What the Left Did Last Week

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kissing-sailor-statue-vandalized-with-metoo-after-veteran-dies/‘Kissing Sailor’

Statue Vandalized with ‘#MeToo’ after Veteran Dies

By Mairead McArdle

February 20, 2019 10:24 AM

A statue based on the iconic ‘kissing sailor’ photograph snapped on V-J Day in Times Square was vandalized Monday night, spray-painted with the ‘#MeToo’ hashtag just hours after the veteran in the photo passed away.
Police in Sarasota, Florida, where the 26-foot statue stands, were called shortly after midnight Tuesday morning, responding to a report of an unknown individual spray-painting the phrase on the statue in red.

Keepin' it classy, Libs, as always.

How do you know that "Libs" did this?  Perhaps it was in the article?  The link isn't working.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kissing-sailor-statue-vandalized-with-metoo-after-veteran-dies/

You're having a hard time drawing a straight line from a #MeToo proponent to a liberal?
Really?

There is absolutely no proof... so we don't know, do we? After all, it could have easily been a #MeToo opponent. Or just a random vandal... who knows?

That's entirely up to you.

How long you dance around a particular forum topic is up to you. No need to bring Smollett or Artie into your inability to formulate a logical argument. You're performing for no one.

happy jack wrote:

The bashing of black homosexuals by Trump supporters is apparently rare enough that instances of such bashing actually need to be fabricated.

Based on what?  Be specific.  We have actual crime data.

A single instance of a fabricated hate crime does little to invalidate the litany of crimes anymore than a snowstorm in winter busts the science of global warming.  

Were you unaware you were being blatantly dishonest or did you simply not give a shit?

But by all means, continue to bring up the case in every thread you lack a coherent response to.

Already cited.  We'll wait for you to offer an argument once you've parsed the data.

I'm not Fox News. I'm not doing the work for you.

https://www.newsweek.com/jussie-smollett-attack-al-sharpton-staged-fake-1334924

Jussie Smollett Should Face 'Accountability to the Maximum' if Attack Was Staged, Says Al Sharpton

By Janice Williams On 2/18/19 at 4:01 PM

Reverend Al Sharpton called for those responsible for Jussie Smollett's assault to be held completely accountable for their horrendous actions, even if it was Smollett himself who orchestrated the violence.
Sharpton appeared on MSNBC’s Politics Nation and condemned the altercation, in which Smollett was attacked by two men shouting racial and homophobic slurs. “I, among many others when hearing of the report, said that the reports were horrific and that we should come with all that we can come with in law enforcement to find out what happened, and the guilty should suffer the maximum,” the civil rights activist said.
The 64-year-old added: “I still maintain that, and if it is that Smollett and these gentlemen did in some way perpetuate something that is not true, they ought to face accountability to the max.”

……...

It really doesn't surprise me that this lying, pomaded, racist, hoax-perpetrating jackass has the nerve to hold someone to account for committing a fake hate crime.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/op-ed-use-partner-instead-of-boyfriend-or-girlfriend-to-be-politically-correct/

PC Culture
Op Ed: Use ‘Partner’ Instead of ‘Boyfriend’ or ‘Girlfriend’ to Be ‘Politically Correct’

By Katherine Timpf

February 25, 2019 12:27 PM

According to a piece in the Daily O, people should stop using the words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” to refer to their significant others and use the word “partner” instead — because that’s “politically correct.”
“The term ‘partner’ — with its gender-neutral connotation — is politically correct and socially appropriate,” Saonli Hazra writes in a piece titled “Why it is time to move from the conventional ‘boyfriend’ or ‘girlfriend’ and switch to ‘partner’ instead.”
“With the growth of the Internet, and a transformation in the social order where casual dating, open relationships, delayed marriages and other such practices are finding favour, terms like ‘boyfriend’ or ‘girlfriend’ have a certain undesirable vibe,” she continues. “Mostly, these set limitations of gender roles — of what each partner ought to bring at the relationship table.”
“Partner,” she argues “has a nice, positive ring to it, and neither party feels the suffocating or debilitating pressure of trying to live up to certain preset notions.”debilitating pressure of trying to live up to certain preset notions.”
“‘Wife’ or ‘girlfriend’ usually come with patriarchal riders, and therefore, a women’s status within the marriage is often unequal,” she explains.
According to Hazra, the term “partner” “ensures political correctness and has the potential to take forward the culture of tolerance where the freedom of self-expression and justice towards those who are different and/or disenfranchised are upheld.”

……...


Have you people ever considered maybe - I don't know - shutting the fuck up once in a while?

It just never, ever ends with you Liberals, does it?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/will-smiths-rumored-new-role-causing-controversy-skin-color-113504252.html

Will Smith's rumored new role is causing controversy — because of his skin color

Erin Donnelly
Yahoo Movies
March 5, 2019

Following The Legend of Bagger Vance and Ali, Will Smith is reportedly in talks to take on another sports film. Deadline reports that the Oscar-nominated actor is “poised to play” Richard Williams, the father of Venus and Serena Williams, in an upcoming biopic titled King Richard.
While Smith certainly has the star power to headline the film about Williams’s determination to turn his two Compton-raised daughters into tennis champions, his rumored casting has already been met with some backlash. While Smith and Williams are both black men, critics say the role should go to an actor with darker skin, citing Idris Elba and Mahershala Ali as examples of more appropriate choices.
Some have compared the casting reports to Zoë Saldana’s portrayal of singer Nina Simone in the 2016 biopic Nina, for which the actress controversially wore dark makeup and a prosthetic nose. Others have brought up Scarlett Johansson, whose role in 2017’s Ghost in the Shell sparked accusations of whitewashing.
“Colorism matters,” sports writer Clarence Hill Jr. said of the importance of casting an actor with darker skin to play the 77-year-old Williams.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45088/its-not-enough-shes-marvels-first-leading-female-emily-zanotti

It's Not Enough She's Marvel's First Leading Female Superhero, Now SJWs Want Captain Marvel To Be Gay

By Emily Zanotti
@emzanotti
March 25, 2019

Captain Marvel may be the Marvel Cinematic Universe's biggest female star, but simply commanding her own movie and having no faults or weaknesses to speak of isn't enough for the social justice warriors; Captain Marvel must also openly embrace the LGBT lifestyle.
Comic book and nerd culture site, CBR.com, has published an extensive dive into the subject on its website, suggesting that "revealing Captain Marvel as gay would be a winning move for Disney, and an important step forward for the MCU."
The piece argues that the MCU should embrace "progressive storytelling" more fully after "Avengers: Endgame," the conclusion to the "Infinity War" saga, and the end of the first generation of Marvel superhero films — and by "progressive storytelling," it's apparent they mean targeting specific quotas rather than genuine inclusiveness. Since Marvel already has successful minority superhero franchises ("Black Panther") and a moderately successful female-led franchise ("Captain Marvel"), it's simply time to check the next box.
"The Brie Larson-helmed film has opened the door for the studio to make an even bigger statement by presenting the new face of the MCU as a straight-up LGBT character," CBR opines. "Why can't the strongest Avenger out there, the one who's leading the new era of Marvel movies, be gay?"
"The general audience has embraced the hero's progressive style and what she stands for, inspiring girls and women globally," they continue. "By making her queer, the studio would jump to the forefront of gay rights everywhere. By presenting Carol Danvers as a feminist, a strong woman, and a hero with an unbreakable will who just so happens to be an LGBT representative would be a remarkable way to help shape the MCU's future."

Can't you people just shut the fuck up and watch the movie?

See?
I'm not the only one who knows that you are intensely crazy.
True colors, guys - true colors, day in and day out.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/06/bret-easton-ellis-why-liberal-lunatics-are-deeply-wrong-about-kanye-west/Bret

Easton Ellis: Why liberal lunatics are deeply wrong about Kanye West
By Bret Easton Ellis
April 6, 2019 | 10:11am | Updated

In 2018, various journalists wanted to talk to me about a couple of tweets I’d posted in favor of Kanye West. They couldn’t seem to believe that I supported his “crazy” feed, especially when he said he liked Trump, and couldn’t fathom why I tweeted “Hail Kanye!” in response to his weird blend of transparent prophet and calculated p.r. prankster.
I’d known Kanye since 2013, when out of the blue he texted me to ask if I’d like to work on a movie idea of his. We’d never met, but I was intrigued enough to go see him in a private wing of Cedars Sinai in LA the day after his first child had been born. We spent four hours there talking about the movie project and a wide range of subjects — everything from Yeezus to porn to “The Jetsons” — until Kim Kardashian came out of her room cradling their newborn North. This seemed the time for me to excuse myself, though it also seemed that Kanye wanted me to stay indefinitely, even offering me a Grey Goose that he was pouring out of a magnum as I prepared to leave.
Since then I’d worked with him on a few complicated and strange projects for film, TV and video that mostly never happened, yet because of all this I kept up with him on social media and now found myself reacting to his amazing stream-of-conscious thoughts on his Twitter page in the weeks before the release of his new record — just like hundreds of thousands of other followers.
These tweets were a reminder of why I liked Kanye: They were sweet and mysterious, dumb and profound, funny and playful, part absurdist stunt as well as a genuine reflection of where Kanye West was in that moment. And at one point during the Twitter-storms he mentioned that he loved Trump and admired his “dragon energy,” which he suggested he and the president shared. But this admiration was nothing new, since he’d said as much when he imploded with a rant at a concert in San Jose the week after Trump won — and told the audience, “If I would’ve voted, I would’ve voted for Trump.”
On top of all this, he was one of the only celebrities to visit the president in Trump Tower after the election. All of this was pure Kanye, obsessed with showbiz and spectacle and power — and to some of us his honesty had always been hypnotizing and inspiring. But the left acted like horrified schoolteachers, lecturing us that what he’d tweeted was very, very bad; that nobody should listen to him; that he should apologize so we all could forgive him for a narrative in which he — a black man — supported a racist and was therefore racist himself.
Instead of getting outraged, they should have realized that a figure like Trump would seem appealing to him: brash, a gangster, his own man whether you liked him or loathed him, a loner, transparent, a truth teller not to be taken literally, flawed, contradictory, a rebel, awful for some or wonderful for others but certainly not vanilla or middle-of-the-road, incapable as a bureaucrat but skillful as a disruptor. This was also, of course, what a lot of other people I knew liked about Trump in the summer of 2018.
The media became derisive and speculated that Kanye had to be on drugs to say anything of the sort. He’s destroying his career! How could a black man like Trump? Anyone but an idiot could tell what Kanye was trying to say, however garbled and clumsy it was, but given the bias infecting everything in 2018, the press worried that he was having “delusional episodes” and probably needed to be treated for drug abuse. The consensus, in postmortem editorials everywhere, was that he would never have a career again after the slavery comment and the Trump tweets. It was all over for Kanye.
The year 2018 had been anxiety-inducing for a lot of people, many of them feeling like they were tumbling into free fall without a parachute. Everyone had a personal opinion, his or her own hot take on reality, and very few seemed to have the gift of neutrality, of being able to look at the world in a naturally calm, detached manner, from a distance, unencumbered by partisanship.
Ever since the election, Hollywood had revealed itself in countless ways as one of the most hypocritical capitalist enclaves in the world, with a preening surface attitude advocating progressivism, equality, inclusivity and diversity — except not when it came down to inclusivity and diversity of political thought and opinion and language. They proudly promoted peace just as they were fine with Trump getting shot by Snoop Dogg in a video or decapitated by Kathy Griffin or beaten up by Robert De Niro or, more simply, as an apparently drunken Johnny Depp suggested, assassinated.
Fellow comrades had started to adhere to their new rule book: about humor, about freedom of expression, about what’s funny or offensive. Artists — or, in the local parlance, creatives — should no longer push any envelope, go to the dark side, explore taboos, make inappropriate jokes or offer contrarian opinions. This new policy required you to live in a world where one never got offended, where everyone was always nice and kind, where things were always spotless and sexless, preferably even genderless — and this is when I really started worrying, with enterprises professing control over not only what you say but your thoughts and impulses, even your dreams.
‘Hollywood had revealed itself in countless ways as one of the most hypocritical capitalist enclaves in the world.’
This, at the end of the summer of 2018, seemed not only like an ugly intimation of the future but the nightmarish new world order. Kanye’s behavior would continue to confound some people for months to come. In September, he would appear as a musical guest on “Saturday Night Live” wearing a Make America Great Again hat, which had taken on, for both the right and the left, a kind of talismanic power that was either a symbol of racist-sexist red-state evil or, for believers, a symbol of patriotism and national pride. Wearing the hat had become, for some, an act of defiance — it could be dangerous and you could get into trouble, which is exactly why it became a fetish object Kanye loved, and said, in a meeting with the president at the White House a week later, that wearing the hat made him feel like Superman.
He would top the “SNL” performance off with a free-associative rant where he would praise the president, diss a one-sided liberal media, accuse cast members of trying to bully him into not wearing the MAGA hat and essentially accuse leftists of being the real racists. And at the White House he talked to Trump about, among other things, prison reform, abolishing the 13th Amendment and even a hydrogen-powered iPlane whose plans he was happy to share with his host, whom he would call the father he never had, and that he loved him very much and then ask if he could hug him. For this, Kanye was lambasted across the media landscape as a “token Negro” and “an attention whore” who should be “hospitalized” and that “what happened” to Kanye was “what happens when a Negro doesn’t read books” — this actually coming from anchors on CNN and MSNBC.
I MET up with Kanye during the week those controversies were exploding across social media. Kanye reached out because he was interested in resurrecting a TV project we had discussed in 2015, which he was now considering as a film. I promptly rearranged my schedule and made the drive out to his Calabasas compound, flittingly apprehensive that I might be meeting, as the media kept reiterating, a man who’d lost his mind.
After being ushered in by security, I was brought into a room where he was multi-tasking: assembling the movie team, overseeing his fashion line, rehearsing new material. In the five years I’d casually known him, I’d never seen him so attentive and focused and happy. This was Kanye at his most lucid, and this afternoon confirmed for me that he was, in fact, sane: his own man, no apologies, not some drugged-out freak gibbering on Twitter. People simply needed to acknowledge — not approve or to embrace — that here was someone who saw the world in his own way and not according to how other people thought he should see it.
What Kanye was championing in his Trump tweets was an idea of peace and unity, imagining a place where different sides could work together despite vicious ideological differences — that’s it.
He wasn’t particularly interested in actual politics or literal policy, but it also seemed by the end of the summer of 2018 that no one else was, either. Kanye, like everyone else, on both sides of the divide, now envisioned the world as a theater where a musical was always playing and hopefully starring someone like themselves voicing their own opinions. But in Kanye’s case with the appropriate amount of narcissistic dragon energy, a power that allowed him, no matter what others thought, to be totally free.
But how could you be free if you were bowing down to the shrieking antics on both sides of a Grand Canyon-size divide that no one was attempting to cross?
Since November 2016, I had heard that a horrendous economic collapse was about to materialize, the planet was going to melt, countless people would die, the fraught situation in North Korea would send the United States into a nuclear Armageddon, and Trump would be impeached, brought down by a pee tape — leaving no jobs for anybody and Russian tanks in the streets.
We also idly noted that the filmmaker David Lynch couldn’t say in an interview that he thought maybe Donald Trump would go down as one of the great presidents in history, not without groupthink forcing him into apologizing for this immediately on Facebook. And where was a resistance that was so attractive and cunning that it managed to sway you, that maybe made you see things in a broader, less blinkered light?
But the one we had in 2018 seemed bent on advocating mostly vandalism and violence. Trump’s star on Hollywood Boulevard was destroyed with a pickax, an actor resembling a septuagenarian Lorax said “F–k Trump” at the Tony Awards, a television hostess called the first daughter “a feckless c–t” on her TV program, another actor suggested the president’s 11-year-old son should be put in a cage with pedophiles. And all of this from Hollywood: the land of inclusion and diversity. Maybe it was just another episode in the reality show that is still unfolding. Or maybe when you’re roiling in childish rage, the first thing you lose is judgment, and then comes common sense. And finally you lose your mind and along with that, your freedom.

happy jack wrote:

Apparently, this monstrosity was erected long before a border wall came to be regarded as a crime against humanity.

Yeah. Well, that's a Straw Man Argument

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Apparently, this monstrosity was erected long before a border wall came to be regarded as a crime against humanity.

Yeah. Well, that's a Straw Man Argument

Yeah. Well, I was making no argument, Straw Man or otherwise - I merely stated a fact.

Not a fact.  It's opinion.