And I am Kallen Kozuki, leader of Zero's honor guard. Even though this is a land of justice and those damned Britannian sympathizers Sage and Sechs are fascists, they've still got a few right ideas.

So no posting stuff off the DNP! And nothing that's illegal in the real world!

My Guren and I won't show you any sympathy if you do!

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - Noam Chomsky

These people, and anyone who agrees with them, should just form a line to be shot in the genitals and thrown off a cliff.

>"The Good consists in a dialectic of Good and Evil. Evil consists in the negation of this dialectic, in a radical dissociation of Good and Evil, and by extension in the autonomy of the principle of Evil. Whereas the Good presupposes a dialectical involvement of Evil, Evil is founded on itself alone, in pure incompatibility. Evil is thus master of the game, and it is the principle of Evil, the reign of eternal antagonism, that must eventually carry off the victory."

I'm such a toolbox for quoting a French sociologist, but he (Baudrillard) is right. Evil wins because we are so fucking baffled by it that we don't have an equal response. Evil just says that evil and good doesn't exist, and flips off the rulebook. Then what do we do?

You're talking about Pakistan, a muslim country. When a female gets raped, it's her fault, always. Doesn't matter what her age is, where she was, what she was doing, etc. If she gets raped, she obviously did something to bring it upon herself.

That's the mindset of these 'people' all over the Middle East, and I use the term 'people' loosely.

Can we please just nuke that whole region back to the stone age?

Oh wait, they're already there. Mentally at least.

>>14067

There's also enough moral relativist douche bags that go to bat for evil and insist that it doesn't exist.

"So I've finally come to the conclusion that we've become the enemy, and that there's no alternative."
(Murtha, Dec. 12, 2005)

"... they [Marine] killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference)

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Times."
(Murtha, Reuters, May 19, 2006)

"American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran."
(Murtha, June 24, 2006 South Florida Sun-Sentinel)

Words to be remembered by.

Good riddance.

Perhaps it was a sanctioned hit, like what happened to Principal Longfellow?

>>14044

Marder? Did someone say marder?

But in all seriousness, this guy is terrible, and really typifies and shows that the majority of vocal "anti-gay" activists really are what stereotypes describe them as.

Also, can I just throw out my hate for the people out there that are "offended for gays" by comments such as "gay" and stuff? I got told to stop saying "that's gay" by some straight girl in the middle of class, and I'm bi. >_<

>>14045

I'm a bi-curious guy who tries to get people to stop saying 'that's gay'. It's not because I'm offended by it so much as it's the level of insult that an eight year old would use.

I like his comment about "viewing them as sexual objects."
Maybe we should ban men from serving, god knows they look at women that way.
Hell I bet some women do the same to men!
ROBOT ARMY GO

>>14055
Yep. That's when the argument ended for me.

One of the more important points that ol' Spriggs could (and really should) have brought up was the likelyhood of increased animosity toward open homesexuals in the military. Not necessarily a good point, but one that could be defended. He most certainly wouldn't have come off as being such an incredibly huge turd.

And Sharon brings up a good point in >>14041
but I have to say that the chances of a gay person NOT being in close proximity to people who DO care (for the worse) is probably 50/50.

Yeah, I had a feeling it was edited. Something just seemed... off about the arguments in the aired version.

Still, it is nice that they're willing to put up the unedited version.

Just watched the unedited version, and I have to say it's given me a little more respect for Bill O'Reilly (not necessarily Fox news as a whole).

lol, gawker.

I love how they make it seem like everything that FNC does is part of some massive evil reich (lol see what i did thar?) wing white hate machine, surely every single cut that's ever made to any interview ever is just because someone is trying to make another person look bad, surely. Such things as time concerns are non-existent.

Now, as I've said before, I don't particularly care for O'Reilly because I find him to be little more than a simple populist. I did see the interview in question though because I was hoping to see some humorous banter between the two like you see between O'Reilly and Colbert. Frankly, I thought that there was little of substance said in the entire interview. There were some decent spots here and there and I thought that Stewart scored some good points with the KSM and Guantanamo bits, but he seemed to flail a bit when O'Reilly brought up how he, and so many other people, seem to be incapable of telling the difference between commentary and hard news. To make matters worse, a bunch of things that were cut simply reinforce Stewart treating the commentary shows as though they were hard news (which after the point above would've made him look bad, but tell that to the gawker who masturbates furiously at those lines).

The following part from the article made me lol particularly hard though

>Stewart: [F]ox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."

LOL, someone didn't pay much attention to FNC and is simply going with the generic FNC is evil meme (what makes this even better is that later in the article, gawker talks about how Stewart goes after the "Real America" meme).

tl;dr - not a bad interview, gawker is shit

>>14050

The suggestion's usually made jokingly. :P

Actually, that might be interesting, if you think about it.

All the glaring, obvious reasons of favoritism NOT to do it aside, what are the two things a corporation would be concerned with in office? Public image and the economy. They wouldn't want to get in trouble or be TOO blatantly corrupt because it would hurt their PR, and they'd want the economy to be good and employment to be high so that people would be able to spend more. They'd also (with a few exceptions) know that the money you spend has to come somewhere and you can't make more of it magically appear just by going ahead and spending it.

Sure, it's a ridiculously stupid idea... but it has more theoretical benefits than electing Obama did.

None of this would be a problem if limitations were kept on the Government.

>>14053
The limits are there. The trick is getting the government to abide by them. But when you have people in office who want to change the meanings of words in order to benefit their agendas, it makes it a bit difficult to say the least.

Man, and Australia didn't even get the fun and interest of a good old-fashioned revolution, or at least a charismatic leader, before it descended into fascism.

I'd rip on Australia for this, but really, I've come to expect this sort of bullshit from them nowadays.

Well this didn't take too long.

24 hours after the internet fucking exploded. Atkinson said he will "reappeal the law retrospectively", of course <i>after he is reelected</i>. Until then he does not intend to 'enforce' the new law.

What a cocky sonofabitch, does he think he honestly has a chance now?

Supposedly, his main reasoning behind the new law was to root out "Liberal plants" on the AdelaideNow website (Aussie liberals are not USA liberals), however one who Atkinson says "Does not exist" actually lives half a kilometer down the road, and is a well known pro-lib blogger.

A lot of MP's who voted for the law were 'surprised' at the backlash, one even thinking that he might have been 'mislead'.

I think it's clear that Aussie politicians are completely out of touch with the requirements of their public.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/mike-meet-aaron-he-lives-500m-from-your-office/story-e6frea6u-1225826082741

>>14031

"Since everyone's so pissed about me trying to censor them, I'm going to see what I can do to shut them up after the bunch of idiots re-elect me to censor them all over again."

I hardly need incumbency during the worst years of the depression to hate what FDR did to the country. The error with the thought of people hating "X" simply because "X" is not "Y" is fallacious because that's not how most people work. In fact, that's often what is added as a precursor to such arguments, "Well most people think this way but I am different!" followed by explaining why these people actually think about their choices in their personal politics. While there are people that fall into the 'group think' mentality, and while I no doubt believe that 'group think' is often subject to the lowest common denominator, there is some sort of reasoning that goes on in every person's mind. Whether that reason is something as base as, "Well, they hate him and he was in while "X" happened so I hate him too!" I have a sneaking suspicion that most people aren't quite so single-minded in their reasoning, or rather lack thereof.

In any event, people are polarized today, moreso than usual because even the morons of the bunch can see the writing on the wall. Something needs to be done about the economy and most everyone has at least a general idea as to how they see it should be handled. Dittos for health care.

I do have to say I love how butthurt Europeans get about American domestic debates though. I don't see reason in harping them over their various universal health systems and if I mention one it's only as an example as to why I don't want such a system in my own country. It's quite stunning to see how people that claim that the U.S. is something without consequence to them and yet they seem to put so much focus on us, constantly. It would be flattering if it weren't so damned annoying.

>>14021

Pride seems to suspect. The US is like Jr. Europe to many Europeans it seems because of the youth of the nation overall(I'll ignore that European nation states aren't that old either to keep the debate simple) and its origins.

The US is also accepted, if not grudgingly, as the leader of the West, if not the world, a position many European nations held at one point or another in the past.

So, lots of judgment to go around.

>>14021

Your health care is the best. You system is about as effective as communism, and you all end up paying collectively for it anyway. Right now we have a bunch of people fighting to keep other people suffering more every year at a higher cost for themselves anyway.

>>14017
You don't think that kind of pendulum swinging is, well, retarded? Rather than actually care about what happens and what is done about it in the long-term, they just blindly swing the other way when they're feeling upset enough and then pretend it's some triumph for "people comma we the!".

>>14015
Yeah, because right-wing Americans love freedom, don't they? Yeah right - you're also part of the petty infighting. Your party simply has slightly bigger lungs at this point, but quite frankly you supporting them is inconsequential and irrational at this point. They are as unambitious and corrupt as the democrats, only they employ fear more effectively.

>And no I don't think I need to be civil, you already set the tone to be as nasty and arrogant as one can possibly be.

No need for flattery.

>>13941

Yes, just what we need to take over a country that already suffers from catastrophic earthquakes every other year!

>>13941
Holy fuck, that is hilarious.

Has Chavez been reading Deathlands lately? If I recall, in the series the Soviets/Russians planted seismic bombs along the coast of California. When the war came, well... you get the idea.

>>13943
>>13981
>>13982
Well, you have to admire the fact that he's covering all his bases, so in the event that any kind of natural disaster hits Venezuela (or anywhere) he can simply blame the US.

>experimental shockwave system that can also create "weather anomalies to cause floods, droughts and hurricanes."