Has Political Correctness Gone too Far?

[Unstumpable]

Obamacare was a huge flunk.

ObamaCare is a success: [X] [X] It will be better if we can push through full single-payer one day.

Fairly good? In your dreams.

No, in the real world, according to the source I linked.

He's done a lot of bad stuff.

His increase in drone strikes is one thing I blame him for.

Remember IRS? Or how about Benghazi?

...he did neither of those things.

Mediocre at the very best? Maybe.

Nope. He's done quite well. As I have shown, and as you have decided to ignore out of ideological spite.

Success? Haha! Good one Ivan!

Liberal lies are just as bad as "muh evil conservative" lies.

And if he didn't do those, then who did?

"ideological spite" Sorry, I don't speak crazy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

ObamaCare is a success: [X] [X] It will be better if we can push through full single-payer one day.

No, in the real world, according to the source I linked.

His increase in drone strikes is one thing I blame him for.

...he did neither of those things.

Nope. He's done quite well. As I have shown, and as you have decided to ignore out of ideological spite.

Success? Haha! Good one Ivan!

Liberal lies are just as bad as "muh evil conservative" lies.

And if he didn't do those, then who did?

"ideological spite" Sorry, I don't speak crazy.

Well, it's better than what we had before, to be fair. A solution, even if not implemented to resounding success, is better than no solution, which is exactly what Republicans in Congress have been engaging in: "Oh, we'll solve it eventually".

Yes, because you don't understand what a lie is.

Not Obama.

Apparently, you do.

[The Remote Islands]

I inhale from the sacred chalice of Breit Bart. I know within my heart of hearts that I am right and that other guy is wrong, because the fumes tell me so. I click the Quote button.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Success? Haha! Good one Ivan!

I sourced it. Twice. With like, facts and stuff. Are you conceding the point?

Liberal lies are just as bad as "muh evil conservative" lies.

Good thing I gave you three-hundred eighty-one sourced facts. Are you conceding this point as well?

You realize how debating works, right? I gave you proof. You can't just say "nuh uh."

And if he didn't do those, then who did?

The IRS and Libyan terrorists, I presume.

"ideological spite" Sorry, I don't speak crazy.

...are you kidding me. Are those words really too far out of your linguistic league.

[Tafhan]

ObamaCare is a success: [X] [X] It will be better if we can push through full single-payer one day.

No, in the real world, according to the source I linked.

His increase in drone strikes is one thing I blame him for.

...he did neither of those things.

Nope. He's done quite well. As I have shown, and as you have decided to ignore out of ideological spite.

Success? Haha! Good one Ivan!

Liberal lies are just as bad as "muh evil conservative" lies.

So you admit that Conservatives are just as prone to corruption and filth as Liberals?

[Keyboard Warriors]

All I can say is the silent majority is rising up against the over-censoring.
Just wait, it wont last for long.

The persecution complex on some of you guys is insane.

[Tafhan]

ObamaCare is a success: [X] [X] It will be better if we can push through full single-payer one day.

No, in the real world, according to the source I linked.

His increase in drone strikes is one thing I blame him for.

...he did neither of those things.

Nope. He's done quite well. As I have shown, and as you have decided to ignore out of ideological spite.

Ideological spite?!

He's only spited because he's the "nigger in chief". Things would be SILENT if it was a white person, or not as harshly criticized.

No, it would not. The majority of people who criticize him probably aren't doing it because they're racist. They're doing it because they don't agree with his policies.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay. Let's start

The deficit has been slashed as a percentage of GDP. Illegal immigration is a net zero. Inflation isn't significant. Employment is up significantly, though it could be better. There's more. Shall I continue, or do you actually want to add your own facts rather than generalities?

"Illegal immigration is a net zero" OH WOW OH WOW
http://cis.org/2.5-Million-Join-Illegal ... nder-Obama
Obamacare was a huge flunk. And pretty sure debt is a lot worse now.

You need to read your own sources more carefully. From the link:

The size of the illegal population has remained roughly constant since 2009 because these new arrivals were offset by those who returned to their home countries, those who received green cards, and natural mortality.

In other words, illegal immigration is at a net zero. I certainly hope that you're not in charge of your household budget if you only look at what's coming in, and not on what's going out.

Obamacare is a huge flunk by what standard, exactly?

Debt always gets worse. However, the size of the debt has grown much more slowly under Obama than under any of his recent predecessors.

[Socialist Czechia]

Basic problem -

Freedom of speech: where should it start and end?

My answer: Freedom of Speech must be total or there isn't Freedom of Speech, therefore everyone should be allowed to verbally express literally anything without any negative reaction from the state and it's laws.

I really don't see nothing between both extremes. If you make some words, therefore also some opinions banned, it's straightforward way to tyranny. Try to deny it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is true.

And I mean, in our current time there hasn't been a more tolerant time in history. However, we could do with more tolerance.

However, the question becomes, just how far do we stretch our tolerance of people? Up until what point do we say "this is okay"?

I think no one has any ultimate right to be offended. You can always ignore the words.

It's just too complicated to tell, what is offensive: every person see and hear it differently.

I mean, even if someone, in public, celebrated Fuhrer's birthday and spoke about Master race, I think you should just laugh or spit on him - if you'll call the police, he would felt to be important and supercool

So, basically, what I suggested pages ago and just kick their ass or shoot at them instead of using words?

[Socialist Czechia]

I think no one has any ultimate right to be offended. You can always ignore the words.

It's just too complicated to tell, what is offensive: every person see and hear it differently.

I mean, even if someone, in public, celebrated Fuhrer's birthday and spoke about Master race, I think you should just laugh or spit on him - if you'll call the police, he would felt to be important and supercool

So, basically, what I suggested pages ago and just kick their ass or shoot at them instead of using words?

We doesn't have to be so brutal.

However, I am sure, that if any nazi in my homeland had balls to celebrate Fuhrer in front of synagogue, Jews inside totally doesn't have to call the police: people there still remembers German occupation and their plan to exterminate us as 'filthy subhuman Slavs', so their asses would be possibly kicked by everyone around: from local football hooligans to 80-year old guys with sticks

Or they would just made some epic humiliating fun from them. We are nation of trolls.

[Brickistan]

Basic problem -

Freedom of speech: where should it start and end?

My answer: Freedom of Speech must be total or there isn't Freedom of Speech, therefore everyone should be allowed to verbally express literally anything without any negative reaction from the state and it's laws.

I really don't see nothing between both extremes. If you make some words, therefore also some opinions banned, it's straightforward way to tyranny. Try to deny it.

What if I said that you're a bloody idiot, an ugly excuse for a human being, and for the betterment of mankind I'll be coming around to put a bullet in your head?

Is that protected too?

Keep in mind that, if free speech is absolute, then the police can't do anything about it as I'm allowed to say anything, no matter how vile or threatening it might be. In essence, I'm allowed to state outright that I'll kill you, and no-one can do anything about it until I actually go through with it.

Unlimited free speech sounds nice in theory, but there's a reason why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Socialist Czechia]

What if I said that you're a bloody idiot, an ugly excuse for a human being, and for the betterment of mankind I'll be coming around to put a bullet in your head?

Then I would answer something so nice, that it would encourage you to try it

I really dislike people not acting as they promised.

Because no word can actually do harm. People do. If someone is stupid enough to act purely on someone else's words, well, that's part of the reason I am for more liberal gun laws.

[Ugatoo]

What if I said that you're a bloody idiot, an ugly excuse for a human being, and for the betterment of mankind I'll be coming around to put a bullet in your head?

Then I would answer something so nice, that it would encourage you to try it

I really dislike people not acting as they promised.

Because no word can actually do harm. People do. If someone is stupid enough to act purely on someone else's words, well, that's part of the reason I am for more liberal gun laws.

"gun's don't kill people people do"

[Socialist Czechia]

Then I would answer something so nice, that it would encourage you to try it

I really dislike people not acting as they promised.

Because no word can actually do harm. People do. If someone is stupid enough to act purely on someone else's words, well, that's part of the reason I am for more liberal gun laws.

"gun's don't kill people people do"

That's why I chose these words. Guns, words, you can't ban instruments, because violent people will find replacements for them anyway and peaceful people won't be able to say or do anything against it.

[Ugatoo]

"gun's don't kill people people do"

That's why I chose these words. Guns, words, you can't ban instruments, because violent people will find replacements for them anyway and peaceful people won't be able to say or do anything against it.

Which is why countries with stricter gun regulations have less gun violence. Same could be said about words.

[Socialist Czechia]

That's why I chose these words. Guns, words, you can't ban instruments, because violent people will find replacements for them anyway and peaceful people won't be able to say or do anything against it.

Which is why countries with stricter gun regulations have less gun violence. Same could be said about words.

When you put it like that...yes, USSR was totally more peaceful country than US.

Much less gun violence and no hate speech. No free speech, no hate speech.

Well, if you want it this way, I guess it's ok...

[Ugatoo]

Which is why countries with stricter gun regulations have less gun violence. Same could be said about words.

When you put it like that...yes, USSR was totally more peaceful country than US.

Much less gun violence and no hate speech. No free speech, no hate speech.

Well, if you want it this way, I guess it's ok...

I support regulated free speech. Canada doesn't have organizations protected by the government like the KKK, or Westborough

[Socialist Czechia]

When you put it like that...yes, USSR was totally more peaceful country than US.

Much less gun violence and no hate speech. No free speech, no hate speech.

Well, if you want it this way, I guess it's ok...

I support regulated free speech. Canada doesn't have organizations protected by the government like the KKK, or Westborough

There's nothing like 'regulated free speech'. You can have either free speech or censorship, therefore tyranny. There's nothing between, although people claim there is. But there isn't.

When you start with ban of words, change of words and you must force some kind of conformity to people under threats of penalty, prosecution, public humiliation, you must know, how it will inevitably end.

[Eol Sha]

When you put it like that...yes, USSR was totally more peaceful country than US.

Much less gun violence and no hate speech. No free speech, no hate speech.

Well, if you want it this way, I guess it's ok...

I support regulated free speech. Canada doesn't have organizations protected by the government like the KKK, or Westborough

Those are two very different organizations. One's a terrorist group and the other is a small church of Christian fundies.

[Ugatoo]

I support regulated free speech. Canada doesn't have organizations protected by the government like the KKK, or Westborough

There's nothing like 'regulated free speech'. You can have either free speech or censorship, therefore tyranny. There's nothing between, although people claim there is. But there isn't.

When you start with ban of words, change of words and you must force some kind of conformity to people under threats of penalty, prosecution, public humiliation, you must know, how it will inevitably end.

When you don't regulate what people say, people like Donald Trump become legitimate contenders to become head of state.

[LaVeyan Stirnerite Randroids]

Sometimes, but I find the side raving about political correctness going too far increasingly trollish and unpleasant due to the views that result from opposing political correctness.

[Ugatoo]

I support regulated free speech. Canada doesn't have organizations protected by the government like the KKK, or Westborough

Those are two very different organizations. One's a terrorist group and the other is a small church of Christian fundies.

Both are Christian terrorist groups.

[Eol Sha]

Those are two very different organizations. One's a terrorist group and the other is a small church of Christian fundies.

Both are Christian terrorist groups.

In what way is Westboro a terrorist group?

[Socialist Czechia]

There's nothing like 'regulated free speech'. You can have either free speech or censorship, therefore tyranny. There's nothing between, although people claim there is. But there isn't.

When you start with ban of words, change of words and you must force some kind of conformity to people under threats of penalty, prosecution, public humiliation, you must know, how it will inevitably end.

When you don't regulate what people say, people like Donald Trump become legitimate contenders to become head of state.

Every nation with free election has leaders it deserves.

If majority of US citizens will vote for Donald Trump, President of the United State of America, it will send a completely clear message at home and abroad.