>reading Breitbart article on that ISIS attack some time ago in France>general sentiment in the article and comments is FUCK THE MUZZIES FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCH>agree wholeheartedly>read another article on the pope>in the comments section, someone

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1443550712276.jpg (17.19 KB, 620x388, 155:97, alcohol_1830775a.jpg)

Anonymous 09/29/15 (Tue) 18:18:32 No.10162

>reading Breitbart article on that ISIS attack some time ago in France

>general sentiment in the article and comments is FUCK THE MUZZIES FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCH

>agree wholeheartedly

>read another article on the pope

>in the comments section, someone posts a comic with a joke about jews

>is downvoted

>reply saying "flagged, we don't need antisemitism here"

>mfw

I know Breitbart is stupidly pro-Israel, but jesus would a bit of ideological consistency be too much to ask? Why is it that almost no one who says they're for freedom of speech wants to make an exception for their own personal sacred cows? If you're not freedom of speech, at least be honest about it.

Why do these retards think they're any better than the lefties they despise?

Anonymous 09/29/15 (Tue) 18:21:04 No.10164

>>10162

*almost no one who says they're for freedom of speech NOT make an exception for their sacred cows?

Anonymous 09/29/15 (Tue) 23:21:27 No.10170

File: 1443568887948.jpg (141.81 KB, 631x640, 631:640, american tax money at work.jpg)

>>10162

The modern cuckservative movement is essentially one massive JIDF, but with a massive contingent of Gentiles willing to shill on behalf of a country who live halfway around the world and probably wouldn't care less about them save for their tax money aid.

Anonymous 10/03/15 (Sat) 19:14:59 No.10278

It's fucking stupid to expect a shred of ideological consistency from blatant cuckservatives like Breitbart.

>Why do these retards think they're any better than the lefties they despise?

They're not whatsoever.

Anonymous 10/04/15 (Sun) 03:26:18 No.10293

>>10278

You know, you're right, but I still like Milo. Not even a GGfag but still he's bretty gud most of the time.

Anonymous 10/04/15 (Sun) 09:05:26 No.10308

>>10162

There's a difference between criminalising anti-semitic speech and censoring anti-semitic content on your own website. They're not the same.

It has fuck all to do with ideology unless the moderators explicitly said it was free speech forum.

Anonymous 10/04/15 (Sun) 16:47:17 No.10323

>>10308

True, but it still seems hypocritical to call out liberals for limiting speech for their protected group but suddenly do the exact same thing for yours.

Anonymous 10/04/15 (Sun) 21:38:52 No.10325

>>10323

No, it's not hypocritical at all. Liberals want the law to criminalise views so that nasty words result in criminal records. Breitbart is merely exercising the right to manage content on a private forum. You assumed that they would pander to fringe "free speesh" fanatics like yourself and were wrong, that's all there is to it.

They're not only better than liberals, they're better than third rate trolls like yourself, which isn't much to say the least.

Anonymous 10/05/15 (Mon) 03:59:41 No.10329

>>10325

I want to disagree with you, but I guess you're right. I suppose they have that right.

Though while they aren't going against free speech, it does strike me as hypocritical that they would support the criticism of one ideology while discouraging the other.

>they're better than third rate trolls like yourself

No need to be like that. You can explain to me why I'm wrong without resorting to name-calling. Like you did just now.

Anonymous 02/24/16 (Wed) 01:56:59 No.18072

>>10329

Freedom of speech is the right to discuss any topic in front of a willing audience without a third party disrupting the event. It's not the right to force an unwilling audience to listen. Charlie Hebdo is a magazine. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Same thing with a private forum. In fact, if you try to force a private forum to give you a voice, you are infringing on their own right to free speech, by disrupting their private conversations.

Anonymous 02/24/16 (Wed) 16:49:06 No.18164

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>10308

Now say "freeze peach"

Aryanne✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ 02/26/16 (Fri) 07:51:43 No.18299

File: 1456473104032-0.jpg (94.54 KB, 1027x621, 1027:621, andrew-israel2.jpg)

File: 1456473104101-1.jpg (321.76 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, 7187633811_41f1b5066c_b.jpg)

File: 1456473104112-2.jpg (51.64 KB, 549x411, 183:137, IMG_0213-1.jpg)

File: 1456473104164-3.jpg (103.44 KB, 730x1004, 365:502, world-leaders-pooping-the-….jpg)

>>10162

>>10170

>>10278

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/

uhhhh, they even admit this OP

My only prob with kikebart is that I think they'd be "the bigger man" if they did allow that sort of thing. Like how pre-exodus /pol/ allowed us to beat up gommies without having to move to a different board. They need a moderator over there that can tell the difference between /pol/acks and sturmies and JIDF posing as /pol/acks. I think it'd really punch up a lot of respect for'em and make them markedly different than the rest of the cuckservative sites

and for absolutely no reason, have Bennuttihoo pooing in the loo.