Chris Rock Attacks Reporter

[geauxtohell]

Shocking.

I will never again vote for Chris Rock.

 

[California Girl]

The guy is a jerk, but he makes money off of being a jerk. Doesn't make the question itself confrontational, nor does if give Rock the tight to throw a camera held by somebody else.

His reaction was undeniably over the top.... and he has made outrageous and stupid statements about the Tea Party.... But.... I dislike 'gotcha' journalism. I don't see that either side was 'right' on this episode. Doorstop journalism is cheap, and designed to provoke a reaction that they can create 'drama' out of.

I wouldn't know anything about that.

I would.

 

[GHook93]

Those are DIFFERENT. Only the left can get violent when asked a question about their behavior. Just like Rush gets hammered for calling an activist a slut but Ed Shultz gets ignored for calling a cancer survivor a slut several times.

Eyeah.

Shultz apologized and was off the air for a day. And it wasn't "several" times..it was once.

Rush..got hammered because he went on a three day tirade against a private citizen. He didn't only call her a slut..he suggested Fluke be forced to make porno films for his enjoyment.

And he never really apologized. So..the Free Market is working it out.

What's wrong with that?

Be honest.
Rush..got hammered because he's a Republican...


Turns out the "lady" in question was, is, everything he said she was, plus, it turns out that the whole incident was orchestrated by the Left.

The lady is dishonest to. I have heard her speak since. She keeps saying that they are trying to ban contraceptives! Que? No one is saying that. All they are saying is allow religious institutions to opt out of paying for it. First, when employers are picking plans, they have the ability to opt out of paying for all kinds of treatment, such as, but not limited to, marriage counseling (mental health), vision programs, speech therapy etc. They don't want to include or pay for them. Second, we are talking about birth control. This is expensive live saving surgery. It rather inexpensive and most forms, like condoms, are covered under anyone's healthcare plan anyways!

But when you hear her speech she say they are taking about a woman's right to birth control. Very dishonest.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Another excellent post by PoliticalChic and certainly one that hits the nail on the head. I am still amazed at the absolute lack of faith in people and the human spirit that guides liberal philosophy. It amazes me that a human being can look around at third-world shit holes in this world like North Korea, Iran, and others and still believe that the path to "greatness" is a very large and very powerful central government. History has shown us from the beginning that great power given to a central government can only result in the destruction of the human spirit, freedom, and real progress. Yet, we have in Barry and his boys, an unchecked march toward larger and more powerful federal intrusion into our every day lives. History be damned, we know what is best! PUT DOWN THAT HAPPY MEAL!

They know better than you do what is good for you. They know that in their world, you will be cared for from cradle to grave, but for this alleged safety net, you must give up certain things so that we may all benefit. They want you all to be the same, to have the same. They want YOU TO STAND IN LINE AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

Not while I have a single breath in my body...

 

[Sallow]

Ever been to Sundance? There are multiple events happening simultaneously, often in different buildings. Going from one to the other often involves cars, buses, extended walking, and even stairs. It also happens to be true that he is from Brooklyn. I don't know if he is a Chris Rock fan or not, but asking a guy why he thinks a group is a bunch of insane racists in a calm voice is confrontational.

Jason Mattera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy was being a jerk. That said..Rock should have just walked away..and been done with it.

You need to watch the video. The guy was not at all a jerk to Rock. He was calm, polite, complimentary, and asked a question in a non-accusatory manner.

Or, is there now a NewSpeak definition of "jerk"?

Um first he comes up like a fan..and says he wants a picture..then ambushes him with a question about the Tea Party. That's bullshit.

But Rock should have just walked away. But instead he comes off looking like a bigger jerk.

 

[California Girl]

The guy was being a jerk. That said..Rock should have just walked away..and been done with it.

You need to watch the video. The guy was not at all a jerk to Rock. He was calm, polite, complimentary, and asked a question in a non-accusatory manner.

Or, is there now a NewSpeak definition of "jerk"?

Um first he comes up like a fan..and says he wants a picture..then ambushes him with a question about the Tea Party. That's bullshit.

But Rock should have just walked away. But instead he comes off looking like a bigger jerk.

So you know, I haven't forgotten that I owe you a rep.

No, not a neg.

I'm still out... but, on the bright side.... that has worked in your favor.

 

[Katzndogz]

Chris Rock is a STAR.

As a zebra in a cartoon. And, he complained about that.

 

[newpolitics]

The Conservative reporter approached Rock, pretending to be a big admirer, then became confrontational.

You are a foolish fellow....and evince the typical Liberal mode,...
...while not stupid enough to actually believe that you have explained the incident, you pretend that you have explained it.

I've posited before that the Liberal lives by the double standard.
We should never expect any other from one.

Unless, you would suggest that the fellow being interviewed should attack this interviewer, who, arguably, is confrontational:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URJUSlfTgGU]Obama's Contentious Fox News Interview - YouTube[/ame]


or perhaps Governor Palin should have snatched the glasses from Charlie Gibson....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU]Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan - YouTube[/ame]

Are you really this one-sided and blind to your own hypocrisy? Chris is a black man, asked to talk about a racist party. He has every right to do what he did, and, he was decieved. The person approached as a friend, and then made himself known to be an enemy. You hold liberals up to this golden standard, and if they fail... then you make all of these stupid conclusions about liberals in general. You sound like a 2nd grader, which is pretty usual for conservatives. I think you suffer from a pathological group immaturity, but that's just my opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He was going after Chris like somebody from Howard Stern would. BabaBooey

Brietbart..

what's hilarious is that Poli-Chic thinks it's a left-right issue.

a celebrity goes after a camera set up to make them look bad. D'Oh!

PC rarely gets it right.

True, but in all fairness you cannot help but admire her intellectual pratfalls for the sheer scope of their dimensions.

Towering and majestic are words that come to mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

what's hilarious is that Poli-Chic thinks it's a left-right issue.

a celebrity goes after a camera set up to make them look bad. D'Oh!

PC rarely gets it right.

True, but in all fairness you cannot help but admire her intellectual pratfalls for the sheer scope of their dimensions.

Towering and majestic are words that come to mind.

You know, I'm almost astounded!

This is the cleverest attempt at humorous insult that you have tried!
Bravo!

See, studying my posts has proven efficacious for you!

Now, if you try understanding them, you may be able to move from the 'Darkside.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Conservative reporter approached Rock, pretending to be a big admirer, then became confrontational.

You are a foolish fellow....and evince the typical Liberal mode,...
...while not stupid enough to actually believe that you have explained the incident, you pretend that you have explained it.

I've posited before that the Liberal lives by the double standard.
We should never expect any other from one.

Unless, you would suggest that the fellow being interviewed should attack this interviewer, who, arguably, is confrontational:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URJUSlfTgGU]Obama's Contentious Fox News Interview - YouTube[/ame]


or perhaps Governor Palin should have snatched the glasses from Charlie Gibson....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU]Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan - YouTube[/ame]

Are you really this one-sided and blind to your own hypocrisy? Chris is a black man, asked to talk about a racist party. He has every right to do what he did, and, he was decieved. The person approached as a friend, and then made himself known to be an enemy. You hold liberals up to this golden standard, and if they fail... then you make all of these stupid conclusions about liberals in general. You sound like a 2nd grader, which is pretty usual for conservatives. I think you suffer from a pathological group immaturity, but that's just my opinion.

My response is going to be so far over your head, that, out of goodness, I'm going to suggest that you simply move on...


1. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” Hayek explains the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….that process being the interaction of human beings, each of whom wants something from the other, and all of whom must live together.

a. Cultural adaptations predate, and are the basis for society. It is through the understanding of our culture that one is able to predict the operation of the social environment.

2. The millennia-long evolution of the human family as a means of dealing with the environment was discarded by the 60’s generation of fantasists, Liberals, in favor of a concept not only artificial, but inchoate: “freedom.” It was done through the a ‘new social vision,’ chock full of ‘good ideas,’….feminism, birth control, ‘diversity,’ free love, welfare, affirmative action, and a profusion of other counter cultural’ innovations.

a. The problem, the failure of the ‘good ideas’ is that they are the product of a consciousness incapable of recognizing let alone assessing possible variables. Your post proves same.

3. Therefore, when the 'good ideas,' formed via good intentions, make different rules and laws for different groups, the culture becomes both unintelligible and unstable.

4. Troubled youngsters from less than stable families have, traditionally had the possibility of solace in those institutions operating in loco parentis. Denied order and predictability in the home, the child and adolescent might find it in the rules of the school” learn your lessons, dress and act appropriately, sit down and be quiet. Though the child complains, these are, to him, a comfort. They are predictable, they are impersonal, so he need not take them, contrary to the enormities of life at home, ‘personally.’ Thus, the perfect inculcator of a respect for law, tradition, and property, without which the child can have no success in the wider, less predictable world beyond school.


So, when fools (insert your name here) find a violent reaction to a civil question appropriate - for some individuals- for some groups- they are the problem....


Both sides are interested in Justice: Conservatives hold that it is best served by strict adherence to the rule of law; Liberals, by an increase in the granting of Rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Conservative reporter approached Rock, pretending to be a big admirer, then became confrontational.

So, is honesty the barometer in social intercourse?

Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

 

[newpolitics]

You are a foolish fellow....and evince the typical Liberal mode,...
...while not stupid enough to actually believe that you have explained the incident, you pretend that you have explained it.

I've posited before that the Liberal lives by the double standard.
We should never expect any other from one.

Unless, you would suggest that the fellow being interviewed should attack this interviewer, who, arguably, is confrontational:

Obama's Contentious Fox News Interview - YouTube


or perhaps Governor Palin should have snatched the glasses from Charlie Gibson....


Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan - YouTube

Are you really this one-sided and blind to your own hypocrisy? Chris is a black man, asked to talk about a racist party. He has every right to do what he did, and, he was decieved. The person approached as a friend, and then made himself known to be an enemy. You hold liberals up to this golden standard, and if they fail... then you make all of these stupid conclusions about liberals in general. You sound like a 2nd grader, which is pretty usual for conservatives. I think you suffer from a pathological group immaturity, but that's just my opinion.

My response is going to be so far over your head, that, out of goodness, I'm going to suggest that you simply move on...


1. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” Hayek explains the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….that process being the interaction of human beings, each of whom wants something from the other, and all of whom must live together.

a. Cultural adaptations predate, and are the basis for society. It is through the understanding of our culture that one is able to predict the operation of the social environment.

2. The millennia-long evolution of the human family as a means of dealing with the environment was discarded by the 60’s generation of fantasists, Liberals, in favor of a concept not only artificial, but inchoate: “freedom.” It was done through the a ‘new social vision,’ chock full of ‘good ideas,’….feminism, birth control, ‘diversity,’ free love, welfare, affirmative action, and a profusion of other counter cultural’ innovations.

a. The problem, the failure of the ‘good ideas’ is that they are the product of a consciousness incapable of recognizing let alone assessing possible variables. Your post proves same.

3. Therefore, when the 'good ideas,' formed via good intentions, make different rules and laws for different groups, the culture becomes both unintelligible and unstable.

4. Troubled youngsters from less than stable families have, traditionally had the possibility of solace in those institutions operating in loco parentis. Denied order and predictability in the home, the child and adolescent might find it in the rules of the school” learn your lessons, dress and act appropriately, sit down and be quiet. Though the child complains, these are, to him, a comfort. They are predictable, they are impersonal, so he need not take them, contrary to the enormities of life at home, ‘personally.’ Thus, the perfect inculcator of a respect for law, tradition, and property, without which the child can have no success in the wider, less predictable world beyond school.


So, when fools (insert your name here) find a violent reaction to a civil question appropriate - for some individuals- for some groups- they are the problem....


Both sides are interested in Justice: Conservatives hold that it is best served by strict adherence to the rule of law; Liberals, by an increase in the granting of Rights.

You're right: i have no idea how you tied in any of what you posted, to the topic at hand. Partially because it was poorly written, but mostly because it was total non-sequitur to a video of a guy punching someone else. It's actually hilarious to me that you are so self-righteous while being so unintelligent. While I suspect your immaturity will immediately lead to you attempt to undermine my intelligence, I assure, you will be misguided, as you are.

A guy punched another guy, and you are bringing in essays on the errors of socialism? I guess the most obvious distinction to me, and the action I would have to ask of you is:

do you really think that what you wrote applies only to liberals?

The answer is no. They could apply to anybody.

I literally can not address anything specific to your post because it is completely uninteresting.

There are a million reasons a person commits violence against someone else. To attribute this act entirely to his political background is vast oversimplification of the human animal and his or her motivations. You seem to be trying to ram all of this information into too narrow of perspective, which is the basis of your distortion, as I see it.

There are a number of things we do not know about this incident, so to jump to political orientation is intellectual forfeit and unscientific... oh, I forgot. Conservatives tend to not believe in science. So, you get to make up the answers that best fit your beliefs?! This seems to be the pattern with conservatives, and you fall in nicely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you really this one-sided and blind to your own hypocrisy? Chris is a black man, asked to talk about a racist party. He has every right to do what he did, and, he was decieved. The person approached as a friend, and then made himself known to be an enemy. You hold liberals up to this golden standard, and if they fail... then you make all of these stupid conclusions about liberals in general. You sound like a 2nd grader, which is pretty usual for conservatives. I think you suffer from a pathological group immaturity, but that's just my opinion.

My response is going to be so far over your head, that, out of goodness, I'm going to suggest that you simply move on...


1. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” Hayek explains the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….that process being the interaction of human beings, each of whom wants something from the other, and all of whom must live together.

a. Cultural adaptations predate, and are the basis for society. It is through the understanding of our culture that one is able to predict the operation of the social environment.

2. The millennia-long evolution of the human family as a means of dealing with the environment was discarded by the 60’s generation of fantasists, Liberals, in favor of a concept not only artificial, but inchoate: “freedom.” It was done through the a ‘new social vision,’ chock full of ‘good ideas,’….feminism, birth control, ‘diversity,’ free love, welfare, affirmative action, and a profusion of other counter cultural’ innovations.

a. The problem, the failure of the ‘good ideas’ is that they are the product of a consciousness incapable of recognizing let alone assessing possible variables. Your post proves same.

3. Therefore, when the 'good ideas,' formed via good intentions, make different rules and laws for different groups, the culture becomes both unintelligible and unstable.

4. Troubled youngsters from less than stable families have, traditionally had the possibility of solace in those institutions operating in loco parentis. Denied order and predictability in the home, the child and adolescent might find it in the rules of the school” learn your lessons, dress and act appropriately, sit down and be quiet. Though the child complains, these are, to him, a comfort. They are predictable, they are impersonal, so he need not take them, contrary to the enormities of life at home, ‘personally.’ Thus, the perfect inculcator of a respect for law, tradition, and property, without which the child can have no success in the wider, less predictable world beyond school.


So, when fools (insert your name here) find a violent reaction to a civil question appropriate - for some individuals- for some groups- they are the problem....


Both sides are interested in Justice: Conservatives hold that it is best served by strict adherence to the rule of law; Liberals, by an increase in the granting of Rights.

You're right: i have no idea how you tied in any of what you posted, to the topic at hand. Partially because it was poorly written, but mostly because it was total non-sequitur to a video of a guy punching someone else. It's actually hilarious to me that you are so self-righteous while being so unintelligent. While I suspect your immaturity will immediately lead to you attempt to undermine my intelligence, I assure, you will be misguided, as you are.

A guy punched another guy, and you are bringing in essays on the errors of socialism? I guess the most obvious distinction to me, and the action I would have to ask of you is:

do you really think that what you wrote applies only to liberals?

The answer is no. They could apply to anybody.

I literally can not address anything specific to your post because it is completely uninteresting.

There are a million reasons a person commits violence against someone else. To attribute this act entirely to his political background is vast oversimplification of the human animal and his or her motivations. You seem to be trying to ram all of this information into too narrow of perspective, which is the basis of your distortion, as I see it.

There are a number of things we do not know about this incident, so to jump to political orientation is intellectual forfeit and unscientific... oh, I forgot. Conservatives tend to not believe in science. So, you get to make up the answers that best fit your beliefs?! This seems to be the pattern with conservatives, and you fall in nicely.

Well, I tried to warn you that you are not educationally nor intellectually equipped to deal with the post....

"I literally can not address anything specific to your post..."

So true.

 

[newpolitics]

My response is going to be so far over your head, that, out of goodness, I'm going to suggest that you simply move on...


1. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” Hayek explains the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….that process being the interaction of human beings, each of whom wants something from the other, and all of whom must live together.

a. Cultural adaptations predate, and are the basis for society. It is through the understanding of our culture that one is able to predict the operation of the social environment.

2. The millennia-long evolution of the human family as a means of dealing with the environment was discarded by the 60’s generation of fantasists, Liberals, in favor of a concept not only artificial, but inchoate: “freedom.” It was done through the a ‘new social vision,’ chock full of ‘good ideas,’….feminism, birth control, ‘diversity,’ free love, welfare, affirmative action, and a profusion of other counter cultural’ innovations.

a. The problem, the failure of the ‘good ideas’ is that they are the product of a consciousness incapable of recognizing let alone assessing possible variables. Your post proves same.

3. Therefore, when the 'good ideas,' formed via good intentions, make different rules and laws for different groups, the culture becomes both unintelligible and unstable.

4. Troubled youngsters from less than stable families have, traditionally had the possibility of solace in those institutions operating in loco parentis. Denied order and predictability in the home, the child and adolescent might find it in the rules of the school” learn your lessons, dress and act appropriately, sit down and be quiet. Though the child complains, these are, to him, a comfort. They are predictable, they are impersonal, so he need not take them, contrary to the enormities of life at home, ‘personally.’ Thus, the perfect inculcator of a respect for law, tradition, and property, without which the child can have no success in the wider, less predictable world beyond school.


So, when fools (insert your name here) find a violent reaction to a civil question appropriate - for some individuals- for some groups- they are the problem....


Both sides are interested in Justice: Conservatives hold that it is best served by strict adherence to the rule of law; Liberals, by an increase in the granting of Rights.

You're right: i have no idea how you tied in any of what you posted, to the topic at hand. Partially because it was poorly written, but mostly because it was total non-sequitur to a video of a guy punching someone else. It's actually hilarious to me that you are so self-righteous while being so unintelligent. While I suspect your immaturity will immediately lead to you attempt to undermine my intelligence, I assure, you will be misguided, as you are.

A guy punched another guy, and you are bringing in essays on the errors of socialism? I guess the most obvious distinction to me, and the action I would have to ask of you is:

do you really think that what you wrote applies only to liberals?

The answer is no. They could apply to anybody.

I literally can not address anything specific to your post because it is completely uninteresting.

There are a million reasons a person commits violence against someone else. To attribute this act entirely to his political background is vast oversimplification of the human animal and his or her motivations. You seem to be trying to ram all of this information into too narrow of perspective, which is the basis of your distortion, as I see it.

There are a number of things we do not know about this incident, so to jump to political orientation is intellectual forfeit and unscientific... oh, I forgot. Conservatives tend to not believe in science. So, you get to make up the answers that best fit your beliefs?! This seems to be the pattern with conservatives, and you fall in nicely.

Well, I tried to warn you that you are not educationally nor intellectually equipped to deal with the post....

"I literally can not address anything specific to your post..."

So true.

I wouldn't attribute this effect to my intelligence, but rather you non-sequitorial post that didn't touch on any piece of this discussion. If you want to kindly explain exactly how any of what you said relates to Chris Rock punching an asshole reporter, maybe I can understand where you are coming from. Until then, continue to basque in your own self-admiration.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The New York Times bestselling author of the explosive new book, Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obama’s Biggest Backers, Jason Mattera, had his crew’s camera snatched and hurled by comedian Chris Rock when he asked the star why he has called the Tea Party racist (video below).

“I was stunned,” said Mr. Mattera in an exclusive interview with Big Hollywood. “Tea Party members get called the worst things imaginable and still remain peaceful. But ask a big Hollywood celebrity to explain himself and the guy goes ballistic, wrestles the camera away from my camerawoman, chucks it 50 feet, and then challenges me to a fight. It’s unreal. And it perfectly illustrates why I decided to investigate and writeHollywood Hypocrites.”
EXCLUSIVE: Chris Rock Attacks Conservative Author Over Tea Party Question



Chris Rock Attacks Camera After Tea Party Question - YouTube


Can this be???
The peaceful, tolerant Liberals???

I love when that little shrimp tries to play "angry black man."

If he pulled that shit on me I would have bitch slapped him.

 

[newpolitics]

My response is going to be so far over your head, that, out of goodness, I'm going to suggest that you simply move on...


1. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” Hayek explains the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….that process being the interaction of human beings, each of whom wants something from the other, and all of whom must live together.

a. Cultural adaptations predate, and are the basis for society. It is through the understanding of our culture that one is able to predict the operation of the social environment.

2. The millennia-long evolution of the human family as a means of dealing with the environment was discarded by the 60’s generation of fantasists, Liberals, in favor of a concept not only artificial, but inchoate: “freedom.” It was done through the a ‘new social vision,’ chock full of ‘good ideas,’….feminism, birth control, ‘diversity,’ free love, welfare, affirmative action, and a profusion of other counter cultural’ innovations.

a. The problem, the failure of the ‘good ideas’ is that they are the product of a consciousness incapable of recognizing let alone assessing possible variables. Your post proves same.

3. Therefore, when the 'good ideas,' formed via good intentions, make different rules and laws for different groups, the culture becomes both unintelligible and unstable.

4. Troubled youngsters from less than stable families have, traditionally had the possibility of solace in those institutions operating in loco parentis. Denied order and predictability in the home, the child and adolescent might find it in the rules of the school” learn your lessons, dress and act appropriately, sit down and be quiet. Though the child complains, these are, to him, a comfort. They are predictable, they are impersonal, so he need not take them, contrary to the enormities of life at home, ‘personally.’ Thus, the perfect inculcator of a respect for law, tradition, and property, without which the child can have no success in the wider, less predictable world beyond school.


So, when fools (insert your name here) find a violent reaction to a civil question appropriate - for some individuals- for some groups- they are the problem....


Both sides are interested in Justice: Conservatives hold that it is best served by strict adherence to the rule of law; Liberals, by an increase in the granting of Rights.

You're right: i have no idea how you tied in any of what you posted, to the topic at hand. Partially because it was poorly written, but mostly because it was total non-sequitur to a video of a guy punching someone else. It's actually hilarious to me that you are so self-righteous while being so unintelligent. While I suspect your immaturity will immediately lead to you attempt to undermine my intelligence, I assure, you will be misguided, as you are.

A guy punched another guy, and you are bringing in essays on the errors of socialism? I guess the most obvious distinction to me, and the action I would have to ask of you is:

do you really think that what you wrote applies only to liberals?

The answer is no. They could apply to anybody.

I literally can not address anything specific to your post because it is completely uninteresting.

There are a million reasons a person commits violence against someone else. To attribute this act entirely to his political background is vast oversimplification of the human animal and his or her motivations. You seem to be trying to ram all of this information into too narrow of perspective, which is the basis of your distortion, as I see it.

There are a number of things we do not know about this incident, so to jump to political orientation is intellectual forfeit and unscientific... oh, I forgot. Conservatives tend to not believe in science. So, you get to make up the answers that best fit your beliefs?! This seems to be the pattern with conservatives, and you fall in nicely.

Well, I tried to warn you that you are not educationally nor intellectually equipped to deal with the post....

"I literally can not address anything specific to your post..."

So true.

Are you trying to assume a sociological perspective in attempting to explain this specific incident, while hinting at an explaination for all liberalism? If that's the case, or even in the ballpark, then that is pretty hilariously ineffectual. Why don't we stop the guessing game and just show us how dumb you really are: what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right: i have no idea how you tied in any of what you posted, to the topic at hand. Partially because it was poorly written, but mostly because it was total non-sequitur to a video of a guy punching someone else. It's actually hilarious to me that you are so self-righteous while being so unintelligent. While I suspect your immaturity will immediately lead to you attempt to undermine my intelligence, I assure, you will be misguided, as you are.

A guy punched another guy, and you are bringing in essays on the errors of socialism? I guess the most obvious distinction to me, and the action I would have to ask of you is:

do you really think that what you wrote applies only to liberals?

The answer is no. They could apply to anybody.

I literally can not address anything specific to your post because it is completely uninteresting.

There are a million reasons a person commits violence against someone else. To attribute this act entirely to his political background is vast oversimplification of the human animal and his or her motivations. You seem to be trying to ram all of this information into too narrow of perspective, which is the basis of your distortion, as I see it.

There are a number of things we do not know about this incident, so to jump to political orientation is intellectual forfeit and unscientific... oh, I forgot. Conservatives tend to not believe in science. So, you get to make up the answers that best fit your beliefs?! This seems to be the pattern with conservatives, and you fall in nicely.

Well, I tried to warn you that you are not educationally nor intellectually equipped to deal with the post....

"I literally can not address anything specific to your post..."

So true.

I wouldn't attribute this effect to my intelligence, but rather you non-sequitorial post that didn't touch on any piece of this discussion. If you want to kindly explain exactly how any of what you said relates to Chris Rock punching an asshole reporter, maybe I can understand where you are coming from. Until then, continue to basque in your own self-admiration.

OK...you tried to keep up with the big boys and girls....
...hasn't our little experiment proven that this is beyond your ability?

....here's a pat on the head, now go back and sit down quietly.


You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. I’m sure somebody will open the egg for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right: i have no idea how you tied in any of what you posted, to the topic at hand. Partially because it was poorly written, but mostly because it was total non-sequitur to a video of a guy punching someone else. It's actually hilarious to me that you are so self-righteous while being so unintelligent. While I suspect your immaturity will immediately lead to you attempt to undermine my intelligence, I assure, you will be misguided, as you are.

A guy punched another guy, and you are bringing in essays on the errors of socialism? I guess the most obvious distinction to me, and the action I would have to ask of you is:

do you really think that what you wrote applies only to liberals?

The answer is no. They could apply to anybody.

I literally can not address anything specific to your post because it is completely uninteresting.

There are a million reasons a person commits violence against someone else. To attribute this act entirely to his political background is vast oversimplification of the human animal and his or her motivations. You seem to be trying to ram all of this information into too narrow of perspective, which is the basis of your distortion, as I see it.

There are a number of things we do not know about this incident, so to jump to political orientation is intellectual forfeit and unscientific... oh, I forgot. Conservatives tend to not believe in science. So, you get to make up the answers that best fit your beliefs?! This seems to be the pattern with conservatives, and you fall in nicely.

Well, I tried to warn you that you are not educationally nor intellectually equipped to deal with the post....

"I literally can not address anything specific to your post..."

So true.

Are you trying to assume a sociological perspective in attempting to explain this specific incident, while hinting at an explaination for all liberalism? If that's the case, or even in the ballpark, then that is pretty hilariously ineffectual. Why don't we stop the guessing game and just show us how dumb you really are: what the fuck are you talking about?

After being put in one's place, as you just have been...

....what's left for one of your ability, but the less than civil language.

What a surprise.

Go back to your first job, making fax and modem noises.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Conservative reporter approached Rock, pretending to be a big admirer, then became confrontational.

so it naturally follows that you attack the camera lady and throw her camera....great! the obama civility strikes again...



oh and for the record, I agree, he did ambush rock, and that's BS, but there are better ways to handle it...

Obama?