I don’t like small talk in real life…so what makes you think I’d like it on the internet?
January 2012
30 posts
- Jon Stewart: You don't think two affairs hurts someone who thinks of themselves as a champion of traditional marriage?
- John Oliver: What could be more traditional than the arrangement that Gingrich proposed? Throughout history Jon, traditional marriage has meant powerful men doing whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want.
Opinions are for gray-areas; not facts. You can have an opinion on effectiveness of value-creation in certain economic policies, you can have an opinion on the best methods to cut down on teen drug use, but if you claim to be of the “opinion” that gay parents mess up children; you’re wrong. There’s no room for debate anymore. In this day and age, people no longer have the right to claim ignorance to the fact that kids raised by gay parents are just as “properly adapted” as any other kids. The evidence is there, and it’s loud and clear. Homophobia is now nothing more than a religion; belief without reason. One can “believe” that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat, but these beliefs stem from violent disregard of science. With all the information that exists about gay parenting now, to continue to claim that kids are worse-off in gay families, it pretty much puts you on par with these guys.
Moral of the story for all gay parenting haters out there:
Everything come's in threes...
World War III. It’s expected, right? Not because of any inevitable circumstances or anything. War is not inevitable. But they’ve set up our acceptance of World War III with the simple naming of the first two. I mean, they (whoever “they” are) never had to put I and II next to the first world wars, or even name them “world wars” at all. Have we already accepted a potential demise, if you will, through a simple psychological trick?
NDAA Passed to "Deal with" Occupy →
pastebin.com
More emails released from the AntiSec hack of Stratfor reveal that they suggested “quietly” passing the NDAA to “deal with” Occupy.
1/4/2012
STRATFOR OFFICIAL INSIDER E-MAIL
————————————————
Received: by ****** with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:15:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAkykyiggykykyiggyrfE_2AWaPMnV-LPsHFSQmrhM5cXZprquHimt0g@mail.stratfor.com>
Subject: OWS IMMINENT DANGERS
From: STRATFORINFORMANT <STRATFORINFORMANT@STRATFOR.com>
To: George Friedman <georgefriedman@STRATFOR.com>
IT IS OF THE OPINION OF THIS ANALYTICAL SECURITY
CONSULTANT THAT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IS EXTREMELY
DANGEROUS AND COULD BECOME A VIOLENT REVOLUTION
IF THEY CONTINUE TO REFUSE CONFORMING TO THE
ESTABLISHED POLITICAL PROCESS.
I SUGGEST THAT PERF ORGANIZE A MASS CRACK DOWN AT
ONCE AND THE NDAA SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY PASSED
AS QUIETLY AS POSSIBLE SO THESE GROUPS CAN BE
DEALT WITH CLEANLY.
END ANALYSIS
Still think you’re free in this country? Thank god for AntiSec making these details public.
NDAA: The right to detain “terrorists” indefinitely without a trial.
A trial would prove whether or not they actually qualify as “terrorists”.
“Terrorism” is an ambiguous term that can be applied to almost any act of nonconformity to the current system
Therefore, no trial is needed because how can one be proven to be something that is not defined?
Occupiers - they are looking for a reason to lock you up, to lock us up; and they clearly don’t need much of one anymore.
Jesus fucking Christ teenagers on the internet.
I wasn’t this obnoxious when I was 15 and on myspace, was I? …Was I?
Yes. Yes you were.
