The horror.... the horror ....

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Show me a direct quote where she has said that she had a conversati0n with "god" that influenced her decisions. Otherwise STFU.

What in the hell do you think praying is, if not communicating with God?
Anyway, here's Hillary having conversations with dead people.




http://www.911omissionreport.com/hillary_eleanor/

Mrs. Clinton wrote about her imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt in her June 10 syndicated column. She said she talked to Roosevelt about the role of a first lady.
"She usually responds by telling me to buck up, or at least to grow skin as thick as a rhinoceros," Mrs. Clinton wrote.

Look up the word imaginary dumbass. Congrats! You just made my case.
Now it's time for the   button. Bye Bye troll

Idiots on parade.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390957/football-coach-fired-because-eating-watermelon-racist-katherine-timpf

OCTOBER 22, 2014 6:33 PM

Football Coach Fired Because Eating Watermelon Is Racist
Parents from other schools felt smashing a watermelon and eating it after games was inappropriate.

By Katherine Timpf

A winning high-school football coach was fired after the team’s tradition of eating watermelon after games was deemed “inappropriate” and “racist.”
Bud Walpole had been coaching Academic Magnet Raptors football team, and was in the middle of a very successful season, according to CBS Charlotte.  
A current Raptors player said the tradition began when players bought watermelons from a man who had been selling them on their route to the game. If they won the game, the team decided, they would eat the watermelon. After they did win, they smashed the watermelon on the ground and then ate it. (The team had to smash their victory fruit because they, understandably, did not have a knife on the sidelines.)
The ritual continued at subsequent victories — until one parent from an opposing school allegedly complained.
According to Charleston school-board member Mike Miller, a parent approached him and said he was offended by the students eating watermelon. The parent also alleged some of the kids were making what sounded like monkey noises.
This parent’s complaint led to a Charleston County School District investigation into the watermelon-eating and Walpole’s eventual firing.
Walpole will still be allowed to teach at the school. Thousands have signed an online petition demanding that he be reinstated as coach.

I hope Pete tells these people, in no uncertain terms, to go fuck themselves.



http://www.coloradoan.com/story/money/2014/10/22/residents-ask-illegal-petes-change-name/17738197/

Residents ask Illegal Pete's to change name

Josie Sexton, The Coloradoan 1:06 p.m. MDT October 23, 2014

Three weeks shy of opening his newest Illegal Pete's in Old Town Fort Collins, restaurant owner Pete Turner came to Fort Collins on Wednesday to listen to a crowd of concerned residents who asked that he change his business' name.

Following a meeting with Fort Collins residents on Wednesday, Pete Turner will have to consider their request to change the name of his restaurant Illegal Pete's.

The Boulder-based restaurant with six locations in Boulder and Denver is modeled after Mexican food from San Francisco's Mission District, specifically over-sized burritos. The name Illegal Pete's, Turner said, is a literary reference to a bar in a novel he read as an English major in Boulder. "Pete" also refers to his own name and his father's. When he started the restaurant in 1995, Turner hoped the name would be ambiguous enough to spark people's interest, perhaps referring to counterculture activity.


But on Wednesday, 30 or so community members explained the negative context of the word illegal, or the "I-word," as some referred to it, and its importance, down to its use as the name of a restaurant.

"Since I know the context, and I have been labeled with (the word illegal), it makes a huge difference to me," said Lucy Gonzalez, 25.

As part of a wider effort to "drop the I-word," Gonzalez and others believe that any use of the word "illegal" connected to people should be stopped.

"Social context is hugely important," Fort Collins immigration attorney and meeting moderator Kim Medina said. "We'll never get to big issues, such as immigration reform, until we can solve these smaller issues of language."

Starting and ending with Medina's urge to Turner to drop "illegal" from Illegal Pete's, the audience discussion ranged from emotional past experiences with racial slurs to accusatory remarks toward Turner: "In a room full of people of color, this is probably a little uncomfortable for you," one woman said.

Others likened the name to a racial slur directed at African-Americans, hanging a Confederate flag in the restaurant's window or calling a restaurant "Smoking Lynching BBQ."

Colorado State University assistant English professor Antero Garcia wrote a letter to Turner that prompted him to drive from Denver for Wednesday's meeting.

Garcia wrote: "The restaurant will be located in the same area that current Fort Collins residents remember often seeing signs saying 'No dogs or Mexicans.' It is under this legacy of American racist practices that the name Illegal Pete's becomes unacceptable."

At the meeting he added: "This is a place that's going to instill violence in our community."

Turner, who spoke at the beginning and end of the hour-long conversation, explained that the name only referred to himself and reiterated his commitment to owning an "inclusive" business. At the beginning of the meeting, his team of Illegal Pete's representatives passed around an information sheet with the company's charitable contributions and fundraisers.

"This is all very near and dear to me," Turner said, adding, "I've helped pay for citizenship for some of my employees."


Milton Guevara, who is general manager of Illegal Pete's at The Hill in Boulder, said he never considered the name a problem. Guevara was born in El Salvador but moved to California with his family at a young age. Twenty years ago he was undocumented.

"I'm Hispanic, and I'm very proud to be," Guevara said. "People come to us because they love our food ... The name doesn't mean anything."

After listening to various anecdotes, Medina called the meeting to an end, asking Turner: "Can we open Pete's Mexican Restaurant Nov. 13?" Turner said he had a lot to consider in changing the name of the restaurant.

In the meantime, Medina said, "we can be mobilizing ourselves either to celebrate or to protest."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395027/harvard-stop-buying-sodastream-machines-because-theyre-microaggression-katherine

DECEMBER 18, 2014 4:02 PM

Harvard to Stop Buying SodaStream Machines Because They’re a ‘Microaggression’
The college will immediately remove SodaStream stickers from existing machines so no one gets upset.

By Katherine Timpf

Harvard University Dining Services has decided stop buying water machines from the Israeli company SodaStream due to concerns that their very presence might be a microaggression against Palestinian students.
“These machines can be seen as a microaggression to Palestinian students and their families and like the University doesn’t care about Palestinian human rights,” Rachel J. Sandalow-Ash, sophomore and  member of the Harvard College Progressive Jewish Alliance, told the Harvard Crimson.
In the meantime, the school will also be removing the “SodaStream” stickers from any of the existing water machines, just to make sure no student has to see one and have a traumatic experience or something.
Currently, the SodaStream’s main factory is located in the West Bank, territory Israel and the Palestinian Authority have long fought over. In October, however, the company announced that it would be moving the factory out of the contested area and into southern Israel.
But apparently that’s not enough — these water fountains are still just too offensive to remain on campus. There’s not even a trigger warning posted in the dining hall!
The move is in response to concerns raised by the College Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Harvard Islamic Society last fall.
SodaStream specializes in a build-your-own soda experience — which, for what it’s worth, can be kinda cool and fun.

The 'Reverend' Al is doing quite the admirable job as the second-string Racial Extortionist-in-Chief. Perhaps some day he'll be as good as his mentor, the 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/al-sharpton-sony-executive-amy-pascal_n_6350130.html

Al Sharpton Calls For 'Concrete' Action Against Sony Executive For Racist Emails

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton on Thursday did not call for Co-Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment Amy Pascal to step down over racially insensitive emails, despite expectations that he might seek her resignation.

The private emails, leaked through a massive hacking attack on Sony Corp, included joking remarks related to U.S. President Barack Obama and his taste in movies.

Pascal, who has publicly apologized, met with Sharpton Thursday to discuss the emails and perceived racial bias in the film industry. Sharpton's spokeswoman earlier this week had said he was weighing whether to call for Pascal's resignation.

"The jury is still out on where we go with Amy," Sharpton told reporters after the meeting in New York. "We're not going to be satisfied until we see something concrete done."

Pascal did not speak publicly after the meeting.

Sharpton said Pascal agreed to set up a working group to deal with racial bias and lack of diversity in the film industry.

happy jack wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/al-sharpton-sony-executive-amy-pascal_n_6350130.html

Al Sharpton Calls For 'Concrete' Action Against Sony Executive For Racist Emails

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton on Thursday did not call for Co-Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment Amy Pascal to step down over racially insensitive emails, despite expectations that he might seek her resignation.

The private emails, leaked through a massive hacking attack on Sony Corp, included joking remarks related to U.S. President Barack Obama and his taste in movies.

Pascal, who has publicly apologized, met with Sharpton Thursday to discuss the emails and perceived racial bias in the film industry. Sharpton's spokeswoman earlier this week had said he was weighing whether to call for Pascal's resignation.

"The jury is still out on where we go with Amy," Sharpton told reporters after the meeting in New York. "We're not going to be satisfied until we see something concrete done."

Pascal did not speak publicly after the meeting.

Sharpton said Pascal agreed to set up a working group to deal with racial bias and lack of diversity in the film industry.

Keep up the good work,Rev! Holding people accountable while pissing off internet trolls.
A true Win-Win!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Keep up the good work,Rev!  Holding people accountable while pissing off internet trolls.
A true Win-Win!

[b]Pissed off?
Hardly.
The 'Reverend' Al, much like you, is a guaranteed, never-ending source of head-shaking amusement.

Angry troll wrote:

The 'Reverend' Al is doing quite the admirable job as the second-string Racial Extortionist-in-Chief. Perhaps some day he'll be as good as his mentor, the 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson.

Dude.The resentment just oozes out of you when it comes to Sharpton.

I'm surprised you're not blaming him for those 2 cops that got murdered last night.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

   

I'm surprised you're not blaming him for those 2 cops that got murdered last night.

[b]You said it, not me.
Projection, anyone?

No.actually your wingnut kook heros are the ones pointing fingers.....
Sharpton Says He’s Received Threats over NYPD Murders

Quote :

During a Sunday press conference Reverend Al Sharpton said he had received several threats following the murder of two NYPD officers in Bedstuy Saturday night.

“The language is ‘Hey N word, stop killing innocent people, I’m going to get you,” and I have several like this,” Sharpton said. “We are now under intense threat from those that are misguided, by those that are trying to blame everyone from civil rights leaders to the mayor rather than deal with an ugly spirit that all of us need to fight.”

Gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsley intimated in a final Instagram post that he sought revenge for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Almost no time was wasted before Sharpton, who was been in the middle of both the Brown and Garner cases, was blamed for creating an anti-cop atmosphere that supposedly enabled the shooter. NYPD Union Chief Pat Lynch added that Gotham Mayor Bill de Blasio had “blood on his hands,” a sentiment echoed by numerous other figures.

“To blame the mayor and others is not what we need,” he said. “The blame game will only lead to further venom and further division.”

Yesterday Sharpton released a statement deploring the shooting of the officers. Garner’s family, often accompanied in public by Sharpton, decried the killings as well.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

   

I'm surprised you're not blaming him for those 2 cops that got murdered last night.

You said it, not me.
Projection, anyone?

No.actually your wingnut kook heros are the ones pointing fingers.....
Sharpton Says He’s Received Threats over NYPD Murders

Quote :

During a Sunday press conference Reverend Al Sharpton said he had received several threats following the murder of two NYPD officers in Bedstuy Saturday night.

“The language is ‘Hey N word, stop killing innocent people, I’m going to get you,” and I have several like this,” Sharpton said. “We are now under intense threat from those that are misguided, by those that are trying to blame everyone from civil rights leaders to the mayor rather than deal with an ugly spirit that all of us need to fight.”

Gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsley intimated in a final Instagram post that he sought revenge for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Almost no time was wasted before Sharpton, who was been in the middle of both the Brown and Garner cases, was blamed for creating an anti-cop atmosphere that supposedly enabled the shooter. NYPD Union Chief Pat Lynch added that Gotham Mayor Bill de Blasio had “blood on his hands,” a sentiment echoed by numerous other figures.

“To blame the mayor and others is not what we need,” he said. “The blame game will only lead to further venom and further division.”

Yesterday Sharpton released a statement deploring the shooting of the officers. Garner’s family, often accompanied in public by Sharpton, decried the killings as well.

[b]Exactly which of my "wingnut kook heros" are you talking about?

Here's a few very recent headlines to get you started....

Al Sharpton to blame for police shootings, actor James Woods tweets UPI 13:25

Al Sharpton’s History of Racial Evils Breitbart 10:18

James Woods blasts Al Sharpton in Twitter rant blaming Rev for recent... UPI 08:54
Voice Message Warns Sharpton ‘I’m Going to Get You’ After NYPD Murders EURweb.com 08:23
Rev. Peterson: I blame Mayor de Blasio, Sharpton Fox News 23:49 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Dobbs: Sharpton, de Blasio’s retreat is just too little too late Fox News 22:49 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Donald Trump unloads on Al Sharpton WorldNetDaily 20:20 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
James Woods Rips Into 'Pig' Al Sharpton Over Slaying of NYPD Officers Yahoo! US 19:21 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Al Sharpton Death Threats: ‘Hey Ni**er, Stop Killing Innocent People’ FOX News Radio 16:41 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Krauthammer: A 'Disgrace' That Obama Pals Around With Al Sharpton The Daily Caller 15:48 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
James Woods calls Sharpton a ‘pig’ for stance on cops New York Post 15:03 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Former NYPD Commissioner: NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio & Al Sharpton Are Inciting... FOX News Radio 14:16 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Rush Limbaugh: Sharpton, de Blasio Have 'Blood On Their Hands' The Daily Caller 13:59 Mon, 22 Dec 2014

Trump: "Con Man" Sharpton Has "Gotten Away With A Lot Of Murder" RealClearPolitics 13:40 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Bill de Blasio's 'anti-cop rhetoric' blamed for NYPD deaths; Sharpton, Obama also... Post-Standard, New York 13:29 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
James Woods Blames "Disgusting Pig" Al Sharpton For NYPD Cop Killing Gawker (Weblog) 13:25 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Retired NYPD Detective: Al Sharpton Is A Coward Who Bails Out When... FOX News Radio 12:55 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Rev. Al Sharpton: I'm a victim of hate and death threats Examiner.com 12:53 Mon, 22 Dec 2014

James Woods Calls Al Sharpton a ‘Race Pig’ in Twitter Posts, Blames Obama for Brooklyn... Breitbart 11:41 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Trump: 'Con Man' Al Sharpton Has 'Gotten Away With A Lot Of... The Daily Caller 11:16 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Bill Kristol on Sharpton: ‘People Have to Be Held Responsible for What... Mediaite 10:38 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Trump: ‘Professional Con Man’ Sharpton Has ‘Gotten Away with a Lot of... Mediaite 09:28 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Sharpton, De Blasio scrambling Examiner.com 08:57 Mon, 22 Dec 2014

Actor James Woods skewers 'pig' Sharpton WorldNetDaily 08:56 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Al Sharpton very worried that execution of police officers will derail his... Hot Air 07:03 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Al Sharpton cancels North Charleston appearance The Island Packet, South Carolina 07:03 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
James Woods blasts Al Sharpton on Twitter as 'disgusting pig' for police... The Washington Times 05:58 Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Giuliani: Obama, Holder, Sharpton created environment of anti-police hatred Examiner.com 01:12 Mon, 22 Dec 2014

James Woods calls Al Sharpton a 'race pimp' and says he's responsible... Daily Mail 21:47 Sun, 21 Dec 2014

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395320/left-discovers-you-shouldnt-collectivize-guilt-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1

DECEMBER 23, 2014 4:10 PM

The Left Discovers You Shouldn’t
Collectivize Guilt

All of a sudden liberals are loath to blame crimes on “climate.”

By Charles C. W. Cooke

Just minutes after it was made clear that the two dead New York City police officers had been assassinated in a revenge attack, the blame game began in earnest, and conservatives, who are typically reticent in this area, began a notable volte face. Twitter, that hotbed of instant reaction, immediately lit up with talk of culpability. “Anti-police rhetoric is what encouraged all of this,” one user wrote. “If you don’t think months of anti-police incitement played a role,” another suggested, “you’re lying.” Meanwhile, Geraldo Rivera poseda popular question, inquiring as to whether “the harsh anti-police rhetoric from protestors & officials alike create climate where a scumbag terrorist felt justified to attack cops?” From the Right, the favorite answer to this query was, “Yes.”
At its worst this reaction was self-serving and cathartic, representing an unlovely example of good old-fashioned political revenge. At its best, however, it has hinted at what is a coherent and congruous case. Of allthe supposed instances in which a political group has been accused of “inciting” murder, the advocates of this view have argued, this one is the strongest. In addition to there having been an explicit instruction — a fringe element within the protest group having shouted the words, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do what them? Now!” — there was also a direct connection between the perpetrator and his alleged champions. Moreover, the killer not only traveled from a neighboring state in order to target cops in New York City — no casual act — but he had previouslyattended a Manhattan-based protest, the target of which was the NYPD. Given these facts, those of this persuasion charge, it is imperative to lay at least someresponsibility at the agitators’ feet.
As I recorded yesterday afternoon, I do not agree with this assessment. But I should note for the sake of fairness that it is at least consistent. What its exponents are contending, I suppose, is that there is a sliding scale at play here, and that whilemost ostensibly partisan charges of “incitement” do not come up to scratch, this particular one — because it is so explicit in nature — is materially different. If so, this all comes down to where exactly we draw the line. Because I am extremely jealous of protections for even vicious and unhelpful speech, and because I believe that individual responsibility is the most necessary of prerequisites to the maintenance of a free republic, I am reluctant to impose moral sanctions on those who indulge in even the most grotesque of idle chatter. Evidently, many of my interlocutors disagree, and are willing to collectivize guilt a touch sooner than am I. Fair enough. Your mileage may vary.
This being so, though, one has to wonder what can explain those among us who are making the opposite case — that is, those who are arguing that this incident, unlike almost every other, is not uniquely heinous but uniquely irrelevant. In the last few days, we have seen a panoply of commentators eschewing their usual rush to judgment and instead calling for calm, thereby effectively taking the position that previous, tangential cases were a legitimate cause for alarm, but that this more worrying incident is not. This, it strikes me, is untenable.
Consider, if you will, the recent behavior of Salon’s Joan Walsh, who yesterdaysuggested in earnest that the conservative-led condemnation of the “climate” that supposedly provoked the shootings in New York City represented the unconscionable “politicization” of murder. “To blame the peaceful movement against police brutality that’s emerged nationwide,” Walsh wrote, is “the worst in demagoguery.” “Right wingers,” she added, “are using a terrible tragedy to make sure that no one can find middle ground.” Prima facie, I concur with Walsh, of course. But what, we might ask, has finally led her to this conclusion? After the shooting of Gabby Giffords in 2011, Walsh fretted dramatically about “the rhetoric of violence”; asked aloud, “Will any prominent conservatives denounce ‘reload’ and ‘crosshairs’ imagery?”; inquired dishonestly, “Is it really controversial to suggest that the overheated anti-government rhetoric of the last two years, with its often violent imagery, ought to be toned down?”; described Sarah Palin’s pretty standard political-campaign map as “unconscionable”; hoped that Republicans would find it in their hearts to “listen to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who denounced ‘the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about the government’ at a Saturday night press conference”; played a remarkably dishonest game of “But Anyway . . . ,” repeatedly noting that there was “no evidence” that Jared Loughner had reacted to any right-wing rhetoric before insinuating in the next breath that he must have; and, when her well was running dry, went so far as to suggest without any attestation at all that the shooter was a registered Republican.
Later, talking characteristically out of both sides of her mouth, Walsh proposed that “even if Tuscon exists in a vacuum,” it would still be the case that the “Tea Party’s violent rhetoric is dangerous.” Naturally, these accusations were part of a trend. Two years earlier, Walsh had cynically blamed conservative talk-radio for a shooting at the National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. The perpetrator turned out to be a neo-Nazi.
Walsh is alone only in the sheer scale of her audacity. In a column bluntly titled, “protesters aren’t to blame for NYPD officers’ execution,” the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson yesterdayconfirmed his own evolution on the question of what constitutes verbal instigation. “It is absurd to have to say this,” Robinson lamented, “but New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, activist Al Sharpton and President Obama are in no way responsible for the coldblooded assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn on Saturday. Nor do the tens of thousands of Americans who have demonstrated against police brutality in recent weeks bear any measure of blame.” Rather, Robinson proposed, “a disturbed career criminal named Ismaaiyl Brinsley committed this unspeakable atrocity by himself, amid a spree of insane mayhem.” “Reasonable people,” Robinson explained, “understand this, of course.” “But,” he sighed knowingly, “we live in unreasonable times.”
Indeed so. In fact, I couldn’t have put it better myself. And yet, funnily enough, Robinson has not always been so “reasonable.” Indeed, back in 2011, when examining the conduct of another “disturbed man,” he came to precisely the opposite conclusion. “The accused gunman, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be deranged,” Robinson proclaimed, “but this fact does not automatically absolve the politicians, partisan activists and professional loudmouths who spew apocalyptic anti-government rhetoric full of violent imagery.” And why not? Because, well . . . because, well it’s just different when conservatives do it. “Delusional right-wing crazy talk,” Robinson suggested in 2012, “is a special kind of poison that cannot be safely ignored.” Lest he be misunderstood, he spelled it out for all to see: “I’m saying that the extreme language we hear from the far right is qualitatively different from the extreme language we hear from the far left — and far more damaging to the ties that bind us as a nation.”
That’s convenient, then.
Robinson’s colleague at the Post, Paul Waldman, also seems to have had a conversion of sorts. This summer, after a pair of politically confused vagrants shot two police officers in Las Vegas, Waldman explained that it was “long past time for prominent conservatives and Republicans to do some introspection and ask whether they’re contributing to outbreaks of right-wing violence.” There are, Waldman contended, “some particular features of conservative political rhetoric today that help create an atmosphere in which violence and terrorism can germinate.” Evidently, this sentiment is popular at his blog. In 2011, his partner-in-crime, Greg Sargent, suggested that Sarah Palin ought to “be more mindful of the potential consequences of incendiary rhetoric” and approvingly quoted Gabriel Giffords’s condemnation of the “crosshairs map” that was apparently so central to Loughner’s crime.
Today, Waldman has changed his tune, dismissing reactions such as these out of hand:
We regularly argue over not just the substance of issues but the way those issues are being discussed; both liberals and conservatives are convinced that their side presents its arguments in reasonable and logical ways, while the other side is prone to inflammatory, dishonest and demagogic rhetoric. When something like this shooting happens, the accusation that it occurred because of the words someone else spoke is almost inevitable. But it’s also almost always wrong.
Now you tell us.
Also playing this game are Media Matters (2011: rhetoric is lethal; 2014: rhetoric isharmless); the NAACP (2011: civility is crucial; 2014: civility is irrelevant); and Al Sharpton (2011: our political discourse has real consequences; 2014: such thoughts are misguided). Elsewhere, the Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery — a man who was quick to jump on Sarah Palin’s map back in 2011 — yesterday mocked the notion that words and behavior might lead to murder, while Politico’s Glenn Thrush pooh-poohed suggestions that he had once made himself. In 2011, his Twitter feed shows, Thrush treated Gabby Giffords’s shooting as “a watershed moment that will immediately redefine current debate and view of pols embracing of extreme rhetoric.” Yesterday, he shamed Governor Pataki for advancing the very same theory.
What a difference party identification makes.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

[/b]

(Hint: it doesn't work, which he/she would realize if he/she had the brains to recognize the transparency that everyone else recognizes in him/her.)[/b]

Everyone else? Who would that be? The voices in your head?

What really amuses me is that you're so stupid as to think that I'm going to engage in any of your endless circle jerks. You're the designated troll here,remember?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

[/b]

(Hint: it doesn't work, which he/she would realize if he/she had the brains to recognize the transparency that everyone else recognizes in him/her.)[/b]

Everyone else? Who would that be? The voices in your head?

[b]Who would that be?
It would be those who regularly post here, but who conspicuously never, ever, ever have your back when you engage in your bullshit.
]

You mean everyone who at one point or another concluded that you;re a troll? Those people?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You mean everyone who at one point or another concluded that you;re a troll? Those people?[/b]

[b]They may conclude whatever they want about me – no harm done. But they are honest enough to not taint themselves by aiding and abetting possibly the most dishonest person I’ve ever encountered.

You actually think they care about a petty internet feud? Your stupidity and warped perception never ceases to amaze me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395473/2014-year-fainting-couch-rich-lowry

DECEMBER 30, 2014 12:00 AM
2014: The Year of the Fainting Couch
North Korea joined the “do not offend” list and law students needed grief counseling.

By Rich Lowry

The fainting couch doesn’t have the same cachet it did in the 19th century, which is a shame, because it should be more in demand than at any time since the age of corsets and delicate sensibilities.
To put it in Victorian terms, 2014 had a case of the vapors. It was all aflutter. It needed smelling salts and a fan, and a good rest on a fainting couch to restore its bearings. It was a year when the national pastime of taking offense and of fearing that someone might be offended reached such parodic levels that Kim Jong-un got in the act.
It used to be that, of all the groups and nations that one had to worry about offending, for politically correct or commercial reasons, the North Koreans simply didn’t rate. The Red Dawn remake a couple of years ago featured cruel North Korean invaders. In last year’s Olympus Has Fallen, the White House is attacked and occupied by dastardly North Koreans. But 2014 was the year, thanks to the hack of Sony Pictures in retaliation for the spoof movie The Interview, that even the North Koreans made the “do not offend” list.
It was the year that a scientist made an abject apology for wearing a shirt that offended feminists in a TV broadcast; that Amazon Prime put a label warning of racist content on Tom and Jerry cartoons; and that various news outlets refused to say the name of the NFL team from Washington on grounds that even uttering it made them complicit in rank offensiveness.
It was a year when the nation’s colleges and law schools cemented their reputations as places where easily offended children go for a few years to become slightly older easily offended children. Colleges canceled appearances by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Condi Rice (who technically pulled out of her scheduled Rutgers commencement), and George F. Will for fear students might hear something they disagree with from a figure they object to. The University of California, Irvine, offered grief counseling (“in a constructive space”) for students upset at the grand-jury decision in the Ferguson case, and Occidental College brought in a religious counselor to comfort students who had volunteered for losing Democratic Senate campaigns.
An open letter from law students at Harvard upset at the nonindictments in the Ferguson and Eric Garner cases captured the spirit of the year, and deserves an honored place in the history of the rhetoric of plaint. Its opening included the stirring declaration “We are in pain. And we are tired.” It went on to speak of how “traumatized” the students are (multiple times), and of their “distress” (multiple times). It charged that the school’s indifference to “the mental health” of its students violates the Harvard Law School Handbook of Academic Policies.
The upshot was that the aggrieved students wanted the administration to offer them a collective pacifier. “We call,” the letter thundered, “for faculty to hold special office hours and for the administration to make culturally competent grief and trauma counselors available in the final weeks of the semester.” It demanded more conversations about injustice “in safe spaces created by the administration.” And it expected students to be permitted to delay their exams — because what are the exertions of studying compared with satisfactions of wallowing in a precious self-pity?
The response to these students and their brethren at other elite law schools who made similar appeals should have been, “Please, get a grip. If nothing else will buck you up, at least show a little self-respect.” If this had been the mettle of the civil-rights movement, it would have collapsed in a puddle of helplessness not long after Rosa Parks was asked to give up her seat.
But that, for all its tragic failings, was a different era. It was before so much time and energy were invested in taking offense and coddling the offended. It was before the nation needed a fainting couch.