Outlaw this, fart-hammers!

In a competition filled with top contenders and likely candidates, I think I have actually found the “Dumbest People of 2017”: Ass clown intellectuals Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic via Noah Berlatsky in a piece for NBC News entitled, “Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America”.

I didn’t have to wait long for the dumb to rise to the top. The opening line leaps out of the gate like a race horse spewing colitis-induced shit ignorance.

“Must we defend Nazis?”

Admittedly, it’s the main title of turd-lickers Delgado and Stefancic’s book, but it is an intentionally misleading phrase. Why? Because the First Amendment doesn’t “defend Nazis” or anyone else for that matter. It establishes the right of everyone to express ideas. This is a big difference that the author’s should know, unless they’re being dishonest or are just stupid. My money is on both, with stupid in a big lead.

These two bow-legged retarded horse molesters don’t seem to understand the First Amendment is blind to the content of speech (with some very narrow exceptions). It doesn’t take sides, and it shouldn’t. Taking sides and deciding which ideas are valid is justifiably left to each citizen, not the government.

The cross-eyed weasel humping authors’ whole argument is bent towards the idea that government should take a position on certain viewpoints, allowing some and restricting others. It is an idea antithetical to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment, and should be rejected completely and with prejudice.

Sadly, stupid ideas can’t be eliminated, or else I might be tempted to write a book dedicated to infected pustules like Delgado and Stefancic with the title “Must we defend idiots?”, but frankly the topic is too large for just one book.

As a direct example of the stupid dwelling in their oxygen-starved water-soaked pea brains, here is their non-sequitur on how regulating speech will actually make the U.S. less hateful and more fair and equal:

“The best way to preserve lizards is not to preserve hawks.”

Wait… what? You mean ideas can be killed, just like lizards? These moronic drooling imbeciles spawned from rotted garbage and sputum think a mortal creature is just like a non-corporeal idea? That is beyond stupid. It is so far beyond stupid it actually bends back through time/space to create an infinite loop of stupid.

First off, you can’t kill an idea, but you can kill brain cells, as the almost brain-dead spittle-flecked authors with a combined dead-of-winter-in-Antarctica I.Q. can testify.

Secondly, these puddinghead sock jizzing butt biters would have us believe people with hateful views are somehow killing those with non-hateful views; that “hate speech” somehow suppresses and eventually eliminates non-hate speech (no more lizards! Waaah!). But these singularly stupid, putrescent booger flickers playing in their own runny corn turds with fingers two knuckles deep up their noses get it so utterly wrong it’s laughable.

Those who seek to suppress speech and ideas in order to "protect the oppressed" are the real predators and oppressors, because by wishing to outlaw certain ideas it is they who seek governmental permission to prey upon anyone who thinks different from them.

In the end, speech suppressing hawks will always lose because outlawing ideas makes those ideas more desirable. To hold a banned idea or thought is rebellious and appeals to those who would present themselves as against the established order.

But you can’t tell that to Delgado and Stefancic because they’re a couple half-assed intellectuals flinging ideas out of their asses like monkeys with diarrhea. Their “argument” should be treated like it came from squalid fart-hammers in a post-modern pig shit tequila bar, but that would be an insult to squalid fart-hammers in post-modern pig shit tequila bars everywhere.

About the Author

Steve Merryman

Almost Daily is a blog by Steve Merryman. He writes about things that make him tick, and things that tick him off. You may object to his views; you may think he's a moron; and you might wish to tell him so. In return he would remind you that his lack of concern for your feelings is only exceeded by his indifference to your opinions. Good day, Sir!