freecounterpoint: Stoopid Ricain concepts

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Stoopid Ricain concepts

20 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: so what do you think about free speech as it would apply to the propagation of AQ ideology?; 6/11/2008 8:03 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: You mean propagation of the Islam Militant ideology, the one you can hear propagated every day from the majority of mosques in this country? [For that is precisely what "AQ Ideology" is].
I have the freedom to think of, to speak of, we having an enemy in our midst. You, Pepe, have the freedom to think of, to speak of, having in our midst an ally useful to the grand project of Deconstructing Amerikkka.
I'd uphold the First Amendment as the essential touchstone of what we are fighting for, and must be preserved to sustain human liberty. You uphold the First Amendment as the essential touchstone which must be eradicated in order to build that Radiant Crescent Future which is beyond Freedom, Dignity, Mere Christianity, and other hateful non-Progressive, non-Change, non-Versaillian thinkery.; 6/11/2008 11:18 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: I'd uphold the First Amendment as the essential touchstone of what we are fighting for, and must be preserved to sustain human liberty.

Oh, god. there he goes again. you are such a bore, aa. Do you live alone?; 6/12/2008 12:48 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: i'll take it this means yes. giving up the professoral tone and the patriotic tremolo in your discourse would go a long way in helping you out, you know?; 6/12/2008 1:59 AM
Mr roT said...: So little ms Frank Rich disapproves of AA's prose. What are you saying, then, Pepe? You disapprove of the first amendment? Lay it out for us so we nonProustians can understand.
Say something.; 6/12/2008 2:04 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: You really can't read, can you? Silver in the spoon one's born to is apparently a toxin to the sufficiently refined Aristo.
As for the "patriotic tremolo", that's the whole point of the discourse. You despise Ricains who respect simple non-aristo things, such as a genuine freedom of speech. And you despise the Patria that would make such freedom a fundamental right, and not a privilege useful as a tool in the hands of Versailles.
Wear the mantle of your boredome proudly, Aristo; it is after all the distinguishing mark of the effete.; 6/12/2008 2:09 AM
Tecumseh said...: Powww! Score 1 for that quintessentially American concept (the 1st), and 0 for the Versaillist reaction (les aristos, on les aura!); 6/12/2008 4:50 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: You disapprove of the first amendment?

No t really. It's the civics class tone, the violins, and the silly "honor and country" undertones that put me to sleep.
One can argue over the limits of free speech without wrapping oneself in grandiloquent boy-scout campfire blabber.; 6/12/2008 12:16 PM
Tecumseh said...: This is lame, Pepe. You get all grandiloquent when shilling for Socialism or Sharia law, but get queasy about praising the First Amendment -- precisely because it's at the core of the US system, which you so much despise. So spare the condescending tone -- one can see through your sophistry very clearly.; 6/12/2008 3:00 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Huh ? I made statements supporting the sharia ? socialism ? Find one! Just because I state you guys don't belong in iraq and should get your asses kicked out of there doesn't imply i support the sharia!

I despise the US system ? This is your take - but I don't think that being critical of american idiosyncracies amounts to that either. It is on the contrary that you guys are so busy drooling over anything with stars & stripes on it that you consider anything short of mindless adulation amounts to high treason.; 6/12/2008 3:41 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: The dribble from the Aristo's lips makes any tremola, patriotic or otherwise, a Mozartian overture by comparison.
The essential difference between the American experiment and the varieties of halway houses to thuggery that the Euros have proposed as versions of "democracy" lies precisely in a true freedom of speech, and more largely in the Bill of Rights.
If there is to be any meaning whatsoever to a passion for human rights, it must show it here or it doesn't exist. That Le Pew would scorn these rights, and scorn a passion for these, in and of itself would be telling of his contempt for this nation [never mind his years of shilling for its enemies].
Oh, Herr Le Pew, Scion of Privilege, how do you square your effulsive baying for the glories of '68 with a claim that you have not shilled for socialism? '68 was all about a greater and grander socialism, a more "deeply authentic" one, a more Total one. Is this another instance of your capacity to listen, to read, to understand made transparently comical?; 6/12/2008 6:22 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: '68 was an anti-establishment movement. That it resonated better with the left than it did with the reactionary crowd doesn't make it a "socialist" movement.

And exactly, what privilege am I the scion of, mindlessly blabbering one?; 6/12/2008 6:42 PM
Mr roT said...: '68 is very clearly associated with the left and socialism. A lot of the whole thing was orchestrated in Moscow, it has been shown. At the end of the day it ended up the wave of permissiveness that undermined the West. It turned us from cold shower Romans to Persians with diadems, purple robes, sodomy, and AIDS.

But enough of my conflations.

Apparently it also got Westerners thinking lazily, rudely, and intolerantly. What in the hell AI thinks you have to do with Sharia is beyond me. Also, if you don't like AA's tone, why the hell do you get into a back-and-forth that specifically riles it up, Pepe?

On this you certainly are on the same side but just pull each others chains for the hell of it and then getting offended when the other gets offended.

Childish.; 6/12/2008 6:50 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: I don't get offended when the other gets offended, I get offended when the other says it is offensive to allow offensiveness, capisce effendi?
Criancas.; 6/12/2008 7:02 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: The offer is of your kind, but I kindly decline your offer..

oh, the contract? Yes, the hit has been set. Only the method has not been decided upon.; 6/12/2008 7:17 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: On this you certainly are on the same side but just pull each others chains for the hell of it and then getting offended when the other gets offended.

aw, shit. and i thought it was open season and the name of the game was to be as insulting as possible. now how'd i get this idea?; 6/12/2008 11:14 PM
Mr roT said...: from your mother, apparently; 6/13/2008 4:58 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: ?; 6/13/2008 9:42 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: But back to the argument, putting curbs on free speech that conform to certain societal norms is widely accepted, even here, for obvious reasons (fire in theater). The question is whether extending this to speech that is grossly offensive to a significant portion of the population would cause a collapse of freedom of expression altogether.; 6/13/2008 9:58 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Pepe, does the obvious escape you? There is a curb on crying "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If there is a fire moving through the theater then to cry "Fire" is rational and necessary. To not do so is, at the very best, amoral. To try and prevent the exercise of speech that would cry "Fire" in that case is to be profoundly evil.
This in the case of fire.

To try and then assert that "thus Fire, hence Offensive Speech", to declare that a case of immediate physical danger is the same as speaking in a way which upsets someone, is moving the art of non-sequitur from a Le Pewian fetish to a downright Pepean Cult.
Yes, Aristo, of course you would salivate at the prospect of making your personal likes and dislikes, the line between that which pleases you and that which offends you, the cut of Law. After all, the whole point about Versailles is to be able to squat as a Sun God above the peasant masses and declaim "L'Etat, C'est Moi".; 6/13/2008 10:17 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)