Bruce Leroy posted:

it's further evidence that Milbank is disingenuous

quote:

What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that.
It’s a good thing Mitt Romney doesn’t hang out in college bars.

You want off-the-charts status? Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didn’t give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything he’s ever touched. Son of the same, father of more. It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

Goatman Sacks posted:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss?pg=1


Look at this misogynistic pile of poo poo. Just look at it. This is article is worse than an r/mensrights thread.

quote:

One of the benefits of the Internet revolution has been access to free e-mail. However, as we now know, the supposed "free" e-mail has come at a cost. As a believer in the free market, it is impossible to begrudge online companies their success, however, conservatives are sacrificing privacy and supporting liberal causes.

If you use a Gmail or Yahoo e-mail address and are pro-life, support gun rights and oppose ObamaCare, you are funding activities aimed at trashing your own beliefs...

[multiple examples of Silicon Valley CEO's fundraising for Obama, etc]

Conservative friends and associates are often surprised when I ask: “Why are you supporting liberal candidates and causes with your free e-mail?” They react with disbelief, but that is precisely what is happening.

We devised Reagan.com as an alternative to the big e-mail providers so customers will know that they are subsidizing candidates or causes with which they disagree, but so they may also feel that their private messages stay that way.

Reagan.com will never sell or otherwise divulge a customer’s contact information.

Today, the political system is obsessed with money: who has it, who can get it and how fast. Conservatives need to reevaluate where they are allowing money to be contributed.

The stakes of the presidential election are too high. The left is doing everything possible to hold on to the White House. Before you hit the “send” button, think about where you are sending money.

quote:

Michael Reagan is the son of former President Ronald Reagan and the founder of Reagan.com.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan. He is a political consultant, founder and chairman of The Reagan Group, and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. He is the author of "The New Reagan Revolution" (St. Martin's Press). Visit his website at https://www.reagan.com.

particle409 posted:

Michael Reagan is hawking his bullshit email addresses over at Reagan.com. What's the best way to sell a lovely email service? FEAR!!!


Are you supporting liberal causes with your 'free' e-mail account?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/22/are-supporting-liberal-causes-with-your-free-e-mail-account/


edit: Also, his little bio at the bottom:

Cumberland Times-News posted:

How do Republicans reproduce? Considering they hate women and women hate them. Osmosis, I guess. Just who hates women?

Who hates Sarah Palin, Condoleezza Rice, Kristi Noem, Michelle Bachmann, Jan Brewer, Susana Martinez, Mary Falin, Nicki Haley? The last four are Republican governors.

Who hates these women? They all get negative media coverage or none at all. Just like Ann Romney.

Three of the major networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, will not broadcast Ann Romney’s address to the Republican National Convention Monday night, The New York Times reports.

Why? Why ruin the narrative that Republicans hate women. Teresa Heinz-Kerry was worshiped by the media. She is worth an estimated $1 billion, 4 1/2 Times as much Mitt Romney!

Her money is in a plethora of tax-wise trusts! But no problem. Teresa was just great! She was covered like make-up. There was no concern with her massive wealth.

Let me make this clear: She is not Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who lived in poverty. No, this was Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democrat presidential candidate.

Heinz has employees in 200 countries. More employees outside the United States than in this country. How is that for outsourcing!

John Kerry was never vilified for his immense wealth, including the ownership of an entire island, estimated at $35 million.

Instead of covering Ann Romney, the networks will all be showing crime dramas. CBS will run “Hawaii Five-O,” ABC “Castle,” and NBC “Grimm.” The networks have informed the Romney campaign they will broadcast just an hour of convention coverage on the final three nights.

Ann Romney is a heroic figure, a mother of five children, who has candidly spoken about her battle with multiple sclerosis and surviving breast cancer, and a miscarriage.

Why don’t we want to hear from Ann Romney? What may she wish to plant in the garden of the Oval Office.

Has the media told you about how the Republican Party and Republican women were the primary force behind the women’s suffrage movement and the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Have they told you about the National Federation of Republican Women, founded in 1938, a national grassroots political organization with thousands of active members in local clubs across the nation and in several U.S. territories, making it one of the largest and most influential women’s political organizations in the country.

They are all active intelligent women who care about our children and grandchildren.

Jane Webster

Cumberland

icecastle posted:

quote:

John Kerry was never vilified for his immense wealth, including the ownership of an entire island, estimated at $35 million.

Mitt Romney in 2004 posted:

There’s a senator from my state, you may have heard, that wants to get elected president and I don’t know why he wants to do that because, of course, if he won, he’d have to move into a smaller house.

particle409 posted:

Michael Reagan is hawking his bullshit email addresses over at Reagan.com. What's the best way to sell a lovely email service? FEAR!!!


Are you supporting liberal causes with your 'free' e-mail account?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/22/are-supporting-liberal-causes-with-your-free-e-mail-account/


edit: Also, his little bio at the bottom:

Glitterbomber posted:

Since I'm a huge nerd all I can think of is him one day rolling out the hit new site, ReganReganRegan.com

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

Bruce Leroy posted:

Yeah, about that....

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/news/la-pn-mitt-romney-of-2004-mocked-john-kerry-for-his-wealth-video-20120329

quote:

HAMDEN — The fence will remain — but the debate will continue.

In fact, it already has.

It went on in emotional and sometimes contentious fashion for more than an hour after New Haven Mayor John DeStefano told more than 200 people at Keefe Community Center on Pine Street that “we’re going to take the (Woodin Street) fence off the table” because “this isn’t worth having a fight over.

He was referring to the New Haven Housing Authority’s proposal to remove three sections of the fence that for decades has separated the Woodin Street area from the Brookside, Rockview and Ribicoff public housing complexes in New Haven.

The old Brookside and Rockview complexes were demolished and are being replaced with new developments that would include owner-occupied units closest to the Hamden border.

The housing authority, in conjunction with other entities, is building the new Brookside Estates, a 582-unit complex, in a part of the city that includes an area of the former Brookside apartments, which were razed in the last decade.

Woodin Street area residents say crime decreased as a result of the razing, and now are concerned about their comfort and safety.

Housing authority Executive Director Karen DuBois-Walton said that only 29 of the original Brookside families have moved back into the new complex

The three sections of the fence would have been removed to allow the construction of roads that would have opened onto Woodin Street near Elliott Drive at two locations between Belden Road and Westside Drive.

But a racially and socially mixed contingent of neighbors made it clear from the outset of the meeting, which Mayor Scott Jackson and Legislative Council members Mike Colaiacovo Jr., D-7, and Jack Kennelly, D-at-large, called and conducted, that they had no interest in seeing that happen.

Several interrupted authority officials as they began to present the plan, and many residents also took issue with an independent traffic study done for the authority that said that just 12 percent of the developments’ residents would have cars.

“Why don’t we let them make their presentation, then we’ll talk about it,” suggested Jackson, who favors removing the fence.

“It was a proposal,” Colaiacovo, who lives on Mueller Drive, said of the presentation by DuBois-Walton, Deputy Executive Director Jimmy Miller and Peter Wood, vice president of the developer, Michaels Development Co. of Stratford, “and the citizens made (their opinions) loud and clear.”

But Hamden neighborhood residents -- who said it’s not about race or ethnicity but about safety and security in the face of a threat from the Housing Authority developments demonstrated over the years -- didn’t want to see or hear it.

“Scott, the buildings” in the plan “are beautiful. We all know that,” said one man in the crowd. “But will these streets open into our suburban neighborhoods?” he asked.

“These are great for New Haven, but we want our neighborhoods to stay the way they are,” said a woman near him.

“Keep New Haven in New Haven and keep Hamden in Hamden,” said Marilyn Hutsell of Woodin Street.

“How many times have you had someone break into your house,” her husband, Mike Hutsel, asked the mayor

“You ask. I answer! You ask. I answer!” Jackson responded, before walking into a back room to cool down for a few minutes.

Hutsell, who served in the Marines for 30 years, later explained that he and his wife have had one house break-in and two car break-ins in their 20 years on Woodin Street.

“I worry for my safety,” he said. “I’m a combat vet, and because of the crime in this area, my wife sleeps with a .9 mm” and “I sleep with a .357 Magnum,” he explained as the debate continued elsewhere in the room. “I keep a baseball bat at the front and back door and a night stick in my garage.()

“Why do people have to live like that?” asked Hutsell, who, like his wife, is African American.

As the debate raged around them, Melanie and Arthur Perry, who have lived for 18 years on Mueller Drive, explained the issue as they see it.

“There’s a history from Brookside and Rockview — people coming over the fence” to do ill, said Melanie Perry, who is African American.

“It’s really (about) safety” and the fence helps “to cut down violence and loitering,” said her husband.

“We don’t want this!” said a white resident a few minutes later. “You want to put a street completely through? You’re jeopardizing every single person in here’s life.”

Jackson apologized for losing his temper when he returned.

“I have never seen another location with a fence” like that, he said. He added, “I don’t think that the boiled-down perception of the town of Hamden,” with regard to residents’ stance on the fence, “is going to be favorable.”

Many residents didn’t immediately understand when DeStefano said removing the fence no longer was going to be pressed as an issue.

DeStefano proposed when he addressed the crowd that the two communities be good neighbors and that the two mayors set up a working group made up of residents of both Hamden and New Haven to continue to discuss the issue.

Asked later by residents whether the panel’s work would be public, Jackson said he would make sure that it was.

After DeStefano said the proposal would be withdrawn, Marilyn Hutsell explained to the crowd, “I was raised this way: You respect everyone’s property and everyone respects yours.” But, “kids today do not respect people’s property.”

Over the years, “I have seen the garbage and my husband and I pick up garbage every day,” she said.

“We pay to be on this side of the fence,” she said. “They pay to be on that side of the fence. ... If they are going to pay $200 or $300 to be on that side of the fence, then go aroun, because we pay dearly.”

“I don’t like the fence. But I understand it,” Jackson said, matter-of-factly, but he also suggested, “You would also prefer to live in a ... neighborhood that didn’t require it

quote:

Gina Rinehart seems to court controversy - from her family lawsuits to her battles with Australian media.

Gina RinehartNow, the Australian mining heiress, worth $19 billion and earlier this year thought to be the world's richest woman, has sparked another controversy in her latest column in Australian Resources and Investment magazine. (Yes, I am a registered reader online.) Rinehart rails against class warfare and says the non-rich should stop attacking the rich and go to work.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she writes. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working."

The comments were part of a treatise on what she sees as Australia's decline due to high taxes, high wages and over-regulation. Rinehart said taxes should fall, red tape should be cut, environmental rules relaxed and the minimum wage should be lowered. (It's currently AUS $15.06 an hour or $606 a week, about the same in U.S. dollars). (Read more: Millionaire Parents Say Kids Aren't Fit to Inherit)

Her quotes are sure to escalate the already heated debate in the United States, Britain and Europe over class warfare, taxing the wealthy and "fair shares."

Rinehart's remarks drew immediate fire from senior Australian ministers. Treasurer Wayne Swan said in a statement that Rinehart had delivered "an insult to the millions of Australian workers who go to work and slog it out to feed the kids and pay the bills."

But Rinehart warned that when governments target the rich, they really hurt the middle and lower classes.

"The terrible millionaires and billionaires can often invest in other countries. And if they do suffer, what does that really mean? Maybe their teenagers don't get the cars they wanted or a better beach house or maybe the holiday to Europe is cut short; But otherwise life goes on for these millionaires and billionaires."

Those who really suffer from anti-business and anti-investor policies are regular workers who "usually vote for the anti-business socialist parties," she writes. "If you want to help the poor and our next generation, make investment, reinvenstment and businesses welcome."

She also tells the stories of her two grandfathers and three of her wealthy friends, who all started at the bottom and worked their way to the top. One grandfather, James Nicholas, started cleaning stables and launched a transportation company. Another granddad built a sheep station with 25,000 sheep.

Her pal Michael Kailis came from a poor Greek immigrant family and became Australia's crawfish king. Friend Jack Cowin borrowed from friends to found the Hungry Jack burger chain, and is now the country's "king of fries."

"The lessons are the same," she writes. "You can't get rich without working hard, taking risks, investing and reinvesting your profits."

Of course, as Rinehart knows, you can also become very rich from inheriting and expanding your father's company.

VideoTapir posted:

Gee, maybe if you give the poor, who spend the money they get, money, business will feel more welcome, because there will be more people spending more money?

quote:

"The terrible millionaires and billionaires can often invest in other countries. And if they do suffer, what does that really mean? Maybe their teenagers don't get the cars they wanted or a better beach house or maybe the holiday to Europe is cut short; But otherwise life goes on for these millionaires and billionaires."

Guilty Spork posted:

Why yes, a lot of wealthy people are very deeply unpatriotic.

Guilty Spork posted:

Why yes, a lot of wealthy people are very deeply unpatriotic.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Don't do this, patriotism is not a trait to strive for.

Bruce Leroy posted:

More importantly, if you lower the minimum wage, how will those who earn minimum wage have any left with which to invest, start businesses, etc. in order to become millionaires and billionaires?

Last time I checked making money like that generally requires some kind of capital and if you diminish people's abilities to earn and accrue capital, then they'll have even less chance of becoming wealthy than before.

The last line of the article I posted is the most important, this rear end in a top hat isn't some self-made woman, she inherited a profitable company and just expanded on it. She wasn't some minimum wage slave who saved a few dollars of every paycheck to start some business out of her garage and built to a billion dollar enterprise.

Lafcadio Hearn posted:

Now, with us, the common worker is incomparably less free than the common worker in Japan. He is less free because of the more complicated mechanism of Occidental societies, whose forces tend to agglomeration and solid integration. He is less free because the social and industrial machinery on which he must depend reshapes him to its own particular requirements, and always so as to evolve some special and artificial capacity at the cost of other inherent capacity. He is less free because he must live at a standard making it impossible for him to win financial independence by mere thrift. To achieve any such independence, he must possess exceptional character and exceptional faculties greater than those of thousands of exceptional competitors equally eager to escape from the same thralldom. In brief, then, he is less independent because the special character of his civilization numbs his natural power to live without the help of machinery or large capital. To live thus artificially means to lose, sooner or later, the power of independent movement. Before a Western man can move he has many things to consider.

VideoTapir posted:

I'm reading "Kokoro" by Lafcadio Hearn. In the middle of him sucking off Japanese imperialism, there's this.

quote:

We've Got Labor Day. Why Not Corporation Day?
It's high time we honored the industrialist pioneers, business barons and tycoons—the job creators—of our nation.

Borneo Jimmy posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623882621734906.html

quote:

I will paraphrase what I say to my kids. EVERY day is Corporation Day.

Borneo Jimmy posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623882621734906.html

quote:

We've Got Labor Day. Why Not Corporation Day?
It's high time we honored the industrialist pioneers, business barons and tycoons—the job creators—of our nation.

VideoTapir posted:

Labor day is an insult anyway.

namesake posted:

Every second you exist in modern society in its current state is thanks to the hard and often completely forgotten labours of your fellow human rather than the sinister systems and organisations which exist to syphon away the fruits of that labour for their own private enjoyment.

Dead Beef posted:

quote:

I am heartened by Kali Schumitz’s article “New voter ID law gets final approval” [Aug 24-26].

Not long ago, a Facebook friend was — it seems — quite flustered by the "voter ID nonsense."

She posted a comment that, harrumph, only 39 incidents of voter fraud had occurred in the last election. Only 39? Gosh, what a relief.

Yes that is sarcasm. OK, time to wax serious: One case of voter fraud is one case too many. Most probably are jealous of the American right to vote. So sacred is that right that most agree we must have measures in place to protect it. The plan for identification is simple, and should be easy to manage.

But certainly now comes the resistance. Many will construe the need for an ID as being too outlandish, too burdensome! We will hear that it discriminates! Stand by to read that lower income and minorities are being targeted. Their circumstances (gasp!) preclude getting a picture ID will be the headline. Most of those complaints likely will come from Democrats — the facto protectors of the aforementioned disadvantaged.

And here is the real surprise: They, as self-appointed protectors, do not want to help their charge get some type of ID. Think back to Steve Martin in "The Jerk," when Martin’s character revels to see his name in the phone book. The scene makes for great comedy but a kernel of wisdom is here, too.

This type of civic advancement, so to speak, is a small step, but then it could lead to other things in a person’s life. Is it too difficult to picture a voter realizing that procuring an ID was indeed not all that hard? Might they think that this was a big step? And is it possible that this step could lead, perhaps, to bigger strides in his or her life?

What has been lost in the voter ID argument is a basic, tacit fundamental of the American establishment: Every once in a while, we all have to expend a little effort to keep the system working. Now and then, in the spirit of the Haven Kimmel's memoir, you have to get up off the couch.

Getting an ID can lead to changes. I loved passing that old adage on to my (then) young children: "Once your passport is stamped, life is never the same."

Going further to consider the bigger picture of national security, we must remember 9/11 was not that long ago. Why is it so unpalatable to try to discern that people are who they say they are? Especially when the greatest American blessing is in play: our elections.

The voter ID law is a good law. We all win.

Col. John R. Culclasure, Fairfax

Borneo Jimmy posted:

Corporation day

Presto posted:

From the local paper...

Everybody wins with Voter ID law


I don't even know where to start.

namesake posted:

Every second you exist in modern society in its current state is thanks to the hard and often completely forgotten labours of your fellow human rather than the sinister systems and organisations which exist to syphon away the fruits of that labour for their own private enjoyment.

Wikipedia posted:

The September date originally chosen by the CLU of New York and observed by many of the nation's trade unions for the past several years was selected rather than the more widespread International Workers' Day because Cleveland was concerned that observance of the latter would be associated with the nascent Communist, Syndicalist and Anarchist movements that, though distinct from one another, had rallied to commemorate the Haymarket Affair in International Workers' Day.[6] All U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have made it a statutory holiday.

Bruce Leroy posted:

Terrible article, but I don't think I could put it better than the following comment from the WSJ website:

Walter posted:

You guys realize that the author is a former labor and employment lawyer, and everything about that piece is satire.

It's not good satire, but those opinions are deliberately absurd.

quote:

John Kirby: The Joker's on us
Comments 0 | Recommend 0
August 3, 2012 9:49 am
By Robert Whitcomb


By JOHN KIRBY

NEW YORK

Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of killing Robert Kennedy the night he won the California primary in 1968, still has no memory of committing the act. Witnesses observed that he appeared as if he was in a "trance," and it took five large men to wrestle the diminutive Sirhan to the ground.

Leave aside for the moment that the autopsy revealed that Kennedy had been shot from behind, and not from the front where Sirhan was positioned, and that an unindicted suspect and Kennedy's probable killer was a security guard affiliated with an anti-Castro army trained by U.S. intelligence.

The point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Sirhan was "programmed" to do what he did, that he was easily hypnotized (there are many recordings of him being interviewed under hypnosis) and that he practiced a form of hypnotic reinforcement called "automatic writing", scrawling again and again in a notebook: "RFK Must Die".
(For an excellent overview of this evidence, see the extraordinary film by Shane O'Sullivan that takes those words for its title).

It's worth remembering Sirhan and the strange circumstances surrounding that assassination as we look, benumbed, at the latest display of domestic terror. Added to a list that now includes Gabrielle Gifford's would-be assassin, the Fort Hood shooter, the Virginia Tech killer, and many more too numerous to mention, we face yet another act of seemingly senseless horror and almost no longer bother to ask "why?"

When viewed as the act of yet another "lone nut," that improbable mover of great events, we can only shake our heads and ponder the effects of bullying or ostracizing, perhaps traumatic family life, video games or the easy availability of guns.

All these largely psychiatric factors no doubt come into play for many perpetrators of both random and targeted violence, but does our questioning end there? And just because there is a great deal of randomness in life, does that mean that anything and everything is simply random?

The story emerging from Aurora, Colo., is indeed strange. James E. Holmes, an indebted graduate student ,manages to acquire expensive, sophisticated weapons and military gear and the training to use them. He sets elaborate booby traps around his apartment, some of which law enforcement "has never seen before".

And then after entering a theater seemingly hell bent on killing everyone and going down in a hail of bullets, he surrenders easily to the police and even helpfully tells them his apartment is rigged to kill them.

And now there is video of the young man in court, appearing, according to some commentators, "sad," to others "weird" "bug-eyed" and "out of it". To those descriptions I would add: "doped". In fact, he seemed to cycle through all of these states of mind at once, only dimly aware of what was happening around him, flinching inwardly at times, in other moments coming into a painful but clouded consciousness.

Could James Holmes be another Sirhan? Might there be forces in our society, some highly placed, who benefit from horrific acts of random terror and the shock that ensues? Could this senseless act actually have a twisted "sense" to it? But what might that be?

For an example from history, look up Operation Gladio. There are numerous BBC and other documentaries on the subject, which concerns state forces committing acts of violence against their own people in Cold War Europe. The object in that case was to drive political opinion, and in general to create what was termed a "Strategy of Tension" that would herd citizens into the protective arms of the state, and away from newfangled notions about how society might be run.

From an Oktoberfest bombing in Germany to masked shooters randomly killing in supermarkets in Belgium, Gladio ran it's course from the late1940's through the late '80's, if it ever ended.

Leaving aside speculation as to who may or may not lay behind this latest outrageous mass-murder, let's consider the effect it will have.

In the wake of the shootings, the liberal left has called for more gun control, as if making certain weapons illegal would prevent anyone from getting them (see "The War on Drugs" and "Prohibition"). The right and the libertarian left fret about the Second Amendment, as if even automatic weapons could protect them against trained government forces, the principal concern of many, in line right before or right after the threat of home invasion.

And while this debate continues, and mostly gridlocks, with some on the right saying as they did after Gabrielle Gifford's shooting that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would help prevent these tragedies, and some on the left calling for outright confiscation, a more insidious force will continue to take hold of our society.

In a state of tension and stress, we will, as we have for a while now, submit to ever more surveillance, detection, prisons and militarization of our local police forces. The state will grow ever more powerful, security contracts will abound, as will an atmosphere of pervasive mistrust as we are encouraged to watch our neighbors for signs of "going off the rails," as David Brooks put it in a recent New York Times.

We will continue to incrementally cede our hard-won rights, and in our ignorant fright and stunned apathy dole out more nourishment to what C.S. Lewis named "that hideous Strength" -- otherwise known as fascism.

I don't worry about the Second Amendment, however. When the enemy is the people themselves and the goal is ever more funding and power, it's actually in the interest of the National Security State to have plenty of loose automatic weapons abroad in the land. What plausible enemy could our heavily armored SWAT teams have if none of the citizenry had serious firepower? It makes for good television, and excellent plots for the Batman franchise.

For the record, I would love to see all of these guns destroyed, both those controlled by the governments of the world and those owned by the people. But that's just a pipe dream, and we must continue to live in a nightmare, where the Joker's on us.

John Kirby is director of the movies "The American Ruling Class'' and "Cape Spin'' (about the Nantucket Sound wind-farm battle), among other films.

HMDK posted:

Just like there's no longer any reason to call Poe, this vein of politics is mined dry of absurd parody. Because who the gently caress can even tell anymore?

Walter posted:

It's the main reason why, sometime around 2001 or 2002, I stopped reading the Onion with any regularity. Nevertheless, I don't think a attempt at a satirical poke at corporations on the WSJ page really qualifies as a "terrible editorial [or] opinion piece."

Presto posted:

From the local paper...

Everybody wins with Voter ID law


I don't even know where to start.

Walter posted:

You guys realize that the author is a former labor and employment lawyer, and everything about that piece is satire.

It's not good satire, but those opinions are deliberately absurd.

Emy posted:

I find it difficult to tell on the Wall Street "Stephen Hawking would have died under the NHS" Journal.