How to insult a 'progressive'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCis1U1nFR0&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Bang on the money!!!

I wonder how many 'progressives' here actually managed to watch it to The end without spitting bullets...!?

Hilarious he speaks against progression using the argument of things that come from progression.
Free speech
Secularism
Democracy

Talk about a self defeating argument against progression.
He then eludes to racism by non-whites lol
Yes we do know that racism exist and was invented by backward people where it is progressive people that have fought against racism. He is stating racism is wrong, which if he believes it is wrong, then that is progression. Yes some non-whites are racist.
The man is so stupid his whole argument falls apart within the first 30 seconds

Ah, but todays 'progressive' is a totally different animal dodge...

Tommy Monk wrote:Ah, but todays 'progressive' is a totally different animal dodge...

Ha ha ha ha ha

He is a progressive himself by arguing off Free speech, democracy and secularism.
So he is either for progression or against progression.
There is no middle ground.
He states thatmany cultures are different. Yes of course some are different and that again is because of progression and advancements in technology and science.
All progressions.

How can we progress from now to get what we already have...!?


Todays progressive is more regressive and certainly not the lefty/liberal who they pretend to be...

It surprises me that you love him so much tommy, considering he opposes all religion (though most vocally, Islam) and is pro-gay marriage.

He is also a massive hypocrite therefore, and foolishly links being a 'progressive' to one single issue (Islam).

He sounds like he is a massive fan of his own voice, and can't get enough of saying the same boring things (in the same droning voice) video after video- still, if his audience of nodding dogs will continue nodding and supporting him then I guess he may as well carry on feeding them

Tommy Monk wrote:How can we progress from now to get what we already have...!?


Todays progressive is more regressive and certainly not the lefty/liberal who they pretend to be...

Progession is an ever ongoing process. You are just not that msart enough to understand what progression is.
You either are for equality which is progression or you are against progression.
There is no middle ground.
If your argument is based off how some progressive people contradict themselves just as Pat condel does, it does not mean there is an argument against progression. What it means is that people like Pat Condel are idiots as they completely contradict themselves

Todays 'progressive' is in reality a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist... seeking to restrict our hard won rights and freedoms...'progressively'...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Todays 'progressive' is in reality a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist... seeking to restrict our hard won rights and freedoms...'progressively'...!!!

Only in your deluded world that exists in the realms of your fanatasy.
So now we have gone from showing Pat completely contradicting himself to Tommy clearly admitting he is wrong by now diverging the deabte to a claim of a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist.
Some people really and clearly did notstudy politic at school did you Tommy.

Tommy Monk wrote:Todays 'progressive' is in reality a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist... seeking to restrict our hard won rights and freedoms...'progressively'...!!!

How are any progressives trying to restrict anyone's rights?

And how is Pat, who supports gay marriage and opposes ALL religion, not show some progressive traits?

There is more to politics and social commentary than views on the question of Islam.

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Todays 'progressive' is in reality a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist... seeking to restrict our hard won rights and freedoms...'progressively'...!!!

Only in your deluded world that exists in the realms of your fanatasy.
So now we have gone from showing Pat completely contradicting himself to Tommy clearly admitting he is wrong by now diverging the deabte to a claim of a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist.
Some people really and clearly did notstudy politic at school did you Tommy.

Tommys train of thought

korban dallas wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Only in your deluded world that exists in the realms of your fanatasy.
So now we have gone from showing Pat completely contradicting himself to Tommy clearly admitting he is wrong by now diverging the deabte to a claim of a regressive totalitarian authoritarian fascist.
Some people really and clearly did notstudy politic at school did you Tommy.

Tommys train of thought

How very aptly put Korben.

You have shown nothing of the sort dodge...


And how can a 'progressive' be in favour of rights and freedoms while also supporting the most regressive force there is which is Islam!?


I can feel some cognitive dissonance coming soon from some on here...

Tommy Monk wrote:You have shown nothing of the sort dodge...
And how can a 'progressive' be in favour of rights and freedoms while also supporting the most regressive force there is which is Islam!? I can feel some cognitive dissonance coming soon from some on here...

Really?
I am athiest Tommy, so I do not support any Religion, as its all man made bollocks.
I am though all for religious people to have equal rights.
You are just tying yourself up in knots, showing how completely confused you are over what progession is.

Tommy Monk wrote:You have shown nothing of the sort dodge...


And how can a 'progressive' be in favour of rights and freedoms while also supporting the most regressive force there is which is Islam!?


I can feel some cognitive dissonance coming soon from some on here...

Nobody is supporting Islam, certainly none of us atheists. What we support is the right for people to live without discrimination.

It is part of the 'progressive' agenda...

Tommy Monk wrote:It is part of the 'progressive' agenda...

Odd, as all I am seeing from you is a regressive agenda.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is part of the 'progressive' agenda...

Can you explain the goal of that 'agenda'?

Or as always with you, is it just words?

Dodge said...

Odd, as all I am seeing from you is a regressive agenda.



For being against a 'progressively' regressive agenda...!?





Isn't all debate 'just words' les...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge said...

Odd, as all I am seeing from you is a regressive agenda.



For being against a 'progressively' regressive agenda...!?





Isn't all debate 'just words' les...!?

Such an immature child yet again.
For example we have now rightly in the Uk rights for Gays to marry.
You want to reverse this and gay adoption denying them equal rights.
That makes you a regressive with an agenda.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge said...

Odd, as all I am seeing from you is a regressive agenda.



For being against a 'progressively' regressive agenda...!?





Isn't all debate 'just words' les...!?

Yes, but I can explain every word I say, no problem.

You spout crap about a 'progressive agenda', yet cannot explain the aim of said agenda when asked.

Empty words with you tommy.

Depends what you call progress I suppose...

Tommy Monk wrote:Depends what you call progress I suppose...

Obtaining equal rights for groups of people is progression where they did not have equal rights before.
As seen you want to reverse equal rights, which proves you are a regressive and on a par with those who hold literal religious views funnily enough. They wish to also reverse and deny groups of people equal rights.

Tommy Monk wrote:Depends what you call progress I suppose...

[quote="Tommy Monk"]
Ah, but todays 'progressive' is a totally different animal dodge...


And then when asked to  explain what progressive is he can`t

see tommy that the problem with you  no actual understanding of what your talking about
and that`s why you post the videos with out much comment

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Depends what you call progress I suppose...

Obtaining equal rights for groups of people is progression where they did not have equal rights before.
As seen you want to reverse equal rights, which proves you are a regressive and on a par with those who hold literal religious views funnily enough. They wish to also reverse and deny groups of people equal rights.

He obviously cannot even explain his own concept or understanding of 'progressive'. He is all hot air and no substance whatsoever. This comes up in every debate anyone has with him, he can't even explain basic concepts on which he bases his views.

Denying an adoptive child the right to a normal and natural home family environment with a mother and A father is certainly not progress or equal for the child... but certainly part of the 'progressive' agenda...


The 'progressive' agenda that often spouts 'equality' as it's motivating factor but who also supports Islam which most certainly is against freedom and equality...

Tommy Monk wrote:Denying an adoptive child the right to a normal and natural home family environment with a mother and A father is certainly not progress or equal for the child... but certainly part of the 'progressive' agenda...


The 'progressive' agenda that often spouts 'equality' as it's motivating factor but who also supports Islam which most certainly is against freedom and equality...

so you would support kids being kept in children homes or moved from foster homes to foster homes because they are not enough "normal families" as you call it willing to take on the responsibility
yet they are loving same sex couples who are willing to do just that

do you hate children or something ?
to deny them a chance of stability and a loving home

talk about a nasty piece of work

There are plenty of normal people who are willing but denied by the adoption agency because one may smoke or another might be a UKIP supporter for example... And I'm not joking either!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:There are plenty of normal people who are willing but denied by the adoption agency because one may smoke or another might be a UKIP supporter for example... And I'm not joking either!!!

And smoking isn't bad for a child?

And in my experience, UKIP voters are mentally deficient 90% of the time (roughly lol), best not left with kids- after all if the kid turns out gay or to choose to follow Islam, who knows how his/her adoptive parents might react...

Of course you missed Korben's point entirely- you would rather a kid languished in care and with various foster carers than was given stability because of your demented views of gay people.

Of course considering you cannot even define your own understanding of basic terms it is hard to see you as serious about anything at all.

I would rather a child is does not have an unnatural and abnormal home environment imposed on them at all.


My points still stand.


And no, smoking is not bad for a child at all if it is done outside and away from them, and is certainly not a justifiable reason to prevent the placing of a child vy a couple.


Neither is being supporter of UKIP.


But both those things happen so KD's point is a little undermined.


And if we are talking about rights, then surely a childs rights. o a mother and A father in a normal home environment is paramount and above the sensitivities of a couple of homosexuals.


You see... the 'progressive' agenda has nothing to do with what's best or equality or rights...

I have not made any points that have any evidence to back up your regressive views. All you have done is prove you are regessive.
You would rather see children stay in care than in a loving home.
That is not only regressive in thinking it clearly does nothave the interest of the child at heart at all.

Tommy Monk wrote:I would rather a child is does not have an unnatural and abnormal home environment imposed on them at all.


My points still stand.


And no, smoking is not bad for a child at all if it is done outside and away from them, and is certainly not a justifiable reason to prevent the placing of a child vy a couple.


Neither is being supporter of UKIP.


But both those things happen so KD's point is a little undermined.


And if we are talking about rights, then surely a childs rights. o a mother and A father in a normal home environment is paramount and above the sensitivities of a couple of homosexuals.


You see... the 'progressive' agenda has nothing to do with what's best or equality or rights...

your "point " stupid as it is only stands in your mind Tommy  

Parents who smoke only in garden may still harm children, doctors warn

Parents who limit their smoking to the garden could still be harming their children because of the dangers of 'third-hand smoke', doctors have warned.

Toxins carried on clothes, hair and skin can still be inhaled and prove harmful to infants and children, they said.

They cautioned that smoking outside or using a fan to clear away smoke will not remove the potentially harmful pollutants clinging to smokers themselves

These can also linger on fabrics and dust in a room after smoke has cleared.

But few parents are aware of the dangers posed, believing only that second-hand smoke can have a serious effect, researchers have said.

They warn that babies and other young children are more susceptible to 'third-hand smoke' than adults because their lungs are still developing.

"When you smoke – any place – toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing," said Dr Jonathan Winickoff, from MassGeneral Hospital for Children, in Boston, and an assistant professor of paediatrics at Harvard Medical School, who led the study.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/4126202/Parents-who-smoke-only-in-garden-may-still-harm-children-doctors-warn.html


honestly your a bloody idiot

Blah blah blah bullshit dodge!!!


Did you like your song...?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:There are plenty of normal people who are willing but denied by the adoption agency because one may smoke or another might be a UKIP supporter for example... And I'm not joking either!!!

And smoking isn't bad for a child?

And in my experience, UKIP voters are mentally deficient 90% of the time (roughly lol), best not left with kids- after all if the kid turns out gay or to choose to follow Islam, who knows how his/her adoptive parents might react...

Of course you missed Korben's point entirely- you would rather a kid languished in care and with various foster carers than was given stability because of your demented views of gay people.

Of course considering you cannot even define your own understanding of basic terms it is hard to see you as serious about anything at all.

tommy would miss the point if it stabbed him in the eye it`s his only talent

And KD... maybe prospective parents who live on or near a road where cars drive should be restricted too now eh...!?


Because those exhaust fumes are known to be full of poisonous toxins and may be breathed in by the child...!!!???





And I have used more than one example of stupid decisions that leave children in care rather than with willing mother/father family homes to go to... there are more examples...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Blah blah blah bullshit dodge!!!


Did you like your song...?

What song?
So you have dedicated a song to me, how nice.
Thanks

What has that to do with the debate?
nothing of course but your poor attempts to deflect away from a debate on an idiot contradicting himself in a video about progression.

So allwe are left with is you notbeing able to debate and yet again acting the complete clown.

So how old are you really Tommy?
14?

Tommy Monk wrote:And KD... maybe prospective parents who live on or near a road where cars drive should be restricted too now eh...!?


Because those exhaust fumes are known to be full of poisonous toxins and may be breathed in by the child...!!!???





And I have used more than one example of stupid decisions that leave children in care rather than with willing mother/father family homes to go to... there are more examples...!!!

lead was removed from petrol for that very reason.........

Not about lead...

A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the United States alone because of vehicle emissions

yet your against green energy

As usual you what all the benefits but non of the responsibility for the harm exhaust fumes cause

Tommy Monk wrote:Not about lead...

yes it is that was one of the harmful additives removed but see my post above

do you know all these you put in after every sentence make you look like this

Waffle... deflecting away from the points I made about the many willing normal prospective parents being denied for spurious reasons.

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle... deflecting away from the points I made about the many willing normal prospective parents being denied for spurious reasons.

spurious

adjective: spurious

   not being what it purports to be; false or fake.


So your saying smoking is not detrimental  to a child health ?

fuck how dumb are you

ps that was a rhetorical question because i all ready know the answer




pps

rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.

250g Flour (plain white )
   7g Baking powder
   15g Tommy monk
   20g Caster sugar
  90g deflection
   5g Salt
   475ml Milk
   2 Eggs
   30ml Vegetable oil

my waffle recipe

I used more than one example of spurious reasons... there are many more...

Tommy Monk wrote:I used more than one example of spurious reasons... there are many more...

i only count 2 the other one being your hatred of same sex couples also spurious

Not hatred for anyone... just that I care about the rights and needs of innocent and vulnerable young children.

Tommy Monk wrote:Not hatred for anyone... just that I care about the rights and needs of innocent and vulnerable young children.

No you care about promoting hate of same sex couples who can and are just as loving and capable of raising children as anybody else in a loving home
that much is clearly obvious from the thinly veiled hate you exhibit on hear everyday under the guise of concern for others

its quite ugly actually

Waffle... I care about an innocent and vulnerable childs rights and needs for a mother and A father.


But it is very 'progressive' to deny willing prospective normal mother/father parents for spurious reasons and to ignore the child's rights and needs for a mother add father and to instead look after the sensitivities of a couple of homosexuals... all in the name of equality mind!!!