What La La Land & the Superbowl reveal about the far left

Rune said:
That isn't even the real point.
The point is that Trump's order violated the legitimate right of permanent legal aliens as well as green card holders to return to their homes.
In that, CFM is entirely incorrect.
Click to expand...

Yet you don't have the guts to directly respond to me, pussy. Keep hiding like the coward you are.
 
Rune said:
This thread is about nothing but Grind's ever expanding ego.
Again who gives a flying fuck?
Click to expand...

You're making it about Grind. White privilege is your ability to say fvck it it doesn't matter. If you want to brag about being so compassionate as a liberal then here you go, this better be important to you. Do you care about P.O.C. or not?
 
cawacko said:
You just said those who are arguing over the two movies as shown in the OP are far left.
Click to expand...


You are asking me to pass judgment on people I don't know based on your incomplete reporting of their social media activities. I am sure some are far left.

Do you think I am suggesting that anybody that rooted for the Falcons is far left? Probably not, so then why would you assume that I was suggesting that anyone concerned about minorities in film is?

I rooted for the Falcons because the Patriots are cheaters and I usually pull for the NFC South teams which I know better (I did pull for the Broncos because of Manning over the Panthers). You can't take that one position and declare me far left based upon it anymore than I can make statements about black people in your facebook feed based on one point.

I was talking more about the fact that there are many in the far left that do not consider anything past identity, just as grind and the rest of the alt-rightpc does.
 
CFM said:
Maybe you don't know the difference between WITHIN and from OUTSIDE.

Typical dumbass open borders piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I do. How does that abrogate the right? You have not given an answer coward. Can you explain why that distinction is important or are you afraid to do so?
 
Rune said:
That isn't even the real point.
The point is that Trump's order violated the legitimate right of permanent legal aliens as well as green card holders to return to their homes.
In that, CFM is entirely incorrect.
Click to expand...


That's a defacto legal point and not the one I made. Defacto legal points are determined by the government. The inalienable rights of the individual are not.
 
cawacko said:
You're making it about Grind. White privilege is your ability to say fvck it it doesn't matter. If you want to brag about being so compassionate as a liberal then here you go, this better be important to you. Do you care about P.O.C. or not?
Click to expand...

I care less than zero about Grind's childish trolling.
The rest of YOUR bullshit is on YOU
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Nope. I am not sty, robo or an anarchist. Reasonable restrictions and limits do not abrogate the right. For instance, the right to free speech is not done away with by libel and slander laws.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and look up the word "free".

I'll do it for you. Without costs, unimpeded, able to act or do as one wishes. When libel and slander laws involved someone paying a price when he/she does what he/she wants, that's impeding speech. It's no longer free.

Try again, pussy.
 
CFM said:
Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and look up the word "free".

I'll do it for you. Without costs, unimpeded, able to act or do as one wishes. When libel and slander laws involved someone paying a price when he/she does what he/she wants, that's impeding speech. It's no longer free.

Try again, pussy.
Click to expand...

You suck at this. That's a clear equivocation. Political freedom is not about costs. It's about a lack of restraint.

But basically you are arguing that no rights exists since all of them can and are limited by the government or simply by the costs associated with their exercise. I mean, speaking is going to COST you some calories, you fucking moron.

The fact that you cannot libel or slander others does nothing to restrict your legitimate right to speak on any issue you care to.

When are you going to answer my question, coward? Why does one have the right to move from NY to Florida but not from Cuba to Florida? Btw, moving usually has costs associated with it but does none that abrogate the right.
 
CFM,

How does an idiot like you feel about Trump's desire to expand slander and libel laws to a point where they would represent a clear violation of free speech?
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Nope. I am not sty, robo or an anarchist. Reasonable restrictions and limits do not abrogate the right. For instance, the right to free speech is not done away with by libel and slander laws.
Click to expand...

Open borders completely undermines the rule of law within a nation. That makes you an anarchist in effect, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Just for fun, do you personally agree with libel and slander laws?
 
Visas didn't even exist before WWI, people could pretty much just enter and leave any country as they wished. Did rule of law not exist before WWI?

Rightists have confused tight immigration restrictions with freedom itself for some reason. Visas, a totalitarian emergency control introduced during a total war, have become to them more important than the constitution itself.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
You suck at this. That's a clear equivocation. Political freedom is not about costs. It's about a lack of restraint.

But basically you are arguing that no rights exists since all of them can and are limited by the government or simply by the costs associated with their exercise. I mean, speaking is going to COST you some calories, you fucking moron.

The fact that you cannot libel or slander others does nothing to restrict your legitimate right to speak on any issue you care to.

When are you going to answer my question, coward? Why does one have the right to move from NY to Florida but not from Cuba to Florida? Btw, moving usually has costs associated with it but does none that abrogate the right.
Click to expand...

I don't argue anything of the sort. You suck if you think that is the case.

When you pay a price for doing something you believe is absolute, that right is being restricted.

I've answered your question. You simply didn't like the answer. When are you going to answer mine you fucking piece of shit? I don't expect you to answer because that's how your kind functions. You've made an excuse why you won't which proves your existence is worthless since the only thing you're good at is making excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top