Alex Jones seems to believe every theory that crosses his desk.

He also should be the poster boy for what's happened to discourse in this country at large. Gone are the days when people try and convince each other, now we only try to get the most attention from the side that already agrees with us. A shouting tirade of uninterrupted drivel, and if you shout loud enough, there seems to be no shortage of people willing to put a microphone in front of you.

Oh, and gun rights as a basis to defend yourself from the military is retarded. The military would lay waste to whatever arsenal you've got held up in your compound in Montana. You wouldn't even get a chance to hear the supersonic missile that blasts you and your preparations to smithereens.

In that type of revolutionary scenario, the only hope would be in a fractured military, and none of that would be very pretty.

The sad thing is , Alex Jones occasionally grazes and actual decent point, like about large multinational corporations being beyond national taxes and laws, but it's lost in so much bullshit, who could care to listen to him.

He would do well to focus on something, instead of trying to fit every bullshit crackpot idea someone tried to sell a book on into a five minute conversation.

Shame that people who voted for McConnell either don't care, think it's amusing, or wonder off into a delusional tirade about how Obama is the one who smashed the country.

Thanks and ta for the upvotes. I hope what's left is good stuff. I'd prefer this to show as my unsifted items and maybe they'll get published.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
I am due to do the same. : Looking through your pq there is a lot of good stuff. I'm just glad you weren't on a tirade eliminating everything. Not that it's any of my business. Anyway, I am a bit of a pack rat in real life, saving random things that I might possibly need years in the future. so I guess keeping videos I like with a few votes in my pq is like keeping them in the closet next to my card collection and old electronics cord box makes sense.
In reply to this comment by Deano:
In reply to this comment by geo321:
Killing Spree! :


It had to be done! A bit of belated spring cleaning :

I am due to do the same. Looking through your pq there is a lot of good stuff. I'm just glad you weren't on a tirade eliminating everything. Not that it's any of my business. Anyway, I am a bit of a pack rat in real life, saving random things that I might possibly need years in the future. so I guess keeping videos I like with a few votes in my pq is like keeping them in the closet next to my card collection and old electronics cord box makes sense.
In reply to this comment by Deano:
In reply to this comment by geo321:
Killing Spree! :


It had to be done! A bit of belated spring cleaning :

For a little more detail on the story here: Mike Bost, Lawmaker, Erupts Into Tirade During State Pension Debate

EDIT: Link wasn't showing properly

I dig her accent~ESPECIALLY if it is offensive to "proper" French nationals!

I know nothing at all about the space program but methinks this brave woman deserves a fucking medal! The same tirades should be a regular feature in the U.S. house and senate. CSPAN would become a ratings MACHINE!!

GUY IN DRESS: "ORDER, ORDER."

PEOPLE WHO CAN SEE THROUGH HIS DRESS: "Fuck order, WHO DRESSED YOU THIS MORNING?!"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Evolution, Tirade, racism, flordia atlantic university, fau' to 'Evolution, Tirade, racism, flordia atlantic university, fau, Jonatha Carr' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Evolution, Tirade' to 'Evolution, Tirade, racism, flordia atlantic university, fau' - edited by xxovercastxx

@ChaosEngine - ah, my mistake. I think you've gone a bit overboard in your last post though, as i think your words can easily be misconstrued to mean that join them is the ONLY option (which is the source of the misunderstanding).

My opinion of this woman is certainly emotional - it can't be anything else by definition. But how i spoke to you certainly wasn't emotional and i would like to think that you'll see that it was a misunderstanding, i also used selective language to avoid that impression

I mean, all i said was "When did i join em?" (oop, and the last line) so i hope you don't think there was some tirade in there against you. The rest was all unrelated and in reference to our disagreement over how much "rough justice" we're willing to allow

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.

>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, and @Lawdeedaw, you might be interested in the above rant as well.


I always love a good tirade

@chilaxe

What does this video have to do AT ALL with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?! Nothin.

So why don't you "chilax" with all your "cognitive complexity" master race, jingoist, racist, segregationist rhetoric.

Immigration by non-whites ≠ Socialism

You're scapegoating on minorities cause dim to understand something as cognitively complex as: helping other human beings.


And just FYI, Randall Parkers racist, jingoist, segregationist tirades from a collection of opinion articles entitled - Immigration Societal Decay - DOES NOT qualify as "evidence" of marxist communist EVIIIL socialist experiments in the US.. or anywhere for that matter.



..you old racist ass, anti-multiculturist bigot.

Please do not confuse classical liberalism (now known as libertarianism) with the marxist and communist twaddle known as "modern liberalism", a preventable mental disorder that will be the ruin of Western Civ.

Political correctness is your training program to be a good slave.

YOUR training, not mine, Numbnuts.




>> ^Fade:

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.
Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:
The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.

Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:

The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

Almost getting violent is not illegal.

Your link and your examples support my point completely. There are limits to free speech: when they cause harm to others. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or my examples of inciting violence or causing discrimination, all cause harm.

Being an asshole on the subway does not cause harm.

She never threatened anyone (so there goes any "uttering threats" charge) and harassment is almost by definition a repetitive act (which means this likely can't be called that either, legally).

With regards to freedom of speech not superseding other rights, here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point out which one her freedom of speech was superseding. There is no "everyone has the right to never be offended and to be sheltered from the opinions of others."
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.
The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.
I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.