Gay rights protester dumps glitter on Newt Gingrich

[Slargos]

I wouldn't dump a bottle of piss on Slargos if he was on fire.

I would dump a can of gasoline on you if you were on fire.

Flattering to know I'm worth going to prison for. 

You don't go to prison for taking out the trash. 

Most places don't allow you to just burn it anymore.  Though it's usually just a fine if you do, not jail time.

Dude, you're missing the point. I was likening the brutal slaying of Eddie to trash removal.

MAN.

Are you slow on the uptake?

Jeez.

[Maximus]

So by the same token it should be perfectly fine to go around dumping bottles of piss on people since frankly, they're not in any real danger from it.

Or smoke around them. Oh wait...

[garbon]

This sort of criminality is extremely dangerous.  The fag should be hanged.

While it is true that certain types of glitter can cut, I doubt he was in any real danger.

So by the same token it should be perfectly fine to go around dumping bottles of piss on people since frankly, they're not in any real danger from it.

Okay, Marti. What relevance does that have to Neil's statement about that sort of criminality being "extremely dangerous"?

[Slargos]

This sort of criminality is extremely dangerous.  The fag should be hanged.

While it is true that certain types of glitter can cut, I doubt he was in any real danger.

So by the same token it should be perfectly fine to go around dumping bottles of piss on people since frankly, they're not in any real danger from it.

Okay, Marti. What relevance does that have to Neil's statement about that sort of criminality being "extremely dangerous"?

None. It has relevance to yours.

If "not any real danger" is the qualifier for whether it should be permissible to douche people, then a lot of unacceptable behaviour suddenly becomes "no big deal".

[Neil]

This sort of criminality is extremely dangerous.  The fag should be hanged.

While it is true that certain types of glitter can cut, I doubt he was in any real danger.

It's the desensitizing effect that's the problem.  By making it acceptable for subhumans to strike out at their betters, it emboldens them.  If the fag in question were a dog biting a man he would be put down without question, and that's what needs to happen here.  Otherwise, next time it'll be anthrax, or explosives, or AIDS.

[garbon]

This sort of criminality is extremely dangerous.  The fag should be hanged.

While it is true that certain types of glitter can cut, I doubt he was in any real danger.

It's the desensitizing effect that's the problem.  By making it acceptable for subhumans to strike out at their betters, it emboldens them.  If the fag in question were a dog biting a man he would be put down without question, and that's what needs to happen here.  Otherwise, next time it'll be anthrax, or explosives, or AIDS.

Slippery slope?

[garbon]

None. It has relevance to yours.

If "not any real danger" is the qualifier for whether it should be permissible to douche people, then a lot of unacceptable behaviour suddenly becomes "no big deal".

Which is why I called you Marti as I didn't state that "not causing real danger" should be the sole determinate of whether or not an action should be permissible.

[Slargos]

This sort of criminality is extremely dangerous.  The fag should be hanged.

While it is true that certain types of glitter can cut, I doubt he was in any real danger.

It's the desensitizing effect that's the problem.  By making it acceptable for subhumans to strike out at their betters, it emboldens them.  If the fag in question were a dog biting a man he would be put down without question, and that's what needs to happen here.  Otherwise, next time it'll be anthrax, or explosives, or AIDS.

That you must be forced to be so detailed in explaining the obvious is a great tragedy. 

[Neil]

This sort of criminality is extremely dangerous.  The fag should be hanged.

While it is true that certain types of glitter can cut, I doubt he was in any real danger.

It's the desensitizing effect that's the problem.  By making it acceptable for subhumans to strike out at their betters, it emboldens them.  If the fag in question were a dog biting a man he would be put down without question, and that's what needs to happen here.  Otherwise, next time it'll be anthrax, or explosives, or AIDS.

Slippery slope?

Of course.  All arguments are slippery slope arguments.

[garbon]

Of course.  All arguments are slippery slope arguments.

Not really. If you are arguing that something that is happening now is bad (in and of itself) - you aren't really arguing about what effects that might lead to...and hence not a slippery slope argument.

[Neil]

Of course.  All arguments are slippery slope arguments.

Not really. If you are arguing that something that is happening now is bad (in and of itself) - you aren't really arguing about what effects that might lead to...and hence not a slippery slope argument.

Nothing is bad in and of itself.  All actions are social.

[Razgovory]

What was the gist of his criticism of Ryan?

He said right-wing social engineering is as bad as left-wing social engineering.

See, stuff like that is what I like about Gringrich.  But Raz is right--even among conservatives, Gringrich at his height was more respected than liked.  And you're win more elections by being liked.

Oh, you are so sweet!

[derspiess]

As much as I'm for Mitch Daniels's proposed truce on social issues, stunts like this "agree with me or I'll dump glitter on you" one make it more difficult for me.

[derspiess]

Btw, there is a theory that rather than trying to win the GOP nom, Newt is jockeying to fill the GOP maverick media darling role that McCain had in 2000.  Not sure I totally buy it, but I can't think of any other reason why he'd announce his candidacy & then proceed to undermine what small chance he had of getting the nom.

[Faeelin]

Btw, there is a theory that rather than trying to win the GOP nom, Newt is jockeying to fill the GOP maverick media darling role that McCain had in 2000.  Not sure I totally buy it, but I can't think of any other reason why he'd announce his candidacy & then proceed to undermine what small chance he had of getting the nom.

Do you really think it's more probable that Gingrich is a Machiavellian mastermind and not a guy who runs his mouth?