geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Shocking.
I will never again vote for Chris Rock.
I will never again vote for Chris Rock.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wouldn't know anything about that.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.
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.
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.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.
Or, is there now a NewSpeak definition of "jerk"?
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.The guy was being a jerk. That said..Rock should have just walked away..and been done with it.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 60s 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.
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 60s 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.
The New York Times bestselling author of the explosive new book, Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obamas Biggest Backers, Jason Mattera, had his crews 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. Its 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???
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.
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.
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?
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...