Tags for this video have been changed from 'pat condell, islam, atheist, rant, angry brit' to 'pat condell, islam, atheist, rant, angry brit, racist brit' - edited by longde

Fuck you Pat Condell, stay the fuck out of US politics until you read the constitution.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I only needed to hear him compare the EU with Soviet Union to stop watching the video. I'm sure, as it's his usual, the future is bleak, we're all going to die, and everything will end in WW3, etc.
Pat Condell is annoying.

So, you don't listen to any opinion past the point where you don't agree? It appears to follow, then, that you only listen to those with an opinion to which you concur. That's not particularly enlightened or open-minded thinking! You remind me of the religious who, confronted with things THEY do not wish to hear, stick their fingers in their ears and go; "Blah, Blah, Blah." Try listening to the video in full, then make an educated assessment of it.


oh, so when someone starts making a point, by saying something completely imbecile you think they may still have a point? You must waste a lot of time in your life.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I only needed to hear him compare the EU with Soviet Union to stop watching the video. I'm sure, as it's his usual, the future is bleak, we're all going to die, and everything will end in WW3, etc.
Pat Condell is annoying.

So, you don't listen to any opinion past the point where you don't agree? It appears to follow, then, that you only listen to those with an opinion to which you concur. That's not particularly enlightened or open-minded thinking! You remind me of the religious who, confronted with things THEY do not wish to hear, stick their fingers in their ears and go; "Blah, Blah, Blah." Try listening to the video in full, then make an educated assessment of it.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I only needed to hear him compare the EU with Soviet Union to stop watching the video. I'm sure, as it's his usual, the future is bleak, we're all going to die, and everything will end in WW3, etc.
Pat Condell is annoying.


I definitely enjoyed his videos more when he was a comedian first and a political activist second.

But, hey, at least it's not another Skyrim bug video.

I only needed to hear him compare the EU with Soviet Union to stop watching the video. I'm sure, as it's his usual, the future is bleak, we're all going to die, and everything will end in WW3, etc.

Pat Condell is annoying.

The other point to make here, is that google/facebook/twitter/whatever do no make LAWS that punishes people. They are private companies that are free to choose what not to publish/allow on their servers/channels. That is THEIR right. Being banned from youtube is not the same as being put in jail.
>> ^hpqp:

I imagine you're referencing those instances in which he speaks out against blasphemy laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate speech. Blasphemy laws make it illegal to criticise someone's beliefs, hate speech laws make it illegal to incite hatred and violence against people because of their nature (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation).
I am all against blasphemy laws, but I support legislation against hate speech. It is not hate speech to say, for example, that the Qur'an (and the Bible/Torah for that matter) is full of violence, hate and intolerance, and that Mohammad was a warmongerer and a pedophile. It is hate speech to say that men and women deserve death and eternal torture for loving someone of the same sex, and I would go further: teaching that ignorant belief to children is not only spiteful and irresponsible, but is a form of child abuse.
>> ^marinara:
So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

I imagine you're referencing those instances in which he speaks out against blasphemy laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate speech. Blasphemy laws make it illegal to criticise someone's beliefs, hate speech laws make it illegal to incite hatred and violence against people because of their nature (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation).

I am all against blasphemy laws, but I support legislation against hate speech. It is not hate speech to say, for example, that the Qur'an (and the Bible/Torah for that matter) is full of violence, hate and intolerance, and that Mohammad was a warmongerer and a pedophile. It is hate speech to say that men and women deserve death and eternal torture for loving someone of the same sex, and I would go further: teaching that ignorant belief to children is not only spiteful and irresponsible, but is a form of child abuse.

>> ^marinara:

So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

>> ^hpqp:

Yeah, protecting the 99.9% of the community from the criminal thugs that are burning their homes, cars and small businesses by cracking down (non-lethally of course) on the looters in time, now that's STATIST OPPRESSION!! ugh.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^ryanbennitt:
>> ^kymbos:
This guy is such a cock.
Nothing leaves me so uneasy as people who see simple solutions to large, complex problems.

He offered a solution? I must have missed that...

I think his solution was an increase of government force and government agents to battle the rioters. We need to get the people used to seeing the police as a paramilitary force.
Pat wants the police to go in "cracking heads" ... yet a couple of weeks ago he said violence was NEVER the answer. He must have meant unless you're the government.
Pat Condell = Statist.



Is that what's going on? From what I can tell, police were told to stand by and observe violent crime while it happened. The nanny state refuses to do it's job. So what do we need? A BIGGER nanny state with more government agents carrying guns to protect themselves. Should the citizens protect themselves? NO! The nanny state will protect you. We'll just need more of your money to buy riot gear, tear gas, assault rifles, and a bunch of other new toys. Of course we'll also need more money to employ more agents to battle the rioters.

This is all a ruse. The police let the "retail riots" happen, so they could justify expanding government force--preparation to crack heads on authentic revolutionaries in the near future.

I agree with Pat Condell, even as I acknowledge that the people that helped cause the GFC should be more harshly punished.

But it's hardly conducive to a better society as a whole to cause immense amounts of infrastructure damage (do they think the money to fix this will fall from heaven?) and private businesse damage and theft (insurance goes up = prices go up for everyone) to compound the issues of the GFC... Never mind the private property damage and loss of life.

The people rioting and looting never think in these terms, they only care about their own personal benefit. We're not talking about legitimate protestors here...

eg. http://videosift.com/video/Interview-with-UK-Riot-Looters

These young guys go on about all the things the government should reinstate, after boasting about the things they ripped off. Yep, great thinking guys, the increased spending on policing and replacing destroyed infrastructure and property is GUARANTEED to leave plenty of tax dollars over to subsidise your university educations... /eyeroll

And Condell is absolutely right re: countries like Somalia... Growing up in a country with a social welfare system that might not cater to every need as much as they might like it to is miles away from living in a country where the ability to steadily supply your children with food is almost impossible.

Yeah, protecting the 99.9% of the community from the criminal thugs that are burning their homes, cars and small businesses by cracking down (non-lethally of course) on the looters in time, now that's STATIST OPPRESSION!! ugh.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ryanbennitt:
>> ^kymbos:
This guy is such a cock.
Nothing leaves me so uneasy as people who see simple solutions to large, complex problems.

He offered a solution? I must have missed that...

I think his solution was an increase of government force and government agents to battle the rioters. We need to get the people used to seeing the police as a paramilitary force.
Pat wants the police to go in "cracking heads" ... yet a couple of weeks ago he said violence was NEVER the answer. He must have meant unless you're the government.
Pat Condell = Statist.

>> ^Peroxide:

I did for you, what a short sighted status-quo supporting buffoon.
"These youth should be content to make my big macs for the rest of their lives! Lousy no goodin' disrespectin' authority YOUTHS!"
Yeah, they have NO good reason to be upset... Typical response of the wealthy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/10-7
>> ^ghark:
wow, wish I could downvote this guy



cheers mate, interesting link too, it seems him and Pat Condell need to shack up some time.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

>> ^kymbos:
This guy is such a cock.
Nothing leaves me so uneasy as people who see simple solutions to large, complex problems.

He offered a solution? I must have missed that...


I think his solution was an increase of government force and government agents to battle the rioters. We need to get the people used to seeing the police as a paramilitary force.

Pat wants the police to go in "cracking heads" ... yet a couple of weeks ago he said violence was NEVER the answer. He must have meant unless you're the government.

Pat Condell = Statist.