manner) about teh joos is "banworthy"? Interesting.

You really don't get the distinction? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It gets dicier when in the present I must admit, but when going back in history, I don't see a problem when it comes to violating the rules. It may be a horrible opinion, but not all horrible opinions are infractable.

[Torie]

DavidB can explicitly condone terrorism yet IndyTexas saying mean things (in an obviously unserious manner) about teh joos is "banworthy"? Interesting.

You really don't get the distinction? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It gets dicier when in the present I must admit, but when going back in history, I don't see a problem when it comes to violating the rules. It may be a horrible opinion, but not all horrible opinions are infractable.

One person's words seem to encourage violent acts to forward political goals, another's words hurt feelings. Obviously I think that you know which one I think is more deserving of punishment - if we are to go that route with moderation anyway.

If someone advocated going forward terrorism in a specific context, that would be something to ponder carefully. If it actually was intended to incite, as in urging forumites to become suicide bombers, then we are into the category of shouting fire in a crowded theatre situation, and that would be infractible, and in my example, bannable. This should not be that hard. As always, it is a judgment call, and there are close cases, and the specific facts in any given situation become important.

[Torie]

One person's words seem to encourage violent acts to forward political goals, another's words hurt feelings. Obviously I think that you know which one I think is more deserving of punishment - if we are to go that route with moderation anyway.

There are many others in that thread, such as CrabCake and MalaspinaGold, who arrive at the conclusion that certain historical terrorist acts, perpetrated under extreme circumstances, could be considered moral. Do you want to ban these people too, or do you only have a problem with people who think this certain terrorist act in the past perpetrated by Jews could be considered legitimate?

Besides, I wonder if you would consider it "Atlas acceptable" if non-Jews were called "ape-people"... The problem is clearly not that it "hurts people's feelings", but that it is outright racist. Also, lmao @ that comment being "obviously unserious".

It really does not matter whether the comment was intended to be serious or not. Making that kind of comment is never deemed funny in the Cave. We just don't have much of a sense of humor I guess.

[Torie]

that didn't stop the red avatars (or the homosexual wisconsinite) from crapping all over the iowa and nevada monmouth polls.

Unnecessary.

That's disgusting.