James Woods High School gets rennamed to Adam West High School:

This is brain second time renaming the school first time was for Martin Luther King Jr, so he could stick his dog dick in a black chick.

>brain

>there is a family guy episode where the plot is literally Peter defending the school from changing the name of the school from James Woods to MLK Jr

Attached: 1501985293335.png (553x480, 232K)

His wife's character became as shitty as Bonnie did so I don't know why we need her in a sympathy episode

So, the FG staff are no longer friends with James Woods I take it?

Because she was his wife. Doesn't she also have a baby

Other than shitposting on twitter, what has James Woods done that is so bad?

Speak for yourself, pal! I love campy shit!

Adam West deserves the honor more.

thewrap.com/james-woods-twitter-nemesis-sued-dies/

Yeah he used to be buddy buddy with Seth MacFarlane but I guess 2016 changed that.

Dobson high school when?

>post opinions liberals don't like
>liberals label you a troll

Why do they do this? I understand why liberals think the way they do I just disagree with them. Why can't they extend this same good faith reasoning our way?

James Woods got banned from Twitter. Liberals control all the major social media networks so there really isn't anything that can be done until a conservative or a moderate launches their own platform that actually catches on.

FUCK YOU BETER YOU'RE A LIBTARD

>James Woods got banned from Twitter. Liberals control all the major social media networks so there really isn't anything that can be done until a conservative or a moderate launches their own platform that actually catches on.

or they just regulate platforms like actual platforms

Do you have proof of that? Didn’t he last appear in 2017?

Private companies can refuse service to any one they want for any reason they want and you can't do SHIT about it. Go cry some more, Drumpflets.

Yep because James Woods is a conservative and said some stuff on twitter, which got him banned. But it was before all that, James was always outspoken about his political views, Yet for some retarded reason, Seth and FG staff decided to throw him under the bus because of it.

That's it, he didn't insult Seth or do anything bad to him, he just betrayed him because of his political party

I mean James Woods is fucking great but so was Adam West so I'm okay with it. Would be cool if he came back to be the mayor of Quahog, it's just a shame that I don't really keep up with the show anymore, nor have any interest. I don't have a hateboner for it like a lot of people here do, it just got a bit dull.

60's batman has been beloved campy retro for decades.

Good. It obviously makes sense in universe since he was the mayor for however many years, and it's a nice little tribute to a long running current work of his.

What sucks is that will never happen, I mean it will never get actually popular, because that would turn it into a far-right cesspit like when neonazis left reddit to make Voat.

Who's Adam West?

First of all, do you hold the same opinion for bakeries that don't want to bake cakes for same sex weddings? Just trying to see if you're consistent. Second, everything you said has nothing to do with what those anons said because you can still be against a private business's choice even if they are within their legal right to make that choice.

Conservatism is not a protected class.

Literally wrong. The supreme Court has already decided that Trump can't block people on Twitter because public forums like that do count as places to express free speech.

Liberals used to be for a living constitution. The writers of the constitutions never imagined the internet, but their intention was that anybody could go out and say what they want to say. Back then that meant letting anyone use the street corners and print whatever they want in a newspaper. Had private corporations owned every street corner in America back then you would STILL be able to preach.

By any reasonable metric social media is the modern street corner and it is of vital moral and ethical importance that it remains a avenue of free speech for everyone.

He played Catman in Fairly Odd Parents

lol people like you are why Trump won. Fascist progressives that want to stifle any opposing opinion, you make me sick.

What?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 14K)

>hurr durr the LIBERALS are why trump won, not because people dont care about women or minorities
cope harder

Personally, I dont think Twitter should have de-platformed Woods unless he was inciting/supporting crimes like Alex Jones was, but the company has EVERY RIGHT to do so.
>if you think conservatives getting kicked off social media is okay then you must also think bakers discriminating against gays is also okay otherwise hYpOcRiTe
You were comparing homosexuality to conservatism.

>Literally wrong. The supreme Court has already decided that Trump can't block people on Twitter because public forums like that do count as places to express free speech.
The "public" in that case meant "government run". They literally found Trump used his twitter account to conduct the business of the president, making it subject to free speech regulations for any official government run forum.

The regulation applied to the federal government, not to Twitter. Twitter can ban whoever the fuck they want because free speech laws don't apply to private entities.

>First of all, do you hold the same opinion for bakeries that don't want to bake cakes for same sex weddings?
Bakeries can refuse service to whoever the fuck they want just like any other business. They just have to not structure themselves as a public accommodation and thereby volunteer themselves to agree to follow anti-discrimination laws.

Sam's Club for instance is not a public accommodation, vs Walmart which is. Virtually identical business models and owners, but different laws apply.

Don't agree to follow laws you don't like. It's as simple as that.

awful lotta "people" in here that need to go back

Attached: comblr.gif (375x304, 877K)

No, it's revulsion at fascist liberals that swung enough Obama supporters to Trump.

Democrats lost the election 100% and they'll lose the next one too, because people would prefer 4 more years of a fumbling goofball president than a power grabbing corrupt Democrat that panders to pseudo communists and anti-white racists.

"people" didn't even prefer Trump in the last election

Wrong. That case didn't cover what Twitter could or could not ban. It was outside the scope of the lawsuit. But it's ruling, and the supporting arguments by the supreme court, make it unambiguous how they are leaning, and all it would take is a single lawsuit to make it to the supreme court for that to be made official.

This of course is more beneficial to liberals than conservatives even if they're are too stupid to realize it. People getting banned for political opinions for the past century has mostly affected liberals. We would never have won gay rights or woman rights if the free speech to express such ideas wasn't protected in the PRIVATE sphere. And considering the monumental rise in power of regressive China, who jails progressive people and prevents all discussion of these kind of things, it is in the West and progressives interest to preserve Free Speech at all costs.

And? Your personal feelings about whether a political affiliation can be compared to a sexual orientation have no relevance to the issue at hand. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, therefore they don't want to be willing participants in an event that celebrates that sin. You might think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it's something that can't be controlled unlike how you can adjust your political leanings but that's an entirely separate discussion. Even the offending bakeries, with the exception of one, don't actively discriminate against gay people like how Twitter bans conservatives. They can still enter the places and still order things whether if it's just because they're feeling hungry or if it's for another occasion like a birthday party.

That isn't why Dems lost. Obama did fuckall during 8 years for the rust belt despite leaning on them fairly hard during both elections. Hillary went on to ignore them, as she's stuck up her own arse and thought they'd vote for her anyways because her husband was the one that brought them over to the Dems in the first, completely ignoring them in favor of gathering additional votes in states she was guaranteed to win regardless of her policies or character. This allowed Trump to sweep the entire belt with promises of restoring it, and thanks to doing more than both Obama and Bush combined, will keep them in the next election and probably see Reps become retarded and ignore them after he's out of office.

>muh popular vote

This is the epitome of cope. Clinton knew she had to win the electoral collage and she blew it.

And more importantly "popular vote" is not an ethically defensible, or economically coherent way to select the leader of a vast multi-state country. Fuck New York and California wanting to be king and queen of the country.

>We would never have won gay rights or woman rights if the free speech to express such ideas wasn't protected in the PRIVATE sphere.
It wasn't held to be. It will never be held to be. That'd be tantamount to the government saying your neighbor can paint your house. Private property is private property. Freedom of expression doesn't give you freedom to use other people's shit to express yourself.

The 1st amendment is explicitly a check on government. It even directly refers to Congress. You really REALLY need to wake the fuck up.

>anything slightly politically related
>/pol/ has to come screaming and shit on the floor

like clockwork

A flat lie. Adam West Batman is a treasure. And had some of the best villians incarnations.

>This is the epitome of cope.
Nah, lying about Trump winning the popular vote, as you just did, is the epitome of cope. Feel free to claim victory, but if you claim he won by the will of the people, I'm gonna call your ass out for living in denial.

>Hillary would've won if the Constitution had been different!

>dobson

Attached: meme-1.png (600x332, 57K)

See
bitch.

>And more importantly "popular vote" is not an ethically defensible, or economically coherent way to select the leader of a vast multi-state country. Fuck New York and California wanting to be king and queen of the country.
New York and California aren't people. More importantly, shittons of Republicans live in those states and their votes aren't counted under our current system. Or rather they are, for Dems.

And there is a reason it isn't. The insanity now is the States ceding their electoral college votes to the national popular winner.

Which means.

1. No Rallies in those states.
2. No Campaign Offices.
3. No Stops to support local cannidates.
4.No Money coming in from the national election coffers.

They are really screwing themselves on this.

That analogy is garbage. While you have a technicality, that the law was worded in a way that only explicit preserved free speech by government, the de facto nature that Free Speech has been treated over the last century until the last five years - and more importantly the only ethical position on Free Speech that has been a patriotic right to defend - is that in a free western society like America people should be able to say exactly what they want. Corporations wouldn't dare ban someone for political opinions because they would - rightly - be placed right with the Nazis for being unamerican assholes.

Let me remind you, "You can't yell fire in a movie theater" was a stupid argument that originated in response to people opposing the draft.

Attached: y25.png (644x475, 196K)

>New York and California aren't people. More importantly, shittons of Republicans live in those states and their votes aren't counted under our current system. Or rather they are, for Dems.

Then advocate for states to distribute it's electoral collage votes proportionally. Popular vote still fails, because as soon as it's popular vote only no political will even think about the lesser populated states.

Maybe a bit of column A and a bit of column B

>is that in a free western society like America people should be able to say exactly what they want.
You fucking can. ON YOUR OWN DAMN DIME. You aren't entitled to a billboard, an account, or any other form of soapbox.
>Corporations wouldn't dare ban someone for political opinions because they would - rightly - be placed right with the Nazis for being unamerican assholes.
Google "more popular than Jesus" and tell me free speech was protected historically with no censorship on private platforms like radio stations

>Then advocate for states to distribute it's electoral collage votes proportionally.
I am. It doesn't get more proportional than 1 person 1 vote. Every voting member of the public should be de facto members of any "electoral college."
>Popular vote still fails, because as soon as it's popular vote only no political will even think about the lesser populated states.
As opposed to right now where politicians won't even think about safe states, fucking over over 100 million Americans.

A billboard isn't the same as a street corner. In 2019 social media is quite literally America's street corner, and you ARE entitled to express your opinion there, as offensive as you want. And that is a GOOD thing.

I just hope the Supreme Court affirms this right soon, because it's clear that Twitter and co only ban these people because of the outrage police like you. Soon they'll just be able to say "welp, we don't approve but nothing we can do about it."

>Google "more popular than Jesus" and tell me free speech was protected historically with no censorship on private platforms like radio stations

You can always find examples of the public failing to honer any kind of hard earned right. More importantly, are you seriously siding with the radio stations banning the Beatles as being in the right? Yes, they technically had the ability to ban them, no, it was unamerican as fuck and shameful.

>t. someone who had no problem with the electoral college until their candidate lost fair and square

Where was all your crying and whining and screeching and squealing when Obama won via electoral college, cocksucker?

>A billboard isn't the same as a street corner.
It's the same thing as a privately owned street corner, which was your argument.
>In 2019 social media is quite literally America's street corner, and you ARE entitled to express your opinion there, as offensive as you want. And that is a GOOD thing.
Except you fucking aren't, hence the user agreement.

Don't play pretend. Promotional electoral collage allocation is not at all the same thing as >lul popular vote. Like, could you be any more intellectually dishonest.

>As opposed to right now where politicians won't even think about safe states, fucking over over 100 million Americans.
Advocate proportional electoral collage distribution instead of winner take all. It sorts out exactly that problem without making all the power into the few major population hubs.

>t. someone who had no problem with the electoral college until their candidate lost fair and square
M8, I've had issues with the electoral college since before Bush won. Most people aren't as brainlet as you and can tell any system were one person's vote counts more than another and one person's vote can go to support someone they voted against is not a good system.

>Promotional electoral collage allocation is not at all the same thing as >lul popular vote.
I'm aware, that's why I'm not for an actual proportional electoral college. It's basically just a popular vote but with less precision. Why the fuck would you do that if you're going to count all the votes anyway?

>adopt your opponent's position to troll them and make them look like hypocrites until it becomes your own position and you become everything you previously hated but then do it again once your opponent does the same and you're back at your original position

i swear to god there are so many people in this world who don't have a single earnestly held belief and base their entire worldview around spiting whoever their friends don't like/reminds them the most of their dad

>It's the same thing as a privately owned street corner, which was your argument.

And if all the street corners in America were privately owned then the supreme court would - rightly - decree that you can espouse free speech on any street corner.

Unless you're going to advocate that the government should get into the social media business and set up an alternative to Facebook and Twitter, then the digital street corner is clear.

Should've been Sneakers O'toole high school instead.

Because popular vote is unethical, and a terrible way to manage a country?

Like, even with the current system America is generally failing it's rural communities, why the fuck would you want to give them less power (the answer is because you want to win social battles that urban city dwellers generally support and rural voters don't).

>his far right opinions
faggotry was a mistake

>And if all the street corners in America were privately owned then the supreme court would - rightly - decree that you can espouse free speech on any street corner.
Like they did with radio, amirite? Anyone can just start up their own fucking radio station and broadcast whatever the fuck they want.

If you have enough money then yes, anyone can buy a license and set up a radio station.

Liberals have been trying to shut down and "deplatform" (what a fucking stupid roundabout way to say censor) right wing radio shows for decades. Don't you remember the Bush years and Rush Limbaugh.

You are trying to make a point that Freedom of Speech hasn't been adequately protected at ever single moment across the last century, and that somehow means we ought to just discard the freedom entirely.
It doesn't make sense, we can feel bad about past sins without trying to co-opt them into a bludgeon to commit more sins.

>Because popular vote is unethical, and a terrible way to manage a country?
Based on...? Explain to me how placing the vote in a minority's control with random geographic distribution is better than simply listening to the majority?

>why the fuck would you want to give them less power (the answer is because you want to win social battles that urban city dwellers generally support and rural voters don't).
M8 I don't even live in a municipality of any size. I want to give rural voters less power because a lack of population density in your state is a stupid fucking way to place a value on someone's opinion. Why should anyone have a greater say in the laws that govern this country simply because they have less neighbors? Your complaint is that rural voters will get less attention. My complaint is that urban voters right now get less REPRESENTATION. That's fucked up and morally wrong.

It literally looks like it's made with GoAnimate now

Regardless of what you think of his political views, suing someone for 10 million dollars for insulting you on Twitter is some really cringe shit.

>If you have enough money then yes, anyone can buy a license and set up a radio station.
Actually there are limits on frequency, location, and strength. You aren't entitled to be as loud as you want to be, in other words. You also have to agree to follow other rules to even get the license, much like a user agreement on a website.

>You are trying to make a point that Freedom of Speech hasn't been adequately protected at ever single moment across the last century, and that somehow means we ought to just discard the freedom entirely.
Actually I'm trying to make a point that you literally don't know what freedom of speech means and are an ignorant, entitled cunt.

Good lord this ENTIRE thread is political shitflinging. moot should've killed /pol/ five years ago

>the place that inspire mass shooters still think it has the moral high ground

That was one faggot and there's no proof he had anything to do with Yea Forums.

Because it is not a "random" geographic distribution.

Here is an easy simplified example of why popular vote is bad.
State A is a tiny city state with 100,000 voters, State B is a large rural state 30,000 voters that covers pristine wilderness

State A wants to tear down the forests of State B to make money. State B unanimously opposes this destructive plan. Who is going to win this argument? State A because they have more population and the politicians will have to cater to them even if they recognize it is a disastrous plan.

Imagine how much worse it would be if there were no /pol/ to contain any of it.

James Woods set aside all political discussion and became a valuable resource during the California Wildfires of 2018.

Your 'point' is you are a fascist piece of shit that in any good society would be ground up and served to dogs.

You fucking ignorant idiotic dolt. You're even confusing censorship with government regulation now.

You are essentially intellectually worthless and morally bankrupt. There is no point in talking to a wretched scum like you. Have a heart attack.

Attached: 13707517695691.png (375x436, 164K)

Nowadays yes, but I think it wouldn't have metastasized as badly/would've died down eventually if he'd have done it a year or two before the 2016 election. Too late now.

user the guy you are arguing with is a faggot for sure, but don't post all those long-winded insults, it's kinda cringe.

>the place that encourages the mentally ill to commit self mutilation and unpersons them if they speak about how lopping off body parts just made their situation worse still thinks it has the moral high ground

The Return of the caped crusader movie that came out was great

I wouldn't say that it would. Mods/jannies on Yea Forums are notoriously bad, and there's a reason /pol/ was created in the first place. Not to mention there isn't a chance in hell Hiro/Moot would leave a huge hole in demographics that would be people interested in political discussions.

Attached: still too soon.png (744x694, 309K)

Platform or status. Can't have it both ways. Promoted as a platform then you keep protections but allow legal speech.

If publisher then they're responsible for everything and can be sued.

Even still, can't deny access to public officials and emergency information.

It will come down to law eventually on the side of platforms.

Activist ad companies moral policing is cancer.

but west was a bigger asshole that wood has ever been, the only difference is that he can't shitpost in twitter

Wasn't James Woods an asshole in the show proper?
I don't know some guy would be more partial to naming a high school after his wife's sister's dead husband rather than some dude that stole his identity and fucked with him for like, what, five years?

I thought James Woods died in-universe

Attached: MV5BMzczYzA3MmEtN2VmMi00MTQzLTk3YjUtNjQ1NmIzOTA0NDhlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@._V1_.jpg (1920x1080, 258K)

He came back in a later episode.

...lol?

>but west was a bigger asshole that wood has ever been
[citation needed]

Are you sure? James Woods shared a honkler NZ shooter meme that implied transexuals should also be mass murdered.

Pretty sure Woods got his ban for tweeting something about hanging someone.

Would James Woods make a better Batman or Joker? I feel like he would be a pretty amazing Joker or Dent. Dent Woods could work.

>Private companies can refuse service to any one they want for any reason they want and you can't do SHIT about it.
BAKE THE CAKE

No you can do whatever you want so long as it's in an approved and liberal manner. Either the standards are applied to everyone equally or nobody at all.

Twitter can ban people for breaching their community abd service rules. It's a bit different when you want to be allowed to discriminate someone based on a religious belief. Imagine if you were being repeatedly denied service simply because someone's religion says monogamous heterosexuality is a sin.

Why are people throwing a shitfit about someone who has broken a TOS agreement?

Holy shit thank you Captain Obvious.

Too bad, if Hillary wanted to win, she should have tried campaigning in the Upper Midwest when Trump was having huge rallies there. Campaigning in California is pointless when you're already going to win that state.

Have sex.

>we're the party of the young, the diverse, the hip
>runs ancient white guy like Joe Overbiten

"The right to speak one's mind is of utmost importance. In those wretched countries where a man cannot own his own tongue, what else can he own?"

Attached: benjamin franklin.jpg (217x266, 18K)

>be a pseudo-fascist
>loudly wonder why no one wants to associate with you

What if gays went in a Muslim bakery and they wouldn't make them a wedding cake? What would be said then.

>By any reasonable metric social media is the modern street corner and it is of vital moral and ethical importance that it remains a avenue of free speech for everyone.
No because then twitter would have to let commies, nazis, religious nuts etc. speak. Twitter is a private company they should be allowed to associate with whom they want. I personally hate twitter and don't use it, but the government shouldn't be dictating who they can can't platform.

I like mental gymnastics like this

I bet if you called for Trump's assassination you wouldn't be blocked from Twitter.

But Twitter isn't an individual's tongue.

He's not banned and if he was he got unbanned because I can see his account with blue checkmark and everything.

Oh wait his last tweet was in April 19, is this some sort of silent banning?