MikeinSC

If thinking something is just as bad as doing something then, yes, he is advocating thought crime.

I wonder if he knows Orwell didn't intend for that to be a GOOD idea.

Why in the world do you believe everyone is entitled to think whatever they want?

Because s/he's not a judgmental ass?

If I hate black people for no reason I'm as a big an asshole as the jerk who says it to their face or bottles them at a bar.

So, you advocate punishing thought. Lovely. Quite progressive of you. This is what you're saying: ACTIONS are irrelevant to you. The THOUGHT is what makes you bad.

As an arab who has met hostility in a thousand different venues I tell you straight up all racists are the same to me.

Might want to avoid mirrors. You seem to be projecting a lot here. Can you list these "thousand different venues" you've dealt with hostility? Because hate crime stats from the FBI have never backed up this belief of a backlash against Arabs inside the US.

Hating someone for what they are naturally - gay or whatever - is far different from saying "Oh I don't like corporations".

While I'm touched God has decided to grace us with His presence, I'm curious as to why you think you're entitled to think this. I don't have a problem with it, but you seem fond of thought crime laws, so you might want to explain how your thoughts aren't a crime.

Your opinion is basically allowing hate to exist

And your thoughts on people you deem to be racist...seems less than affectionate. Just sayin'. Hate exists in the world. Somebody disagreeing with you on a topic isn't the CAUSE of it.

If you think hating people who are hateful is equivalent you are a lost cause.

I know...it's different because you say so. And since you have control over what is permitted thought (I'm curious as to how you gained this power), I suppose you control that.

Respect them?

Don't worry. Not a threat others think the same of you.

The religious are not being forced to violate their faiths, they're not being allowed to extend their faith into other people's lives. That my pharmacist believes in marriage in no way emboldens her to deny my girlfriend birth control in order to make my girlfriend lead a Christian life. It is up to my pharmacist to follow her religion's rules, it is not up to my girlfriend to follow her pharmacist's religion's rules. Surely, you understand the difference? 'Sin' is a Christian concept that is only relevant for Christians. Christians are compelled to not sin. To them I say, go forth young Christians, and never sin again... and leave the rest of us alone. Whether or not I'm going to 'sin' is in fact no one's business other than mine.

Using this logic, vegan restaurants should be illegal. A place of business should not be forced to carry products they oppose. You are free to go elsewhere, of course.

I definitely don't know shit about the American health care/insurance industry or the laws surrounding workplace benefits. But if birth control is stated as a benefit within the plan, then yes. They have no more right to deny them birth control than they do denying them vision coverage that's already been guaranteed. A Christian Science business owner is not allowed to prevent his employees from getting inoculations.

No employer can deny you anything. They can just opt to not PAY for it. That's the whole issue. A company shouldn't be required to PAY for something the executives find offensive.

Disliking one person's actions and acting on it in no way obligates that person to act on others whose actions they dislike. Your argument states that standing up for any injustice obligates a person to stand up for every injustice imaginable. That is silly.

If one is holding one up as somebody you shouldn't work with due to your disagreements with their stances, fine. You are also, simultaneously, implicitly condoning everybody else's stances that you don't call out. Sorry, that is the way it works. That is why large, real companies don't spend their times criticizing the stances of their suppliers, etc. Because it's not your job to police them and if you argue one is bad, then you're arguing the others are not. Does CBS, for example, discuss their stances on the beliefs of individuals involved with any of their advertisers? No. Because they don't have the desire or time to police all of their advertisers stances.

"Why are you criticizing (company x) for (stance a) when (company y) has the same stance or has this (offensive stance de jour b)?" is not an unusual or unfair question. If somebody wishes to hold themselves up as the paragons of virtue, then they had best be pure as the wind-blown snow.

Colbert's comment was also a joke meant to cast a light on someone else being a stubborn and insensitive to Native Americans, in no way were they sincere beliefs of his, and people just missed the point. While this other dude's actions were seemingly sincere on his part. That's a pretty big difference.

No, it's OK because you LIKE Colbert. That is, literally, the only difference. At least own up to it.

Did Snyder NAME the team? No. He just said he isn't going to change it. It's not his job to change a name. Colbert made a racist joke --- and when your entire tired and lame schtick is "my political opponents are all racists or idiots", then expect blowback.

I'll say this: If a conservative made the same joke for the same reason, you know who would be on the front lines condemning him/her? Colbert. That is who.

Fuck that useless hypocrite. A tired, boring cliche show that ceased being humorous years ago.

OK, so it's wrong to "cancel Colbert" over a comment he made --- but boycotting Firefox is cool?

I guess consistency is a bit much to expect.

Do these clowns recognize that, with this action, they are responsible for the beliefs of every single browser company, PC manufacturer, etc. If Mozilla is specifically bad because of their CEO's contribution --- man, I guess it means that they support Google's blatant data mining and violation of privacy since they didn't call out Chrome.

I'd worry more...if Colbert wasn't guilty of this crap himself.

To paraphrase Andy Levy of FNC's "Red Eye": Man, it must suck to have somebody take comments out of context and use them to attack you.

He then followed it up with a video of Colbert doing that to him.

Screw the hypocrite. Cancel the show because it is an unfunny, one-note joke that the intellectually vacant still find so relevant while most thinking people recognize for the crap sandwich that it has always been --- not because he was hoisted on his own petard. If you're entire schtick is basically "MY political opponents are idiots and racists", well, you've opened a can of worms for yourself.

1st party games aren't as bad as 3rd party games (sports title, in particular).

Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

Coolidge by Amity Shales

Conspiracy of Fools by Kurt Eichenwald

I'd go Rivals. Forza 5 seems to be, honestly, lacking content. Not a ton of tracks and a surprisingly small number of cars.

I don't see much non-Klepek material. DOTA 2 couldn't possibly interest me less, so Brad's infatuation is just tedious to me.