Shooting in Paris (Page 2)

Posted by Damnata
Also the main purpose of a business is not to taunt people who wouldn't like it anyway.

It's to draw profit from the audience that enjoys satire.

So no, as a business decision I wouldn't cater to the minority.
.

...and the profit here is 12 dead people and many seriously wounded. I think the majority would agree, this is not comic relief by a long shot.

Posted by partiallyimpartial

Posted by LetltB

Posted by Damnata
Also the main purpose of a business is not to taunt people who wouldn't like it anyway.

It's to draw profit from the audience that enjoys satire.

So no, as a business decision I wouldn't cater to the minority.
.

...and the profit here is 12 dead people and many seriously wounded. I think the majority would agree, this is not comic relief by a long shot.

thats just the punchline...



the anti-religious get killed by the religious who justify it because they were anti-religious. and why

were they anti-religious? because the religious justified killing them over it.



ur right the majority would agree theres nothing funny about this, but speaking as a minority perspective

itsbwell-crafted irony.

click to expand

Not exactly, you are lumping a murdering terroristic extremist group with people who practice the same religion and ARE NOT terrorists. In doing so it might confuse some people and cause them to hate innocent people. You wouldn't want to do that would you?

Posted by capricornmoon
So we mock "dangerous" ideas so they can retaliate with dangerous actions? At some point we need to stop using freedom of speech as a scapegoat for foolishness.

....and yet more foolishness apparently will ensue where logic fails. I'll look on the bright side and say...go right ahead, keep the attention off of America. 😉

"Around France and the rest of Europe, thousands turned out for rallies Wednesday evening, expressing solidarity with the satirical magazine and the nation of France. The crowds pledged defiance to those behind the bloodshed."

Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.

wtf? what happened with this thread? It's quoting together other posts now? ...dxp sucks.

Posted by LetltB


I don't think you do at all. If you think comparing a stand up comedian to this bullshit.

There's comedy and there's extreme anti-religion. Please don't try to put both in the same boat.

Extreme anti-religion? I don't see it as such, I see it as comedy..which again is a matter of perspective.

I've seen stand up comedians be more offensive towards more groups and no one did bat an eye.

Because it's different environments and some things are more acceptable to mock than others.

Agree to disagree I guess.

...anyway...@ Getmisted

"Same could be said about those who lump ALL protesters into one category e.g. Leftwing, wellfare abusers, cop-haters, non tax paying lowlife thugs. ijs"

Nope, ^^^that has nothing to do with this thread and France. Stop derailing this thread and reopen yours back up.

I disagree. You cannot compare a comedian to a left wing anti-religious nut. Comedians wouldn't have a job or they'd be dead. I guarantee it.

Posted by capricornmoon
So we mock "dangerous" ideas so they can retaliate with dangerous actions?

Yes, because only a minority retaliates. Which is still a minority and not the majority. As far as I known, the majority is right, even when it's wrong. So the majority didn't actually take offense with this, which still means the world is sane.

The tragedy is that the minority often acts while the majority only thinks. Sitting back, doing nothing.

Again, is it about the mocking here or the mindset that cannot see a joke as a joke but an affront towards their whole being? => that kind of extremism is the culprit.

Posted by xy

Posted by enfant_terrible
And non-Christians being massacred by Christians in godforsaken parts of Africa of course that isn't happening?

Sociological factors.

It's not. That's history.

click to expand

It's not. You can't blame history just like you can't blame religion. It's about upbringing and circumstances. It's those that make people harbor hate and resentment towards other religions, societies or certain groups of people. History only serves as an excuse for those already (sociologically!) indoctrinated with certain ideas.

Posted by capricornmoon
@LetitBe.. Well,it's the nature of PRIDE. Instead of admitting to an error in judgement by fanning flames., they are now standing in solidarity(media/govt)tweeting nonsense about free speech,when all of this could have been avoided.

nonsense about free speech? lol. again, did this free speech kill someone? or did the people reacting to the free speech?

both parts are expressing points of views in the end..why do you think yours is more righteous?

Posted by LetltB
I disagree. You cannot compare a comedian to a left wing anti-religious nut. Comedians wouldn't have a job or they'd be dead. I guarantee it.

I wasn't comparing a comedian to a let wing anti-religious nut. I was comparing him to a cartoonist, expressing ideas. If you choose to see him/them as left wing anti-religious nuts, then okay. But I don't.

They wouldn't be dead because the audience is different. The audience in a stand-up comedy show is formed of people who can take a joke in general. But write down the speech of some stand-up comedians and publish it in a paper and a lot of people would be outraged again. Because it reaches more people, therefore reaching that minority of people that lose it.

i heard about this today, mother in law and i were driving to the theatre today and she told me about the killings. She's Always listening to the news.

some people have even said that it's very Saturn in Sagittarius: oppression of free speech and freedom.

you have to be careful during these transits. Religion, philosophy, your morals, everything associated with the 9th house ideals.

anyway, my mother in law was saying how she knows that newspaper very well in that they are and have Always been Satirists and very critical; they're critical of everyone.

Posted by seraph
Cartoonists
Political satirists
Writers
Pundits
Columnists
Critics
Stand-up comics
Bloggers
People with opinions

... have a choice about *who/what* they will communicate about, *when* they will communicate about it, and *how* they will communicate about it.

The material available (open to use or misuse) is virtually unlimited.

Those who make a career out of comedy/satire want for nothing when it comes to topics and ideas. I'm pretty sure they can exercise a modicum of common sense without feeling any sort of creative deficit.

And let's be real here: no one is a "rebel" or the least bit "progressive" because they've decided to use a central article of faith in someone's religion (with full knowledge of the circumstances involving that particular article of faith) as a punch-line.

Chickens come home to roost for a variety of reasons... one of the more common ones being stupidity.

I agree. They have a choice and there are consequences to actions. However, do you think someone who writes political satire is thinking of the impending risk of his work all the time? Should they be obliged to think of that, as part of personal responsibility? Just thinking about it..

Because a lot of opinions in this topic sound like "Fuck them, they should've known better". And I don't think they did know better. However, are they guilty of not knowing better or the outcome couldn't be predicted? Because if it couldn't be predicted and it hadn't happened..then whose fault is it?

Isn't it still the fault of people who, for whatever reasons, decided to kill people? What about their responsability and sanity? Do I see something offensive and I immediately set out to kill people?

Just seems as an overemphasis on the cartoonists responsability and an underemphasis on deluded people acting deluded.

makes me wonder about Satire. and making fun of people and their religions. you have to be careful. Saturn is all about respect.

Posted by Damnata

Posted by LetltB
I disagree. You cannot compare a comedian to a left wing anti-religious nut. Comedians wouldn't have a job or they'd be dead. I guarantee it.

I wasn't comparing a comedian to a let wing anti-religious nut. I was comparing him to a cartoonist, expressing ideas. If you choose to see him/them as left wing anti-religious nuts, then okay. But I don't.

click to expand

This is extreme anti-religion and hateful:

The anti-religious, left-wing magazine has no qualms about offending people. From publishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that sparked Middle East riots in 2005 to renaming an edition "Shariah Hebdo" and listing Islam's prophet as its supposed editor-in-chief, the weekly has repeatedly caricatured Muslims and their beliefs.

On New Year's Eve, it published a caricature of a dog having sex with the leg of French President Francois Hollande, while on Dec. 20 it published a cartoon of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, who was depicted with a pig nose."

I'm sorry Damnata...That^^ is anti-religious extremism and it's not funny at all, in fact, it's hateful.

I'll step out now..

Posted by lisabethur8
makes me wonder about Satire. and making fun of people and their religions. you have to be careful. Saturn is all about respect.

Respect..yes. But in real life you will find opportunities to feel disrespect every step of the way. You can still count on yoursel and your judgment not to get carried away. If something is riling me up, I calm myself down..I don't take it on whomever riled me up.

Posted by LetltB

Posted by Damnata

Posted by LetltB
I disagree. You cannot compare a comedian to a left wing anti-religious nut. Comedians wouldn't have a job or they'd be dead. I guarantee it.

I wasn't comparing a comedian to a let wing anti-religious nut. I was comparing him to a cartoonist, expressing ideas. If you choose to see him/them as left wing anti-religious nuts, then okay. But I don't.

This is extreme anti-religion and hateful:

The anti-religious, left-wing magazine has no qualms about offending people. From publishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that sparked Middle East riots in 2005 to renaming an edition "Shariah Hebdo" and listing Islam's prophet as its supposed editor-in-chief, the weekly has repeatedly caricatured Muslims and their beliefs.

On New Year's Eve, it published a caricature of a dog having sex with the leg of French President Francois Hollande, while on Dec. 20 it published a cartoon of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, who was depicted with a pig nose."

I'm sorry Damnata...That^^ is anti-religious extremism and it's not funny at all, in fact, it's hateful.

click to expand

I wouldn't find that funny either. My point is what is funny is very personal and if they kept being in business, there were a lot of people finding it funny.

South Park has to be one of the most satirical and blasphemous shows on earth but no one is killing the creators. Because the audience sees the humor for what it is.

Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in natureterrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.


Lots of people in this thread defending that ^^^^^

Not related to the topic but just saw this and remembered there was a big topic about the world cup..

Posted by Damnata

Posted by lisabethur8
makes me wonder about Satire. and making fun of people and their religions. you have to be careful. Saturn is all about respect.

Respect..yes. But in real life you will find opportunities to feel disrespect every step of the way. You can still count on yoursel and your judgment not to get carried away. If something is riling me up, I calm myself down..I don't take it on whomever riled me up.

click to expand

i know what you mean.

it's all about control. Free will. We can control ourselves that we don't hurt other people.

Mock them, or hurt them. But some people, you can't deny it, they have strong tempers, and they can't control themselves. You get that in a "group", and they've had enough. It's not right, to hurt others, but who is going to stop them? Everything is about control. There's still statistics yearly out there that men still rape women, and it's because they cannot "control" themselves.

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn
Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in natureterrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.


Lots of people in this thread defending that ^^^^^

Because we live in murica! A breeding ground for domestic terrorism. They defend it.. Because we are just as guilty.

click to expand

Horseshit.

Posted by lisabethur8

Posted by Damnata

Posted by lisabethur8
makes me wonder about Satire. and making fun of people and their religions. you have to be careful. Saturn is all about respect.

Respect..yes. But in real life you will find opportunities to feel disrespect every step of the way. You can still count on yoursel and your judgment not to get carried away. If something is riling me up, I calm myself down..I don't take it on whomever riled me up.

i know what you mean.

it's all about control. Free will. We can control ourselves that we don't hurt other people.

Mock them, or hurt them. But some people, you can't deny it, they have strong tempers, and they can't control themselves. You get that in a "group", and they've had enough. It's not right, to hurt others, but who is going to stop them? Everything is about control. There's still statistics yearly out there that men still rape women, and it's because they cannot "control" themselves.

click to expand

Yup the downside of groups. Solidarity and strength of purpose..unless it goes bad and then it's much worse than single individuals with the right mindset.

Posted by Damnata

Posted by LetltB

Posted by Damnata

Posted by LetltB
I disagree. You cannot compare a comedian to a left wing anti-religious nut. Comedians wouldn't have a job or they'd be dead. I guarantee it.

I wasn't comparing a comedian to a let wing anti-religious nut. I was comparing him to a cartoonist, expressing ideas. If you choose to see him/them as left wing anti-religious nuts, then okay. But I don't.

This is extreme anti-religion and hateful:

The anti-religious, left-wing magazine has no qualms about offending people. From publishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that sparked Middle East riots in 2005 to renaming an edition "Shariah Hebdo" and listing Islam's prophet as its supposed editor-in-chief, the weekly has repeatedly caricatured Muslims and their beliefs.

On New Year's Eve, it published a caricature of a dog having sex with the leg of French President Francois Hollande, while on Dec. 20 it published a cartoon of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, who was depicted with a pig nose."

I'm sorry Damnata...That^^ is anti-religious extremism and it's not funny at all, in fact, it's hateful.

I wouldn't find that funny either. My point is what is funny is very personal and if they kept being in business, there were a lot of people finding it funny.

South Park has to be one of the most satirical and blasphemous shows on earth but no one is killing the creators. Because the audience sees the humor for what it is.

click to expand

i remember Southpark, my husband told me he used to watch that too. I don't recall any episodes making fun of Jesus and Mary and God in a way that is highly offensive though.

Mostly I've remembered is that SouthPark makes fun of People in general, because of their ridiculousness at times. Like the episode of when a group of people got stuck in a building and they were in there only an hour and starting killing eachother to eat!!! they were not even there a whole day and they're already hungry. It makes fun of that. It's dark satire but i don't recall any episode disrespecting people's religion.

Posted by capricornmoon
@CappTenn, terrorism defined by western dictionary. We must try to understand our enemies or things we oppose. Ask a Muslim extremist how he would define terrorism? Obviously they think this attack and 9/11 is justified, they don't see it that way at all. If we don't try to bridge a gap, blood will always be spilled.

@warm waters., that meme says it all. Religion, race, nationality, freedom of speech. These things aren't the issue. It's the simple fact that human beings can be inheritantly evil and capable of wiping out nations in the name of pride and ego.

Because pride and ego reinforces that your way, your belifefs, your experiences, your race, your religion, your ideology, your country, your whatever is the ONLY correct or righteous way of life. All people from all walks of life think this way, including terrorists. In the end, nothing is ever resolved.

I'm going to prove your point for you right here:

I don't give a damn what a Muslim Extremist terrorists think, or how they define anything.

They are the most savage, intolerant group of people gracing the earth today.

Posted by seraph
This point caugth my attention.

"lampooning radical Islam"

Is it really necessary to do this?

Muslims in general, for instance - not just "radical" elements of Islam - take The Prophet Mohammed's teachings and how his image and likeness are treated very seriously as a matter of course. Why mock that?

That weekly satirical magazine had a choice about what to publish, and they were not ignorant about what they were doing and how such material would be received.

Once again, a shocking deficit of common sense resulted in a surplus of tragedy.

What you're saying in plain words is we should let fear of extremists and terrorists dictate how to exercise our freedom of speech; let them decide what's tasteful and what's not?! "Before it hits the print, let's consider if we risk getting gunned down..." This is a free society we're talking about here, are you fucking kidding me? Everyone's offended by something, that's the price of freedom.

Why mock that? -- Same reason we can mock everything else! Neirher Islam or Mohammed stands above that. That's not even a legit question in this matter. And no, the weekly satirical magazine "were not ignorant about what they were doing and how such material would be received", and I applaud them for running with it. Obviousely it's needed. This tragedy is a proof of that.

Posted by capricornmoon
What is the purpose of taunting terrorist groups in cartoon depictions? Is it really necessary?

Nahh let's play by their rules instead.

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn
Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in natureterrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.


Lots of people in this thread defending that ^^^^^

Because we live in murica! A breeding ground for domestic terrorism. They defend it.. Because we are just as guilty.

Horseshit.

What do you call using brute force and numbers to get other nations to form to our idea of democracy?

Oh yeah.. "Shock and Awwwww"

click to expand

Read the definition again.

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn
Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in natureterrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.


Lots of people in this thread defending that ^^^^^

Because we live in murica! A breeding ground for domestic terrorism. They defend it.. Because we are just as guilty.

Horseshit.

What do you call using brute force and numbers to get other nations to form to our idea of democracy?

Oh yeah.. "Shock and Awwwww"

Read the definition again.

Use of violence - check!
Against civilians - check!
Political in nature - check!

How about for profit (Oil)? - check!

click to expand

Liberal talking points ^^^ check

Show me where the US has intentionally threatened, or used "calculated" violence against a civilian civilian populace.

Posted by GetMisted
@CapTeen

1. Cherokee war (1776)
2. Chickamauga war (1776)
3. Texas-Indian war (1820)
4. All 3 Seminole wars
5. Mexican American war (1846)
6. Navajo Wars (1858)
7. American Civil War (1861)
8. Occupation of Nicaragua (1912)
9. Occupation of Haiti (1915)
10. Occupation of Dom Republic (1916)


All those for land and religion.. Then you have politics and power struggles:

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf war
Afghanistan
Yemen
Iraq
Pakistan
Libya

I left out a lot, but the US uses it's numbers and power to either control land/power.. Or help others who don't have the means to fo so.

In other words, you got nothing -- in the last 150 years anyway.

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted
@CapTeen

1. Cherokee war (1776)
2. Chickamauga war (1776)
3. Texas-Indian war (1820)
4. All 3 Seminole wars
5. Mexican American war (1846)
6. Navajo Wars (1858)
7. American Civil War (1861)
8. Occupation of Nicaragua (1912)
9. Occupation of Haiti (1915)
10. Occupation of Dom Republic (1916)


All those for land and religion.. Then you have politics and power struggles:

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf war
Afghanistan
Yemen
Iraq
Pakistan
Libya

I left out a lot, but the US uses it's numbers and power to either control land/power.. Or help others who don't have the means to fo so.

In other words, you got nothing -- in the last 150 years anyway.

Start at Korea.. Dense much?

click to expand

Show me the direct threat and intimidation to the civilians of Korea, smartass.

Broke the page layout.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/07/pens-demonstrations-paris-france-charlie-hebdo_n_6431408.html

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted
@CapTeen

1. Cherokee war (1776)
2. Chickamauga war (1776)
3. Texas-Indian war (1820)
4. All 3 Seminole wars
5. Mexican American war (1846)
6. Navajo Wars (1858)
7. American Civil War (1861)
8. Occupation of Nicaragua (1912)
9. Occupation of Haiti (1915)
10. Occupation of Dom Republic (1916)


All those for land and religion.. Then you have politics and power struggles:

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf war
Afghanistan
Yemen
Iraq
Pakistan
Libya

I left out a lot, but the US uses it's numbers and power to either control land/power.. Or help others who don't have the means to fo so.

In other words, you got nothing -- in the last 150 years anyway.

Start at Korea.. Dense much?

click to expand

Here, I'll even throw you a bone:

addition to conventional military operations, North Korean soldiers fought the UN forces by infiltrating guerrillas among refugees. These soldiers disguised as refugees would approach UN forces asking for food and help, then open fire and attack. U.S. troops acted under a "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" policy against any civilian refugee approaching U.S. battlefield positions,[313] a policy that led U.S. soldiers to kill an estimated 400 civilians at No Gun Ri (26—29 July 1950) in central Korea because they believed some of the refugees killed to be North Korean soldiers in disguise.[314] The South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission defended this policy as a "military necessity".[315]

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by GetMisted
@CapTeen

1. Cherokee war (1776)
2. Chickamauga war (1776)
3. Texas-Indian war (1820)
4. All 3 Seminole wars
5. Mexican American war (1846)
6. Navajo Wars (1858)
7. American Civil War (1861)
8. Occupation of Nicaragua (1912)
9. Occupation of Haiti (1915)
10. Occupation of Dom Republic (1916)


All those for land and religion.. Then you have politics and power struggles:

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf war
Afghanistan
Yemen
Iraq
Pakistan
Libya

I left out a lot, but the US uses it's numbers and power to either control land/power.. Or help others who don't have the means to fo so.

In other words, you got nothing -- in the last 150 years anyway.

Start at Korea.. Dense much?

Show me the direct threat and intimidation to the civilians of Korea, smartass.

Aerial assaults dropping bombs on civilians..

South Korea 370k+ civilian casualties
North korea 290k civilian casualties and 90k+ captured

Want to discuss the atomic threat the US gave Japan next?

click to expand

All killed by the US, and on purpose too, right?

None by the Soviet's or Chinese, eh?

GTFO here. You have no idea what the definition of terrorism is, nor conventional war, or guerilla warfare.

I'm done with you.

Freedom of speech isn't required to cater to good taste and common sense. If it did, so many reality tv shows would not exist..same for the vast majority of entertainment.

Causing suffering? How about personal responsibility to not let your feelings rile you up to murder...over a cartoon.

Do you honestly think everyone should consider all scenarios every step of the way? People going to work and worrying over how their actions might annoy some loon who'd kill them. Going by that logic, why work at all? Why live? Everything and anything can annoy a mass portion of audience.

"I killed him because he looked funny at me. He should've considered my feelings on this"

Gain, no personal responsability for the culprit, all the responsibility for the victim.

Like we cannot cope with the reality of life, we have to hide behind utopias of how things should be done in an ideal world.

again*

Posted by GetMisted
No? Because the US can do no wrong? Is that what you're telling me?

Nope, not at all. The US is guilty of many things.

What I'm telling you is, you don't know the difference between conventional war and terrorism, therefore further conversation on the topic is useless.

Posted by Rabbit
If I walked down the street on the near-east side of Indy wearing a sombrero and a pancho talking like Speedy Gonzalez...

And a hispanic told me to the get the fuck out of his neighborhood with that shit or he was going to shoot me...

And I came back a week later doing the same thing...

And that dude shot me...

Who's to blame?

+1


common sense.

it seems if a person did that, it's just mocking and saying "fuck you, i'll do what i want to do in your neighborhood."

I mean, it's not right. Of course not. But does anyone want to actually do that kind of thing?

Sure, he'll go to prison if he's caught, but that's not the point. you're dead. end/

Posted by Damnata
Freedom of speech isn't required to cater to good taste and common sense. If it did, so many reality tv shows would not exist..same for the vast majority of entertainment.

Causing suffering? How about personal responsibility to not let your feelings rile you up to murder...over a cartoon.

Do you honestly think everyone should consider all scenarios every step of the way? People going to work and worrying over how their actions might annoy some loon who'd kill them. Going by that logic, why work at all? Why live? Everything and anything can annoy a mass portion of audience.

"I killed him because he looked funny at me. He should've considered my feelings on this"

Gain, no personal responsability for the culprit, all the responsibility for the victim.

Like we cannot cope with the reality of life, we have to hide behind utopias of how things should be done in an ideal world.

yeah but that's NOT the real world, Damnie. people are not cloned as robots. we all have different upbringings/religious attachments, and we all feel differently about many things. Some of those are "off", yes, but let's be real. There ARE people like that running around. The ones that if you look at them, they're gonna kill you. You have to be careful.

Posted by Rabbit
If I walked down the street on the near-east side of Indy wearing a sombrero and a pancho talking like Speedy Gonzalez...

And a hispanic told me to the get the fuck out of his neighborhood with that shit or he was going to shoot me...

And I came back a week later doing the same thing...

And that dude shot me...

Who's to blame?

The murderer.

i mean if you want to get killed and be BRAVE, ok. There's the military. Sign on.

Posted by Rabbit

Posted by KVZZMIR11

Posted by Rabbit
If I walked down the street on the near-east side of Indy wearing a sombrero and a pancho talking like Speedy Gonzalez...

And a hispanic told me to the get the fuck out of his neighborhood with that shit or he was going to shoot me...

And I came back a week later doing the same thing...

And that dude shot me...

Who's to blame?

Multiculturalism.

All I wanted was a damn taco and a cold Pacifico, though 😢

click to expand

lmao 😆

that neighborhood's must have the best tacos.

covert operation then.

Posted by Rabbit

Posted by CapTenn

Posted by Rabbit
If I walked down the street on the near-east side of Indy wearing a sombrero and a pancho talking like Speedy Gonzalez...

And a hispanic told me to the get the fuck out of his neighborhood with that shit or he was going to shoot me...

And I came back a week later doing the same thing...

And that dude shot me...

Who's to blame?

The murderer.

In the eyes of the law...yes.

But that's of little value if you're dead, isn't it?

A logical, intelligent person would think twice before taunting a person/group that has threatened violence.

click to expand

That's why there is a "War on Terror" that pisses everyone off so thoroughly.

Some of us are tired of the threats, and the violence that follows.

Stand up to it, or take it.

Posted by seraph
Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Good taste and common sense, however, should.

Having the freedom to do something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it without discretion and sensitivity. Neither of us lives alone in this world. We have neighbours - whether next door or across an ocean. And how we choose to spend our time (that is, in what direction we point our jeers, taunting, and "comedy") needs to be done with mindfulness in terms of whom it will effect and how [...]

What people in your corner of the world are able to take lightly, others might not.

Seraph, you're not the taste- or the mindfulness police. We're all offended by something. There are too many toes to avoid stepping on to even consider a general courtsey law.

And actually having freedom DOES mean we can do whatever we want with it as long as it's within the frame of the law and said freedom. Whether or not it's necessery is another question completely irrelevant to the subject matter. What you deem unnecessery may just be something someone else does for a living, or considers it to bectheir calling. And then some people just love to stir shit up (Leo moons, lol), and who's to say they shouldn't? We should probably ban performance art then. And black humor?

And lmao @ practicing sensitivity towards "neighbours" who'll blow me up if I don't share their sentiments. Let's first educate them on freedom of expression & speech BEFORE I even consider taking their sensibilities into consideration. Fuck my ozon, are you serious?

When I come to their part of the world rest assured I'll adapt to their sensitivity and mindfulness.

Freedom of speech... Y'all

Posted by KVZZMIR11
Bush Jr leaves office....Barack Hussein Obama takes office, creates ISIS, and purges ANY officer that dares not be a "yes man."

*yawn*

Crackpot conspiracy theorists enter; that's usually my cue to leave. G'night folks.

Posted by KVZZMIR11
He was voted out, kicked out or whatever is not the point....

The point is when Bush left ISIS DID NOT exist and Middle East was stable prior BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND HILARY CLINTON.

Obama spawned ISIS by pulling troops out too fast which created power struggle in the region.
Obama exasperated the situation by weak ass (LEO) response to ISIS.

It is what it is- Call me a conspiracy theorist- ISIS DID NOT EXIST until Obummer fucked up.

All true. Pansy ass liberals.....smh

Posted by KVZZMIR11

Posted by BlackNova
i never said, the "way in which" jw was decommissioned, was "the point"


the seeds for any of these radical groups were planted well before he arrived in office.
though, the stage was set for the current situation the moment the clock tick over to sept 11 2001

True...

The concept of Jihad and establishment of an Islamic Caliphate is a long established Muslim dream going back DECADES or LONGER before you, Bush, and I were conceived.

Bush Jr was an idiot to invade----but Barrack Hussein Obama pulling troops out prematurely which created power struggles is what gave ISIS its opportunity.

click to expand

Centuries.