Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Cahal posted:

David Henderson, blogger at the Koch funded GMU and self professed 'Randite', proving that he is a complete moron:

Hurrr durr people are starving in Africa so CEO pay is justified.

I thought I was desensitized to retarded columns from reading the entire thread up to this point, but holy poo poo... inequality isn't a problem because poor people can treasure their plastic sporks?

# ? Oct 17, 2011 21:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 13:58

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

Cahal posted:

David Henderson, blogger at the Koch funded GMU and self professed 'Randite', proving that he is a complete moron:

Hurrr durr people are starving in Africa so CEO pay is justified.

Someone got a check for that.

# ? Oct 18, 2011 04:23

sub supau: Aug 28, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

It's amazing to me how hard the right wing media seems to be pushing the "OWS is anti banker, and therefore, anti semitic" angle.

I find it kind of amusing how hard they're going on the "If you hate the excesses of capitalism, you clearly hate all capitalism." Literal children.

# ? Oct 18, 2011 07:07

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

TetsuoTW posted:

I find it kind of amusing how hard they're going on the "If you hate the excesses of capitalism, you clearly hate all capitalism." Literal children.

I mean, there are plenty of communists who are willing to do the same thing in the other direction. The difference is that everyone is embarassed by them and keeps them in a corner, rather than trotting them out as Strong Liberal Thinkers.

# ? Oct 19, 2011 01:09

tiananman: Feb 6, 2005; Non-Headkins Splatoma

Orange Devil posted:

I don't understand why Friedman is still allowed to write. It's amazing how consistently incoherent that man is.

redmercer posted:

Milton Friedman's ideas are best conveyed via choir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Seg0JE1PM

I think you've confused Milton Friedman and Thomas Friedman but I'm not sure.

In case you have: Milton Friedman is an economist with a hard-money bent, and Thomas Friedman is an annoying author of many pointless books.

# ? Oct 19, 2011 02:21

ts12: Jul 24, 2007

tiananman posted:

I think you've confused Milton Friedman and Thomas Friedman but I'm not sure.

In case you have: Milton Friedman is an economist with a hard-money bent, and Thomas Friedman is an annoying author of many pointless books.

They are both bad people with bad ideas

# ? Oct 19, 2011 02:29

Limbo: Oct 4, 2006

There were two letters to the editor in my (formerly) local paper yesterday about OWS, and they both used some variation on "the protesters are having sex in public." Is this a new thing going round the talk radio circuit?

# ? Oct 19, 2011 02:46

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

It's amazing to me how hard the right wing media seems to be pushing the "OWS is anti banker, and therefore, anti semitic" angle.

I love how that is actually anti-semitic as hell.

ts12 posted:

They are both bad people with bad ideas

Thomas Friedman doesn't really have ideas beyond "suck on this" though.

# ? Oct 19, 2011 03:34

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Cahal posted:

David Henderson, blogger at the Koch funded GMU and self professed 'Randite', proving that he is a complete moron:

Hurrr durr people are starving in Africa so CEO pay is justified.

That is the dumbest loving thing I've read in years.

This moron thinks that a contemporary person who owns an iPod is somehow wealthier and better off than the kings and queens of Europe in centuries past?

My favorite part:

loving retard posted:

Here's why. Carl Haub, senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C., has estimated that 106 billion humans have been born since Homo sapiens appeared about 50,000 years ago. That means that the richest one percent in history includes 1.06 billion people. There are currently 6.2 billion humans alive, leaving approximately 100 billion who have died. Who among the dead was rich by today's standards? Not many. Royalty, popes, presidents, dictators, large landholders, and the occasional wealthy industrialist, such as Andrew Carnegie and Leland Stanford, were certainly rich. All told, it is difficult to imagine more than 20 million of these people since ancient Egyptian times. This leaves 1.04 billion wealthy alive today, or 17% of the world's population

Hmm, let's go from raw percentages based on global population, noting that there is always an upper crust to human society (but we can't draw the conclusion that the top 1% is always taking advantage of the lower 99%, because that would expose the constant abuse of the vast majority by a wealthy minority), to deciding that all the top 1% that came before contemporary, 21st century humans were actually pretty poor and today's 99% should just shut their rich mouths.

# ? Oct 19, 2011 05:39

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Limbo posted:

There were two letters to the editor in my (formerly) local paper yesterday about OWS, and they both used some variation on "the protesters are having sex in public." Is this a new thing going round the talk radio circuit?

There's probably someone banging in the privacy of their tents. Which isn't really public, but sort of is I guess.

There was also the alleged rape at Occupy Cleveland.

# ? Oct 19, 2011 20:49

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Bruce Leroy posted:

Someone needs to start a website collecting all of the absurd metrics used to supposedly simplify things for the "common man."

This was a while ago but

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-coming-derivatives-crisis-that-could-destroy-the-entire-global-financial-system

quote:

It is hard to fathom how much money a quadrillion is.

If you started counting right now at one dollar per second, it would take 32 million years to count to one quadrillion dollars.

# ? Oct 20, 2011 17:30

Quasimango: Mar 10, 2011; God damn you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/nocera-the-ugliness-all-started-with-bork.html

quote:

On Oct. 23, 1987 � 24 years ago on Sunday � Robert Bork�s nomination to the Supreme Court was voted down by the Senate. All but two Democrats voted �nay.�

The rejection of a Supreme Court nominee is unusual but not unheard of (see Clement Haynsworth Jr.). But rarely has a failed nominee had the pedigree � and intellectual firepower � of Bork. He had been a law professor at Yale, the solicitor general of the United States and, at the time Ronald Reagan tapped him for the court, a federal appeals court judge.

Moreover, Bork was a legal intellectual, a proponent of original intent and judicial restraint. The task of the judge, he once wrote, is �to discern how the framers� values, defined in the context of the world they knew, apply to the world we know.� He said that Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, was a �wholly unjustifiable judicial usurpation� of authority that belonged to the states, that the court�s recent rulings on affirmative action were problematic and that the First Amendment didn�t apply to pornography.

Whatever you think of these views, they cannot be fairly characterized as extreme; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among many others, has questioned the rationale offered by the court to justify Roe v. Wade. Nor was Bork himself an extremist. He was a strongly opinionated, somewhat pugnacious, deeply conservative judge. (At 84 today, he hasn�t mellowed much either, to judge from an interview he recently gave Newsweek.)

I bring up Bork not only because Sunday is a convenient anniversary. His nomination battle is also a reminder that our poisoned politics is not just about Republicans behaving badly, as many Democrats and their liberal allies have convinced themselves. Democrats can be � and have been � every bit as obstructionist, mean-spirited and unfair.

I�ll take it one step further. The Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics. For years afterward, conservatives seethed at the �systematic demonization� of Bork, recalls Clint Bolick, a longtime conservative legal activist. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution coined the angry verb �to bork,� which meant to destroy a nominee by whatever means necessary. When Republicans borked the Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright less than two years later, there wasn�t a trace of remorse, not after what the Democrats had done to Bork. The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust � the line from Bork to today�s ugly politics is a straight one.

It is, to be sure, completely understandable that the Democrats wanted to keep Bork off the court. Lewis Powell, the great moderate, was stepping down, which would be leaving the court evenly divided between conservatives and liberals. There was tremendous fear that if Bork were confirmed, he would swing the court to the conservatives and important liberal victories would be overturned � starting with Roe v. Wade.

But liberals couldn�t just come out and say that. �If this were carried out as an internal Senate debate,� Ann Lewis, the Democratic activist, would later acknowledge, �we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose.� So, instead, the Democrats sought to portray Bork as �a right-wing loony,� to use a phrase in a memo written by the Advocacy Institute, a liberal lobby group.

The character assassination began the day Bork was nominated, when Ted Kennedy gave a fiery speech describing �Robert Bork�s America� as a place �in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters,� and so on. It continued until the day the nomination was voted down; one ad, for instance, claimed, absurdly, that Bork wanted to give �women workers the choice between sterilization and their job.�

Conservatives were stunned by the relentlessness � and the essential unfairness � of the attacks. But the truth is that many of the liberals fighting the nomination also knew they were unfair. That same Advocacy Institute memo noted that, �Like it or not, Bork falls (perhaps barely) at the borderline of respectability.� It didn�t matter. He had to be portrayed �as an extreme ideological activist.� The ends were used to justify some truly despicable means.

Today, of course, the court has a conservative majority, and liberal victories are, indeed, being overturned. Interestingly, Bolick says Bork�s beliefs would have made him a restraining force. Theodore Olson, who served as solicitor general under George W. Bush, also pointed out that after Bork, nominees would scarcely acknowledge that they had rich and nuanced judicial philosophies for fear of giving ammunition to the other side. Those philosophies would be unveiled only after they were on the court.

Mostly, though, the point remains this: The next time a liberal asks why Republicans are so intransigent, you might suggest that the answer lies in the mirror.

'Hey, current Republicans may be historically intransigent, but 24 years ago Democrats said mean stuff about Robert Bork, which proves it cuts both ways!'

# ? Oct 23, 2011 12:31

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Hahaha, Bork was a loving lunatic.

# ? Oct 23, 2011 14:02

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The GOP was already being swallowed up by Movement Conservatives so the author's attempt to blame America's entire political breakdown on the Bork nomination is obviously ridiculous, but that honestly isn't all that terrible an editorial. The Bork nomination, along with the succesful confirmation of Sandra Day O'Conner, no doubt played a big role in shaping how conservatives would approach nomination procedures in the future. For starters its completely accurate to say that potential Supreme Court justices are extremely guarded about what parts of their legal philosophies they will articulate. Secondly, conservatives have become obsessed with finding nominees who won't turn out to be more moderate than they anticipated (which is what happened with O'Conner vis-a-vis Roe vs. Wade). So that may be a somewhat biased editorial, but it at least highlights a relevant historical event, even if it spins it.

That having been said, Bork is a clown. Remember those articles he wrote about how lawsuits destroying the country?

quote:

Robert Bork Sues Yale Club for More Than $1 Million (Update3)
By David Glovin - June 7, 2007 17:32 EDT

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork sued the Yale Club of New York City for more than $1 million, claiming he tripped and fell because of the club's negligence as he ascended a dais to give a speech.

Bork, 80, a former Yale Law School professor, said the club was grossly negligent for failing to provide steps or a handrail between the floor and dais at an event for the New Criterion magazine last June, according to a complaint filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court.

``Because of the unreasonable height of the dais, without stairs or a handrail, Mr. Bork fell backwards as he attempted to mount the dais, striking his left leg on the side of the dais and striking his head on a heat register,'' he said in the complaint.

Bork is seeking more than $1 million in damages and punitive damages. The fall caused a ``large hematoma,'' or swelling, on his leg that burst, requiring surgery and months of physical therapy, and it left him with a limp, he said in the complaint.

``There were dozens of witnesses to the incident, and Judge Bork suffered serious injuries as a result of the Yale Club's gross negligence,'' Bork's lawyer, Randy Mastro of Los Angeles- based Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, said in an interview.

Bork was a speaker at a dinner in honor of New Criterion co- founder Hilton Kramer and to launch the publication's 25th anniversary, magazine office manager Cricket Farnsworth said. Bork gave his speech after the fall, she said.

`Excruciating Pain'

Timothy Hill, a spokesman for the Yale Club, which on its Web site calls itself a ``historic clubhouse'' for Yale alumni, declined to comment.

Bork claims the Yale Club was grossly negligent for not having a ``safe dais and stairs,'' a supporting handrail or any other ``reasonable support feature.''

``Bork suffered excruciating pain as a result of this injury and was largely immobile during the months in which he received physical therapy,'' he said in the complaint.

Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court failed in 1987 after Democrats in Congress and others opposed the conservative legal scholar. At the time of his nomination by then-President Ronald Reagan, he served as a federal appeals court judge in Washington.

Bork, a Yale Law School teacher for more than 15 years before his appointment to the bench, was rejected by the Senate by a 58-42 vote after critics said his legal views were too extreme.

Punitive Damages

Bork didn't ask for a specific amount of punitive damages in his lawsuit. In a June 2002 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Bork suggested there might be instances where punitive damage awards are excessive.

``Proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate,'' Bork and a co-author wrote in an article that discussed Congress's power to regulate commerce.

In a 1995 opinion piece published in the Washington Times, Bork and Theodore Olson, who later became a top Justice Department official, criticized what they called the ``expensive, capricious and unpredictable'' civil justice system in the U.S.

``Today's merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation -- anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates,'' they wrote.

The Supreme Court in February tightened the constitutional limits on punitive damages, setting aside a $79.5 million award in a smoker case against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit.

The case is Bork v. Yale Club, 07-cv-4826, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

# ? Oct 23, 2011 17:53

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Quasimango posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/nocera-the-ugliness-all-started-with-bork.html

'Hey, current Republicans may be historically intransigent, but 24 years ago Democrats said mean stuff about Robert Bork, which proves it cuts both ways!'

Even without his extensive record of lunatic positions Bork would never have been confirmed. His role in Nixon administration's firing of the Watergate Special Prosecutor where he followed through with what he knew was an illegal order after the AG and Assistant AG resigned rather than follow the order demonstrated to everyone he was an unethical tool.

# ? Oct 23, 2011 22:29

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

This is a bad letter to the editor:

quote:

WHO (World Health Organization): Number of people with TB falls for first time
The real answer, as any U.S. healthcare professional knows, the fewer illegals, the fewer cases of TB.

When I was in HR, in the nighttime shift in an Eastern Shore poultry plant in Maryland, SEVENTEEN percent of Mexican temporary workers scored positive on their TB skin tests. This, mind you, was with workers vetted by both Mexican and U.S. governments.

Imagine what the percentage is with invaders, whom the lamestream media euphemistically call "undocumented workers!"

J-P. A. Maldonado | Phoenix

# ? Oct 23, 2011 22:36

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Dr. Tough posted:

This is a bad letter to the editor:

Heh, first google result from 'TB false positive' -

"A false-positive test may happen if you've been vaccinated with the bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine. This tuberculosis vaccine is seldom used in the United States but is widely used in countries with high TB infection rates."
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/tuberculosis/DS00372/DSECTION=tests-and-diagnosis

Second result for 'bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine mexico' -

"In Mexico, a single BCG vaccination is recommended at birth."

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/6/1447.full.pdf

Your ball, JP!

# ? Oct 23, 2011 22:42

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

Also Maldonado is a Spanish surname. Just throwing that out out there.

# ? Oct 23, 2011 22:53

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Another one of Katherine Kersten's awful articles was posted before but luckily she has written another one with the exact same premise as the one before, gays are the REAL bullies.

quote:

We can expect aggression on marriage vote

A block thrown through a home window. Cars vandalized. Hate-filled anonymous phone calls at home and work. Swastikas scrawled on houses of worship. Physical assaults. Dismissal from employment because of political views.

Are these examples of retaliation against civil-rights activists in the South in 1954? Attempts by an authoritarian government to quash dissent?

No, this is the sort of intimidation that Americans who support marriage as the union of a man and woman can face today. Persecution of opponents is becoming a tool of the trade for some gay-marriage activists, who -- ironically -- seem to view themselves as beacons of tolerance.

Now, the groundwork for such intimidation is being laid in Minnesota.

In an early skirmish in the battle over the marriage amendment, which will be on the ballot in 2012, the state Campaign Finance Board has issued a ruling that could require a nonprofit organization to disclose the identity of supporters if that organization contributes to the marriage-amendment campaign.

The board's ruling breaks with the interpretation of the law in other recent amendment campaigns, and is an attempt to change the rules in midstream.

As a result, Minnesotans who believe that gay people have a right to live as they wish, but who oppose redefining marriage, may find their civil rights, livelihoods or safety threatened if they dare to oppose what's becoming politically correct orthodoxy.

The people of California can tell you where disclosure rules can lead. Each of the incidents I opened this column with occurred there during the 2008 debate over Proposition 8, the state's marriage amendment.

Ask the restaurant manager who was forced to resign after her $100 donation triggered a street protest and a boycott of her establishment.

Ask the dentist who lost patients, the family-owned creamery that endured protests and retaliation, or the lawn sign distributor and the elderly lady who were assaulted as they peacefully expressed their views.

These days, however, harassment and reprisals aren't confined to election season.

In North Carolina in June 2011, for example, corporate leadership consultant and motivational speaker Frank Turek was fired by Bank of America after someone there learned he had written a book opposing same-sex marriage.

In Turek's words, "I was Googled, I was outed, I was fired for being somebody who has a traditional marriage viewpoint."

North Carolina defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as do 43 other states. Citizens there support one man/one woman marriage by 61 percent to 34 percent. Yet you can still lose your job in North Carolina for publicly daring to cross the new Diversity Ayatollahs.

Given this reality, we need an organization to defend Americans who face reprisals merely because they exercise their fundamental civil rights.

Now we have it: the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance (MarriageADA), whose spokesperson, Maggie Gallagher, is a cofounder of the National Organization for Marriage. MarriageADA exists to protect and defend people like Turek.

These people could include the school guidance counselor whose counseling license activists sought to revoke after he appeared in a television ad for one man/one woman marriage during a ballot referendum in Maine.

Or the wedding photographer who was sued and ordered to pay a nearly $7,000 fine for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in New Mexico.

Or the couple in Vermont who declined to host a same-sex wedding reception at their inn because of their Christian faith.

MarriageADA's larger mission is to fight back against the attempt of media, entertainment and political elites to convince the rest of society that belief in marriage as a male/female institution -- the form it has taken across the world and throughout history -- is equivalent to racial bigotry.

This out-and-out falsehood is having a chilling effect in workplaces across the country.

For example, if you work for a large corporation -- even in a "one man/one woman" marriage state like Minnesota -- you may face uncomfortable pushback at your job if you voice your support for traditional marriage, or donate to a protraditional marriage group.

If you donate to a group supporting gay marriage, of course, you face no such penalty.

America's need for MarriageADA should open our eyes to the increasingly Orwellian situation we face. It's becoming an act of civic courage -- as speaking out against Jim Crow in the South once was -- to support marriage as a bedrock male/female social institution, and to state your belief that children need a mother and a father.

This raises a troubling question: If gay marriage supporters can intimidate and silence their opponents while one man/one woman marriage remains the norm, to what authoritarian extremes will they go if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land?

Those poor oppressed homophobes! :qq:

At least this time she didn't talk about her imaginary "gay friends" that oppose gay marriage.

# ? Oct 23, 2011 22:54

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

I honestly don't understand the point there. Are we expected to believe that MarriageADA would hire someone who supported gay marriage? Or is this just blatant "we can do things you can't because we're right"?

# ? Oct 23, 2011 23:54

Huitzil: May 25, 2010; by elpintogrande

Amarkov posted:

I honestly don't understand the point there. Are we expected to believe that MarriageADA would hire someone who supported gay marriage? Or is this just blatant "we can do things you can't because we're right"?

Of course it is. Jaw-dropping hypocrisy is a component of pretty much every argument ever made by anyone with a pulse, why would you believe for any purely theoretical length of time that someone talking about an anti-defamation alliance for "defenders of traditional marriage" is saying it for any reason other than "It isn't fair that the gays get GLAAD and all those other guys and my side gets nothing! We should have our own GLAAD to make it fair! Also they shouldn't have a GLAAD because they're wrong and I'm right and I know I'm right because I think I'm right!"

# ? Oct 24, 2011 02:53

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Huitzil posted:

Of course it is. Jaw-dropping hypocrisy is a component of pretty much every argument ever made by anyone with a pulse, why would you believe for any purely theoretical length of time that someone talking about an anti-defamation alliance for "defenders of traditional marriage" is saying it for any reason other than "It isn't fair that the gays get GLAAD and all those other guys and my side gets nothing! We should have our own GLAAD to make it fair! Also they shouldn't have a GLAAD because they're wrong and I'm right and I know I'm right because I think I'm right!"

This is a false equivalence. The realities of life make hypocrites out of us all, no doubt about that, but your extreme position effectively takes away our ability to evaluate arguments at all. Presumably its possible to be more or less of a hypocrite, and insofar as possible we should aspire not to be consciously hypocritical.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 02:58

Huitzil: May 25, 2010; by elpintogrande

Helsing posted:

This is a false equivalence. The realities of life make hypocrites out of us all, no doubt about that, but your extreme position effectively takes away our ability to evaluate arguments at all. Presumably its possible to be more or less of a hypocrite, and insofar as possible we should aspire not to be consciously hypocritical.

We should, but turns out, we don't.

Ugh, don't take that as a justification for whoever shat out that article and smeared it onto paper, that's just me being tired of everyone lying all of the time and impotently venting about it.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 03:01

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Huitzil posted:

We should, but turns out, we don't.

Ugh, don't take that as a justification for whoever shat out that article and smeared it onto paper, that's just me being tired of everyone lying all of the time and impotently venting about it.

Believe me, I feel your pain.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 03:03

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

MaxxBot posted:

Another one of Katherine Kersten's awful articles was posted before but luckily she has written another one with the exact same premise as the one before, gays are the REAL bullies.

Those poor oppressed homophobes!

At least this time she didn't talk about her imaginary "gay friends" that oppose gay marriage.

That is loving terrible.

There are so many lies and half-truths, like Frank Turek being "fired," that the author should be ashamed of herself. Turek was an independent contractor originally hired to teach team-building and other kinds of employee seminars and businesses have ended their relationships with him after discovering his virulent anti-gay bigotry. In Turek's particular case, it's not as if he was "fired" for some private beliefs and activities that have nothing to do with his work. Turek has made a career by saying some of the most hateful, bigoted things about homosexuals on major right-wing media outlets, so it's quite understandable that businesses would not want to be associated with him. Hell, he wrote a loving book outlining his hateful beliefs, so this certainly isn't a case of a person being discriminated against in the workplace for their private behavior. Most importantly, it would be just downright foolish for anyone to hire such a bigot as a motivational speaker and/or to teach team-building to their employees when he'd be so obviously hostile to any homosexual employees.

Also, Kersten, like many other homophobic bigots, is absolutely wrong that the gay marriage situation is not analogous to race and the Civil Rights Movement. If you were to take her own editorial and simply replace the references to gay marriage with those of interracial marriage, it would be almost identical to things written in the 1960s right before anti-miscegenation laws were overturned.

I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing people against gay marriage claim that they don't dislike or hate gay people or aren't bigoted. There were plenty of white people who said the same thing in the 1950s and 1960s about their support for segregation. "I don't hate black people, I just think we should be separate but equal"

# ? Oct 24, 2011 10:31

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

That's awesome. The guy who rails against homosexuals wants to start a right wing "300 Spartan Army."

# ? Oct 24, 2011 18:04

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Yeah I love how they always try to sugar coat the hell out their beliefs by saying stuff like "I was fired for being somebody who has a traditional marriage viewpoint" when we're talking about a man who said that gays are partnering with Muslims to destroy western civilization and that being gay is like standing in front of a speeding truck. If you're gonna be a right-wing extremist nutjob at least have the balls to be upfront and honest about your beliefs.

I also love how how all of the far right anti-gay types go on and on about the CDC HIV/AIDS statistics in gay men and present them as "proof" of the "destructive homosexual lifestyle" when if you knew anything about HIV, statistics, safe sex, or just had a shred of mental capacity whatsoever you'd be able to find out on your own that the former does not imply the latter.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 20:07

Augster: Aug 5, 2011

Bruce Leroy posted:

That is the dumbest loving thing I've read in years.

This moron thinks that a contemporary person who owns an iPod is somehow wealthier and better off than the kings and queens of Europe in centuries past?

My favorite part:

Hmm, let's go from raw percentages based on global population, noting that there is always an upper crust to human society (but we can't draw the conclusion that the top 1% is always taking advantage of the lower 99%, because that would expose the constant abuse of the vast majority by a wealthy minority), to deciding that all the top 1% that came before contemporary, 21st century humans were actually pretty poor and today's 99% should just shut their rich mouths.

It's like the mudsill theory, except reversed to create the upper-crust theory.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 20:35

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Augster posted:

It's like the mudsill theory, except reversed to create the upper-crust theory.

That is a great little quote. Its especially great if you samwidge it between two other infamous quotes. What you get is this:

Rich people airing their private concerns in 1787:

quote:

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

Rich people airing their private concerns in 1858:

quote:

Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than "an army with banners," and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box.

Rich people airing their private concerns in 2005:

quote:

Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was � one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation (on the rich or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in a push-back on globalization � either anti-immigration, or protectionism. We don�t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 21:16

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

xrunner posted:

Even without his extensive record of lunatic positions Bork would never have been confirmed. His role in Nixon administration's firing of the Watergate Special Prosecutor where he followed through with what he knew was an illegal order after the AG and Assistant AG resigned rather than follow the order demonstrated to everyone he was an unethical tool.

Bork is a tool and a fanatic, but to give him credit he was actually going to resign rather than follow through on the order. Atty General Elliot Richardson convinced him to follow through because Nixon was going to eventually find someone to fire Archibald Cox and the resignation of Richardson and his assistant William Ruckelshaus had already made Nixon look like total poo poo. Richardson reasoned that the point had been made and any further resignations would just hurt the Justice Dpt.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 22:54

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Zeroisanumber posted:

Bork is a tool and a fanatic, but to give him credit he was actually going to resign rather than follow through on the order. Atty General Elliot Richardson convinced him to follow through because Nixon was going to eventually find someone to fire Archibald Cox and the resignation of Richardson and his assistant William Ruckelshaus had already made Nixon look like total poo poo. Richardson reasoned that the point had been made and any further resignations would just hurt the Justice Dpt.

Do you have a source for this? Its not that I find your account implausible, I'd just be fascinated to read more about the incident.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 22:56

TheScott2K: Oct 26, 2003; I'm just saying, there's a nonzero chance Trump has a really toad penis.

Zeroisanumber posted:

Bork is a tool and a fanatic, but to give him credit he was actually going to resign rather than follow through on the order. Atty General Elliot Richardson convinced him to follow through because Nixon was going to eventually find someone to fire Archibald Cox and the resignation of Richardson and his assistant William Ruckelshaus had already made Nixon look like total poo poo. Richardson reasoned that the point had been made and any further resignations would just hurt the Justice Dpt.

I don't think people deserve credit for being talked out of doing the right thing.

# ? Oct 24, 2011 23:02

Judeccahedron: Jan 2, 2009

Helsing posted:

Do you have a source for this? Its not that I find your account implausible, I'd just be fascinated to read more about the incident.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/us/new-views-emerge-of-bork-s-role-in-watergate-dismissals.html

Supposedly, he did it to keep the investigation going, according to this article. I guess I can understand his carrying out the order insofar as if he didn't do so, someone else inevitably would have. However, I don't really agree with his carrying it out.

Of course, what ultimately wound up happening in the end is that Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment when even the RNC was leaning on him, and Ford wound up pardoning him. :smith:

And the funny thing is, I've even seen some people on blogs try to pass Nixon off as being better than Clinton because Nixon resigned.

# ? Oct 25, 2011 03:31

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

NPR just put out the shittiest fluff piece on Ron Paul called, I poo poo you not, Before He Delivered For Voters, Paul Delivered Babies. They even cite his campaign manager dying of pneumonia as a positive for him because it shows he sticks to his principles. :psyduck:

# ? Oct 25, 2011 16:29

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Judeccahedron posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/us/new-views-emerge-of-bork-s-role-in-watergate-dismissals.html

Supposedly, he did it to keep the investigation going, according to this article. I guess I can understand his carrying out the order insofar as if he didn't do so, someone else inevitably would have. However, I don't really agree with his carrying it out.

Of course, what ultimately wound up happening in the end is that Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment when even the RNC was leaning on him, and Ford wound up pardoning him. And the funny thing is, I've even seen some people on blogs try to pass Nixon off as being better than Clinton because Nixon resigned.

Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon. It forced Nixon to admit his wrongdoing and allowed the country to move on from Watergate.

# ? Oct 25, 2011 17:34

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Zeroisanumber posted:

Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon. It forced Nixon to admit his wrongdoing and allowed the country to move on from Watergate.

No, what Ford did was establish that there would be no legal consequences for Republican criminals. He set up the next thirty years.

# ? Oct 25, 2011 17:40

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

Zeroisanumber posted:

Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon. It forced Nixon to admit his wrongdoing and allowed Nixon to move on from Watergate.

ftfy

# ? Oct 25, 2011 17:42

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

Zeroisanumber posted:

Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon. It forced Nixon to admit his wrongdoing and allowed the country to move on from Watergate.

Why did the country need to move on from Watergate before it went to trial?

# ? Oct 25, 2011 17:49

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Pope Guilty posted:

No, what Ford did was establish that there would be no legal consequences for Republican criminals. He set up the next thirty years.

Bullshit. Watergate poisoned the political discourse in the country, prevented any business from getting done in Washington, and a Nixon trial would've consumed Ford's presidency. What Ford needed was a way to end it while forcing Nixon to admit guilt for what he'd done. A pardon accomplished all of that, and utterly destroyed any chance that Jerry Ford would be reelected.

Years later, Ford was given an award by the John F. Kennedy library for that act of political courage. Teddy Kennedy was the keynote speaker at the event and said:

Senator Edward Kennedy posted:

''I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-award-for-courage-of-nixon-pardon.html

# ? Oct 25, 2011 17:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 23, 2024 13:58

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

The concept of "moving on" after somebody completely fucks over the country has definitely proven to be a positive example.

# ? Oct 25, 2011 17:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »