jakee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,931

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by jakee

  1. jakee
    Don't pretend to be a moron just so you can continue disagreeing with 'the left'.
  2. jakee
    Right. So that means that everything in my post is a fair response. You weren't joking when you called Phil out for referencing Trump and you weren't joking when you put yourself on a pedestal for getting over Hillary after she stopped being an active political figure.
  3. jakee
    .
  4. jakee
    Why does there need to be any defense? No one claimed he was an angel, and it makes no difference to whether his killing was legal or just.
  5. jakee
    If he was some form of minority there would be some amount of 'ist' criticism of him. This would be pointed out. You would then jump on it and say that all his defenders call all his critics 'ist'. And you'd be just as wrong as you were just now. That exact thing played out with Obama, too. Remember when he once gave an interview where he said that some criticism aimed at him was because of race? What he said was simple and easily understood, but Fox and people here still jumped all over it saying 'hey look Obama's trying to squelch his opponents by saying that anyone who disagrees with him is racist!' It's bullshit.
  6. jakee
    So which bit were you not serious about? You don't think anyone here obsesses over Trump, or you haven't gotten over obsessing about Hillary?
  7. jakee
    That doesn't follow anything that has just been said.
  8. jakee
    Your reply to Phil was not a joke.
  9. jakee
    But it is very easy to prove a blanket statement false. There are several threads on the front page right now which do that. Indeed, that you would make such a statement does seem to show you have closed off your mind from honestly listening to anything said by those you see as the left.
  10. jakee
    The sanctimonious hypocrisy isn't. So you've apparently got over Hillary several years after she effectively quit politics, just like you got over Obama after his terms were up. I'm sure that a few years after Pelosi retires you'll get over her, and after Biden leaves the White House you'll get over him too. Then you can continue being smug and superior about your bipartisan open mindedness while not having to change a thing about how you treat any democrats in government while they are actually governing.
  11. jakee
    No it wasn't. In the time period they claim to cover it was a 0, then a bunch of 0s, then a single 1, then a bunch more 0s - not counting the helicopter, which still doesn't make the numbers match whichever way you cut it. (Somewhat ironically, it seems that the only person directly killed by the police in Scotland this millennium was the highly suspicious asphyxiation of a black man while restrained in custody, and no police officers were charged with any crime. Scotland - you were doing so well...) But do you though? The number for the rest of the UK is also wrong, I might even say seemingly picked at random. I'm going to assume the rest of them were too. I don't doubt that the USA is far out on its own in total and per capita, but I don't think your source is going to even remotely tell you by how much.
  12. jakee
    Some truth in that. Was quite a long winded non-apology apology though. Even though he's just admitted deliberate trolling the only thing he's actually apologising for is breaking a specific forum rule. If he was apologising for the message it would be different but just for the technicality... doesn't really cut much ice.
  13. jakee
    And the wrong side of morality and just society. But I guess in your position you have to take whatever win you can.
  14. jakee
    Wikipedia lists only one person killed by the police in Scotland since 2000. You could stretch to including the victims of the helicopter crash in Glasgow a few years ago which adds 10 including the police crew but that still comes up short. The number for England and Wales is wrong too, but in the other direction. Says 4 in the list but should be around 15 or so.
  15. jakee
    What an absurd assumption to make. Again, the lengths you'll go to in order to defend anyone on the right for any reason are quite remarkable. If anyone you thought of as being leftist had accused any conservative of wanting to pass laws against free speech because they wouldn't serve someone in their place of business you'd have had a conniption. I wonder if you have the class to retract this one. I assume not.
  16. jakee
    Not at all. I agree with the law that that he can't refuse service to protected classes. I also agree with the law that he can refuse service to people being hateful. Thanks for clarifying that you disagree, and feel that he should be forced to serve everyone, no matter what.
  17. jakee
    You can give that one up too. The 'you must tolerate intolerance' argument is facile.
  18. jakee
    Which is a really strange thing to do, since you know he isn't and you know he couldn't. Even stranger that you've continued to defend the post even after being told several times that it made no sense. But hey, Mark's on the right being criticized by people you think are on the left, so you've just got to dig your heels in and stay the course no matter what.
  19. jakee
    So you want to force people to associate with abhorrent bigots. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realise you so vehemently disagreed with the laws and constitution of your own country.
  20. jakee
    And other people can make decisions on how to treat you based on the views you express. How many people's freedom would you deny just to make sure your far right friends do not have to accept any consequences for their speech?
  21. jakee
    If we give you best out of three do you think you'd be able to find a word that is in the actual amendment?
  22. jakee
    But they would be denying service to you based on your hate, and the baker was denying service based on his own hate. Twisted bigotry isn't a protected class.
  23. jakee
    a) I didn't know the first amendment gave anyone the right to skydive. b) Your question doesn't make sense. You're either ignorant of the constitution or you're just stirring shit. If either of the two Joes banned Mark from their property because of the things he says they would not be denying his first amendment rights. The first stops the government from limiting his speech, it doesn't stop anyone else from responding to it however they choose, and it doesn't absolve anyone from the consequences of what they say. Funny how you guys on the right are only about personal responsibility when it suits you.
  24. jakee
    It must be a horrible world for you to live in. You can't walk past a mosque without being terrified of Muslims destroying the western world. You can't look at a protest against police violence without being terrified of communists overthrowing the government. You can't read about gay rights without being terrified of evil gay people doing things to your kids. Maybe if you did something about your anxiety disorder you could let go of some of your hate.
  25. jakee
    Oh come on, you can do better than that. Since I don't want to participate in a civil war how can I be projecting? At least make the effort to think of a distraction that makes sense. Just as Olof can call you on saying you want to shoot people and I can call you on lying about it.