I cant say as I'd really want to play Diablo 3 multiplayer either. It doesn't strike me as that kind of game. If I had friends who also played it, which I don't, and they happened to be playing at the same time I happened to play, which would be unlikely, it might be fun if you could just jump in and out of games, but I certainly have no interest in playing on public servers with random people because, well, I'm sure you know why.

I can surely understand other people wanting to play it multiplayer though, but it ain't for me. This is why all the logging in and dealing with things like lag and dropped connections is ridiculous. I can't, for instance, play it while I'm waiting for a file to download (which it would be IDEAL for) because then I get a 500ms ping and it's effectively unplayable.

So, anyways, that part of the whole deal is unequivocally and in the most politically incorrect sense of the term possible, retarded.

There's a growing minority in Japan worshiping every aspects of African-American culture, especially in the music scene like hip-hop or jazz. The funny thing is that even though they're doing it out of love, their method of respect for African-American culture come off as incredibly racist and demonstrate a very shallow understanding of its people.

The Japanese have their own theory of what 'being black' is and it is purely based on western media. They keep the same stereotype that exists throughout North America that all blacks are athletic, good at music, dance, and not very interested in academia. But because being black makes everything about you cool, all the stereotypes and racist biases become cool as well. So not doing your homework or putting on a black-face make up is okay now, because Africans don't do homework and their skin is black. The youth of Japan especially identify with these traits (even though they're all savagely politically incorrect from a western point of view) because they identify with dancing and not doing homework more than they do with strict Japanese social etiquette, so they celebrate all the biased and want to imitate them, without understanding how these racist ideas about blacks really came about.

It's weird and ironic and hilarious and wrong in this twisted, fastidious way in all aspects. It's fucking amazing.

You know... This is completely politically incorrect, but...

The boomers raped the economy, created one of the biggest world market crashes in history, were in power, both in elected office and by holding the balance of power in votes during the greatest shift between rich and poor (in the direction of the rich) in recent history and they racked up the biggest debt in history, leaving it to future generations to pay back.

In short, they've screwed the world for the rest of us.

Now they want billions of dollars for research and treatment so they can hold on for longer in their old-age homes and wipe out the inheritance?

Seriously? While young couples scrape to take care of their kids, and dream that one day, maybe they'll be able to afford higher education, if some of this crap gets sorted out.

I say screw 'em.

Let their brains rot. We shouldn't be spending another dime on them.

Of course they still vote in massive numbers, so that will never happen. They'd rather have children starving in the streets than suffer the slightest discomfort. They'll just rack up another few billion on the deficit for everyone left behind to pay off. What do they care? By the time anyone in power develops the backbone to actually DO something about the situation they'll be long dead.

>> ^rottenseed:

I like this...what is it?


The show? It's Life on Mars. The original British version (there's also a not very good US remake). It's an awesome show, one of my favorites.

No, because you have to be politically correct about political incorrectness.>> ^handmethekeysyou:

"Her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann is drawing heated criticism for his highly questionable stance on homosexuality."
Can't we calll this "his ignorant stance on homosexuality" yet? When do we get to do that?

wow, did we watch the same video? you were truly offended by his lame comedy?
>> ^pointykitty:

What an asshole.
I mean I'd love to indulge in his bullshit-I'm-not-politically-incorrect-I'm-just-telling-it-like-it-is-crapfest but the guy is a fucking asshole. He can't talk about ideals without classifying and taking a giant categorical shit on people he ideally thinks you might disagree with. Fuck him.

What an asshole.

I mean I'd love to indulge in his bullshit-I'm-not-politically-incorrect-I'm-just-telling-it-like-it-is-crapfest but the guy is a fucking asshole. He can't talk about ideals without classifying and taking a giant categorical shit on people he ideally thinks you might disagree with. Fuck him.

So has anyone who thinks Political Incorrectness is a good thing. There is nothing chivalrous in taking a minority view, if that view is a steaming pile of crap.
>> ^NaMeCaF:
On a side-note, anyone who thinks Political Correctness is a good thing has seriously lost their mind.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

*weigh

I just failed at spelling.

>> ^diction:

The only way to know if she is a witch:
Does she weight the same as a duck?

>> ^diction:

The only way to know if she is a witch:
Does she weight the same as a duck?


We shall use my largest scales!

The only way to know if she is a witch:
Does she weight the same as a duck?
>> ^castles:

Christine O'Donnell is a WITCH! If she isn't, then why won't she show us her birth certificate?! SHOW US THE CERTIFICATE!

Your video, Bill Maher: Christine O'Donnell on Politically Incorrect, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^packo:

>> ^marinara:
that guys wife was held on 911

held?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson#Death

For those of you who don't know Barbara Olson was on American Airlines Flight 77.

Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 on her way to a taping of Politically Incorrect in Los Angeles, when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11 attacks.

Flight 77 was hijacked at 8:54. At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Olson called her husband. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and boxcutters.[3] She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the rear of the plane.[3] About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off.[3]

Shortly after, Barbara reached her husband again. She reported that the "pilot" had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses. Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. Ted Olson informed Barbara of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic at the time. At that point, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher left a panel seat vacant for a week following her death.

Yep, that's some old old old school humour from the Paul Hogan show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paul_Hogan_Show).

Political incorrectness at it's best. ; )