I agree that it makes no sense out of context. The context though is that chef guy accused me of wanting o deny free speech (I have no idea where he pulled that out of his ass). When in fact the only person at was doing any censoring was kruman
The WBC comparison is retarded beyond belief. Krugman didn’t go to any funerals and didn’t say anything disrespectful of the departed. He criticized the self-aggrandizing, attention-whoring behavior of others at the funeral. He’s just telling self-serving politicians to quit ass-fucking the corpses. It’s about time somebody did. This is one of the stupidest fucking OP’s I’ve seen in a long time. There should be a “Godwinizing” type term for comparing people to Fred Phelps.
He was closer to censorship I suppose, but he still wasn’t censoring. Being gutless isn’t censorship. He just figured a shitstorm was coming (some possibly justified but mostly knee jerk stupidity) and tucked tail away from it.
And as far as I’ve seen of internet comments to editorials, I wish everyone would disable comments. They tend to be about as useful as the ones you’d find in the comment section of youtube.
You seem to have some kind of big fucking problem with the Phelps clan expressing their opinions.
But Krugman is assfucking the same corpse. He’s appropriating the somber attitude of the nation to attack his political opponents. How is that any different from anything Giuliani has done?
Who doesn’t?
Well then, by that logic, anybody who objects to Fred Phelps ass fucking corpses is also ass fucking corpses.
I don’t. I really don’t understand why anybody cares what those people think.
Oh, so you’re a complete moron, not just an amateur. Got it.
It seems incongruous until you realize that the Nobel Prize in Economics is awarded not for any particular skill set or expertise in one’s field, but rather a willingness to sell one’s credentials in service of politics. There may also be some fame involved.
I’ve already disagreed with the comparison to Phelps, but by claiming that the somber mood of the nation on the tenth anniversary is a reflection of his political views he is doing the exact same thing he criticizes politicians for.
Because they’re obnoxious dicks. At least that’s why I care. I would never strive to legally remove their right to express their opinions. That said, I’d be thrilled if a meteor, lightning strike, or supernaturally specific tsunami wiped out every last one of them.
I’d take one for the team and ass-fuck Fred Phelps’ corpse if I were first allowed to make it a corpse.
Remember: pics, or it didn’t happen.
Actually I’d take his word for it. Somethings I just don’t want to see.
Scylla, he’s spot on. Bush cashed in the ultimate way, even more so than the other guys, as he used the momentum to invade a completely innocent country.
This is ridiculous. Telling others to show some decorum is not, in itself, indecorous.
Sure, but no one else has to listen to them, so I don’t see why people get worked up about them.
Yes. Iraq was a kindly and innocent place during the halcyon days of gassing Kurds and burning oilfields. Saddam Hussein really just wanted to be loved for who he was.
They were completely innocent before the great Satan, Bush, attacked.
You’re about a decade off, buddy.
This post reads like it was written by an imbecile. The original post was just silly. Mr. Scylla, I’ve read other posts by you in which you make more sense than the people arguing with you.
Are you posting drunk? Are you having personal problems?
Talk about a non-sequitur. Actually, the innocent Iraqis we killed for no reason were just as innocent in 1988 as they were when Bush attacked them for totally unrelated reasons 15 years later. Plus, your hero, Reagan, gave Saddam (who was not “Iraq”) the gas in the first place, and he had no problem with Saddam gassing Kurds.