The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Dems should treat Kayla the way Reps treated Hillary when Bill was accused of bad behavior (Bill was not molesting children though, so Kayla should not get the kid gloves that Hillary got).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Massive FF. A bit of a special interest backer, but most people are, and those who aren’t are usually awful, divisive, and sometimes even support violence.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Massive FF. A bit of a special interest backer, but most people are, and those who aren’t are usually awful, divisive, and sometimes even support violence.

I don't get it.

Well, for one thing, the idea that most people are special interest bankers... It just oozes of the most obnoxious kind of centrism.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Wow, I support the President’s decision to turn WV into a Chinese vassal state. Look out for Mandarin-speaking hicks in 10-20 years.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Please, do tell what you consider to be "REAL" harassment.

Roy Moore, Donald Trump, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, etc.

Not what we have heard about Al Franken.

Playfully grabbing someone's ass (who is not someone that you employ or hold any other type of power over): Not harassment.

Continually grabbing that person's ass after you have been told not to do it, or grabbing someone's ass you you hold some king of power over: Harassment.

Please be advised that "not" labelling something harassment, doesn't mean that said behaviour is condoned.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

*Absurd and Ignorant One-Liners

Supporting an immoral ideology is a grave moral failing. To claim otherwise means to be fundamentally unserious about one's political beliefs.

Of course, everyone has their moral failings and we shouldn't be too quick to judge people for them, but I thought "terrible person" was pretty widely accepted forum hyperbole for someone who does something that's clearly bad and is unrepentant about it.

So, to be clear, if I regularly volunteer at homeless shelters and donate a large portion of my income to charity, but I oppose welfare legislation, then I’m a terrible person?

Yes, actually

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I would also state that the idea that kids are sent to such programs just because they are "LGBT" is a canard and a copout. 

Parents are responsible for their childrens' sexual behavior.  What that means, quite honestly, is that teenagers under 18 aren't supposed to be having sex.  Any kind of sex.  Period.  Parents are responsible to control the sexual acting out of their teenagers, period. 

This may come as a shock to millenials, but that's the way it is.  Parents are responsible to curb their childrens' sexual activity.  I will say this:  If a teen is acting out sexually, and the only way to get that teen to stop is to sent him to a facility such as what is talked about in these articles, and the parents have the means to do so, then consider that what it is. 

Is the cure worse than the disease here?  Lots of folks complain about what they went through with medical procedures.  They didn't like the doctor or the hospital or the side effects of the meds, etc.  That they say they'd have been better off without the treatment is not necessarily so.

My daughter-in-law lives with the son I'm talking about, with us, and with our son, who was HER son that we adopted when their lives went sideways.  One of the conditions of her living with us is that she comply with her meds, which she's always bitching about.  Yes, her meds have side effects, but so does smoking spice, and Cannabis Psychosis is a real thing.  Yes, a psychotropic med may have contributed to seizures she suffers from, but what about the secret cocaine use that my son disclosed was a part of her life in past years?  (Shhhhhhhh.)  Her lot in life is not pleasant, but what she hates has kept her alive and kept her from not attempting suicide. 

Life, and its events, occur in a context.

I don't condone this sort of thing, but I will assure you that much of this stuff (whose legality is dubious) is a desperate measure taken (quite often) by desperate parents.

I have been a parent of a "troubled teen" (drugs, alcohol, and crime).  Aside from my concern for his life (he would have died of liver failure at 15 from drinking "shroom juice"), parents in our position have real concerns.  One is the concern for the civil liability we face for the actions of out-of-control teens.  We're on the hook for every stupid thing they do until they turn 18.  The other is concern for the rest of the family, especially when there are other kids at home; we are responsible for the harm the out-of-control sibling inflcts on other kids in the house.

Out of curiosity (sorry to hear about such  a non-ideal situation w/ your son) how was that resolved? Did you have him go to a troubled teen center?

No, I did not.  My wife and I didn't have that kind of money.  I would have been open to something like these programs if money were no object.

Our son was addicted to drugs, non-compliant with counseling, acting out in school to where I had him drop out before he was expelled, and outside of our control to where we were not able to stop him from his worst behaviors (and we tried), but still liable for his foolish actions while he was under 18.  And, yes, we went after him when he went out, got in between him and his criminal friends, worked with the school (knowing their whole goal was to kick him out) and even trying to get him into residential treatment. 

Here's the little kicker:  Unless your teenager is either (A) ordered by juvenile probation to a residential program, or (B) involuntarily committed by a court order to a mental health/substance abuse facility, a teenager, even one who is appropriate for treatment can give the middle finger to all concerned and refuse to enter treatment.  This is true even of Juvenile Probation programs; they can violate your kid, but the havoc between the violation report and actually re-taking the teenager can be limitless.  The law heaps responsibility on parents, but it provides them with amazingly few means to deal with situations gone sideways, and gives teens unbelievable "rights" to refuse interventions.

While I am skeptical of many of the treatment methods described in this articles, I also believe that many of the former inpatients of these programs aren't pure victims; they were teenagers who became beyond the control of their parents and who posed real problems for their parents.  Some of these teenagers acted in ways to where there was NEVER any kind of real peace in the home.  I know what that's about.  I remember the arguments I had with my wife where I would have to tell her to stop kidding herself.  Indeed,  my son didn't get any kind of recovery until, after being arrested as an adult, I persuaded the Court to require him to complete an inpatient program.  Once there, I insisted he go out of state to a long-term re-entry facility (which he hated at the time; he hooked up with some relapse-bound female in intensive treatment). 

I never seem to see these folks who have been sent, involuntarily, to these facilities, express any remorse for their behaviors that kept their homes in turmoil.  They paint a picture of parents who didn't care about them, magnified their misdeeds, were only interested in themselves, and presided over family dysfunction, and that may be true, but their own behavior was, very often, either the root of the dysfunction, or the catalyst that kept it going and intensifying.  Kids die in these programs, that's true, but kids die because they persuaded their parents to give them another chance to avoid a residential setting, and they spend the chance overdosing on drugs, driving drunk, etc.  Parents get most of the blame for what these kids do, and it's true that parents are responsible for kids until their 18, but teenagers are autonomous human beings that make decisions and act on them.  They have wills of their own and can carry their will out to varying extents. 

Parents are under a real gun to control their teenagers' behaviors, but many lack the effective resources to do so.  That rich parents have those resources and go to these extremes, I'm not going to criticize.  And I WOULD like to see some teen product of such a program actually voice some remorse for the damage THEY inflicted on their family, instead of whining about how their parents "threw them away", etc.  Not taking responsibility for one's own actions is a habit that can sometimes last a lifetime, if enabled enough.

This man should not be a parent.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

No, because I'm more concerned with actual rights then whatever is plastered in the constitution.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

We could always elect Hillary ... that would be lower.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

the state has no responsibility to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty

Sociopathy

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I would rather put my trust on people in daily kos who have presented a clear case that the accusations are false, than the main stream media.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

No, because I'm more concerned with actual rights then whatever is plastered in the constitution.

Actual rights and the Madisonian Constitution are not mutually exclusive, but you’ve never been a big supporter of democracy.

Do you believe that rights are granted by the constitution or something?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

Did the moral right to equal protection regardless of race exist before the 15th amendment passed in 1870? Would it still exist if the 15th amendment had never been passed?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It'd be pretty funny if the Republicans won every single gubernatorial race in New England. Especially if it happened at the same time as a Democratic wave.

That will never happen because NH and CT will vote for whoever has a (D) next to their name.

MT Treasurer is really taking the Titanium D NH meme to the extremes. Apparently he also thinks CT is titanium D.

Whoosh

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

Did the moral right to equal protection regardless of race exist before the 15th amendment passed in 1870? Would it still exist if the 15th amendment had never been passed?

If a moral right does not legally exist, it does not exist.

So if murder is legal then it's ok?

🤔

No, then the prohibition of murder is not in place, making it legally allowed. See the difference?

Legal bs was never the topic until you brought it up.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Wow, you guys are actually not upset that a guy DEPORTED 5 TIMES for previous crimes just got absolved of killing a girl

Absolutely vile

This is absolutely because you guys treat immigration as a religion

Before posting retarded things, maybe you shouldn't assume retarded things.

I am all for deporting him and all other illegals, provided they aren't being persecuted by their home countries' governments.

And understanding a verdict that had to deal with beyond a reasonable doubt of intent is NOT at all thinking he shouldn't go to jail for life. Far from it

Either way, Zarate should not have been in this country in the first place. A beautiful young life was taken because of him, whether he intended to kill her or not. Time to end sanctuary cities.

Either way, Zarate should not have been in this country in the first place. A beautiful young life was taken because of him, whether he intended to kill her or not. Time to end sanctuary cities.

This is just an unfortunate situation and the Zarate situation was just an example of one bad apple, but it's no reason to end sanctuary cities. If anything we need to follow the lead of newly elected New Jersey Governor who has promised to make New Jersey a sanctuary state.

There is zero justification for sanctuary cities and a reason they poll poorly

Abusing the tragic death of an innocent person for your racist f**kery. And don't give me any bs about "its not racist cause something something sovereignty/laws", the way y'all view these people is quite clearly less then human.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Wow, you guys are actually not upset that a guy DEPORTED 5 TIMES for previous crimes just got absolved of killing a girl

Absolutely vile

This is absolutely because you guys treat immigration as a religion

Before posting retarded things, maybe you shouldn't assume retarded things.

I am all for deporting him and all other illegals, provided they aren't being persecuted by their home countries' governments.

And understanding a verdict that had to deal with beyond a reasonable doubt of intent is NOT at all thinking he shouldn't go to jail for life. Far from it

Either way, Zarate should not have been in this country in the first place. A beautiful young life was taken because of him, whether he intended to kill her or not. Time to end sanctuary cities.

Either way, Zarate should not have been in this country in the first place. A beautiful young life was taken because of him, whether he intended to kill her or not. Time to end sanctuary cities.

This is just an unfortunate situation and the Zarate situation was just an example of one bad apple, but it's no reason to end sanctuary cities. If anything we need to follow the lead of newly elected New Jersey Governor who has promised to make New Jersey a sanctuary state.

There is zero justification for sanctuary cities and a reason they poll poorly

Abusing the tragic death of an innocent person for your racist f**kery. And don't give me any bs about "its not racist cause something something sovereignty/laws", the way y'all view these people is quite clearly less then human.

Ah yes, I'm racist for saying someone is here illegally, despite calling other people in the thread out for their implied racism.

I hope the Democrats don't start calling everyone who thinks that a racist, otherwise, good luck with 35% of the vote.

The term "illegals" is inherently dehumanizing, for one thing. I fail to see how someone could spout such rhetoric about deportation so casually without seeing immigrants as somehow less then human.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You know what my thoughts on Kate Steinle's murder are, seeing as TG closed the original thread? I say "no justice, no peace."

Yes, and thankfully national Democrats are smart enough to avoid omegascarlet's name calling and call out this abomination for what it is.

You pretty clearly don't see immigrants as human in the way that you view "Americans".

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

These are probably the least severe at of all the sexual harassment claims we've seen. Asked her if she had a boyfriend? Put his hand on her thigh? Bad, creepy, but really not resignation worthy.

No Representative from this district has ever been re-elected.

Yeah, brand new swingy seats can do that. Anyway,  this is not resignation/step-down worthy

Come on lol I mean hand on thigh is bad but asking a woman out on a date when it is 'unwanted' is harassment now? Seriously?

Like how the hell is he supposed to know it is unwanted.

Anyway I don't think he should resign unless there was serious unwanted physical contact (kind of hard to parse from this report but it sounds like not).

And no, this is not the least serious allegation. That would be the disgusting victim-blaming from both sides that caused Barton to resign. But this is nearly there.

Come on lol I mean hand on thigh is bad but asking a woman out on a date when it is 'unwanted' is harassment now? Seriously?

It is if Kihuen's behavior was a repeat offense. In cases like these, the victim has almost always pleaded with their harasser to stop.

She said he asked her out on dates twice.

I mean come on, even if she said 'no and I'm never going out with you' I wouldn't call one additional request for a date harassment. He didn't stalk her, he didn't repeatedly undermine or belittle her, he didn't fire her or threaten her job.

You're presuming there's something here when there's no evidence of anything. Yes obviously if he did something beyond what's reported here that is harassment then he harasse her, but the facts of the case as stated are just clearly and obviously not.

Jesus the hot takes in this thread. It's like yall have never been to a bar or something

This is getting ridiculous the bar is so low these days for 'sexual harassment', next we will be calling on folks to resign over complimenting a chicks dress.

These f**kers are defending a 35 year old man repeatedly creeping on a 25 year old woman (even groping her) to the point where she quit her job as no big deal.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

When are people going to realize Santander isn't actually a terrible person and just says those kinds of things to incite reactions from people?

I dunno, his hatred of everything Chinese seems pretty legit to me.

You can't be labeled -ist against your own people

Posted directly in the thread.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

If Rapist Roy Moore is elected today (99% chance this happens) then I hope Al franken rescinds his resignation and remains in the senate. Evan if he's "guilty" of accidentally touching people's asses that's NOTHING in comparison to attempting to F*** a 14 year old girl and GILLIBRAND and company should Know this.

When you sound like Trump, you know you're wrong.

Seriously, that is written exactly like a Trump tweet.

Why can't the democrats learn how to play hardball "You elect a rapist, we keep are wrongly accused senators" However gillibrand is going to run us over the cliff into oblivion with her self-promoting culture wars instead of a real Left-wing Economic platform as promoted by Sanders and Warren.

I disagree with him, but I see where he's coming from. "You have to fight fire with fire".

Still defending rape.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Graham and McCain come from an era where it was seen as "moral" and "manly" to  be a warrior, a soldier, etc.

NK mega thread already has this. Btw, when did it become immoral to serve? Asking sincerely.

to those socialists, "morality" means giving all your money to the government for free abortions, legal marijuana, drinking age at 14, voting age at 16, euthanasia for the disabled, and all sorts of other stupidity. But defending liberty doesn't mean much to the socialists.