open in incognito mode on your browser to get around their membership block
Quote:The New York Times magazine discovered, by polling its readers, that 42 percent of them would kill Baby Hitler. That just goes to show what New York Times Magazine readers know.
I have often felt that most of historical Hitler’s difficulty stems from a life spent constantly fending off assassination attempts from the future, an effort that doubtless left him paranoid and exhausted. Do I have proof for this? Well, no, obviously, but it seems right, doesn’t it?
Frankly I think if you are going to go back in time and interact with Baby Hitler you should not kill him. You should try to raise him right. Here’s how.
Jump to 2:38 in the video
For those that don't want to watch... the jist of what Carl mentions is how horrible it is that the WashingtonPost had to point this out... and how 42% of the New York Times readership... are sociopathic mosters that would murder a baby if they thought they were doing some greater good.
That's the far leftist ideology at work.
It's ok to murder an innocent baby if its for some greater good.
42% of NYT’s readers are the moral equivalent of an adult Adolph Hitler.
They would murder an innocent (baby Hitler who as an infant had done nothing wrong) under the guise of the "greater good."
"The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative." — Paul Joseph Goebbels
(01-19-2019 02:02 PM)Kronke Wrote: Top trend on twitter now is “#ExposeChristianSchools”. The alt-left continues to become more and more deranged.
in the end, the real question is, 'how many of these dipshites really matter vs. the USD'...
are we at critical mass and start shooting or figure out how to better promote why the beauty that CAN be capitalism when you have the resources IN HAND....
or do we just toss 'arms' in the air and believe all the bs provided by a shiteload of ill-educated jaroons....
that's the real question one has to answer to themselves.....
what percentage of ethics and prosperity is one really fighting for.....
define that, and the answer is clear where the fight really 'lies'.....
(01-19-2019 02:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I cannot stand little Ben but his point is taken out of context.
He lost a sponsor yesterday because of it. He thought that he would be safe from the outrage mobs because he always sides with the alt-left against the likes of Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, Gavin, etc.
Turns out the alt-left didn't give a shite about his virtue signaling, and now the line of what is acceptable speech and what isn't has gotten to him. Shocker.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2019 04:18 PM by Kronke.)
(01-19-2019 02:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I cannot stand little Ben but his point is taken out of context.
He lost a sponsor yesterday because of it. He thought that he would be safe from the outrage mobs because he always sides with the alt-left against the likes of Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, Gavin, etc.
Turns out the alt-left didn't give a shite about his virtue signaling, and now the line of what is acceptable speech and what isn't has gotten to him. Shocker.
This story is a little hard to follow. Did he lose the sponsor because of his Hitler statement, or because he was speaking at a pro-life rally, or because he was reading ads for a product that didn't want to be aligned with a pro-life rally? Does he normally read ads during public speaking events? That seems strange.
(01-19-2019 02:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I cannot stand little Ben but his point is taken out of context.
He lost a sponsor yesterday because of it. He thought that he would be safe from the outrage mobs because he always sides with the alt-left against the likes of Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, Gavin, etc.
Turns out the alt-left didn't give a shite about his virtue signaling, and now the line of what is acceptable speech and what isn't has gotten to him. Shocker.
This story is a little hard to follow. Did he lose the sponsor because of his Hitler statement, or because he was speaking at a pro-life rally, or because he was reading ads for a product that didn't want to be aligned with a pro-life rally? Does he normally read ads during public speaking events? That seems strange.
It wasn't technically a public speaking event, he just broadcasted his show (which he reads ads during) live from the march.
I don't know specifically why they pulled the plug, but I'd imagine it's because of the baby Hitler argument and how companies knee-jerk at any sign of controversy.
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2019 12:15 PM by Kronke.)
/
'Baby Hitler' is trending on Twitter
