Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
Schmoe Cwead
Apr 19, 2007

LUCKY DUCK


Saint Sputnik posted:

I couldn't even finish this. Eat poo poo Susan Brown.

That article is perfect. A Tea Partier upset that OWS are just foolish media whores dancing to the pied piper of the left. Hilarious stuff.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

redmercer
Sep 15, 2011

by Fistgrrl


Saint Sputnik posted:

I couldn't even finish this. Eat poo poo Susan Brown.

Conservatives live in Opposite Land.txt

Schmoe Cwead
Apr 19, 2007

LUCKY DUCK


It's more the Rovian-concept-of-using-the-weakest-aspect-of-your-party-to-attack-the-other-party.txt.

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005


There were orgies? Why didn't anybody tell me?

24-7 Urkel Cosplay
Feb 12, 2003

hail


Armyman25 posted:

There were orgies? Why didn't anybody tell me?

Because as the article states, they were untold. All of these terrible things happened, and the proof of them is that there is no evidence of them actually happening.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Internet Webguy posted:

That article is perfect. A Tea Partier upset that OWS are just foolish media whores dancing to the pied piper of the left. Hilarious stuff.

My favorite part of that particular editorial and virutally every other conservative screed about OWS is that the Occupy protesters don't know what they want or what they are protesting against or what they would "do with change."

Sure, there are many different perspectives but there is certainly consensus about several issues, including (1) increased regulations on the financial sector and other business industries, (2) increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, (3) closing tax loopholes for corporations, (4) ending corporate "personhood," and (5) getting money out of politics. I don't think ANY Occupy protestor would dispute or disagree with these positions and tangible policy plans.

Also, all these accusations of "crimes" by Occupy protesters are not only light on evidence, there's also not any proof that, if they truly happened, they were committed by the protestors themselves. Seriously, if there were any rapes, it's just as likely that some non-protestor rapist went down to a protest because it's probably relatively easy to attack someone when their only security is a flimsy tent flap and the rapist can blend in with a large crowd of people.

Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at Dec 5, 2011 around 15:37

Saint Sputnik
Mar 31, 2007

Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

Short but sweet letter today:

quote:

Iíve tried to be patient and good, but after seeing the poster child for Planned Parenthood I canít.

This well-educated strong young man declared he wasnít going to get a job until the government made the minimum wage at a liveable rate. I lost it.

Welcome to the United States of America, land of the greedy, home of the lazy.

Cindy McConnell-Slater,
Warsaw, via email

Literally, this guy who wants an income he can live on should have been aborted.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Saint Sputnik posted:

Short but sweet letter today:


Literally, this guy who wants an income he can live on should have been aborted.

To be fair, Warsaw is a pretty terrible place.

bairfanx
Jan 20, 2006

I look like this IRL,
but, you know,
more Greg Land-y.


My local newspaper is full of this garbage. Here's one comparing "abortionists" to child molesters:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opin...19bb2963f4.html

ignorance over Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opin...1cc4c03286.html

Oh, and the end times are coming!
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opin...1cc4c002e0.html

This is a paper that published all of this, yet refused to publish my letter addressing the media bias regarding OWS.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


bairfanx posted:

My local newspaper is full of this garbage. Here's one comparing "abortionists" to child molesters:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opin...19bb2963f4.html

ignorance over Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opin...1cc4c03286.html

Oh, and the end times are coming!
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opin...1cc4c002e0.html

This is a paper that published all of this, yet refused to publish my letter addressing the media bias regarding OWS.

The abortion one is classic. My local paper has those kinds of things all the time, where an article or letter to the editor mentions some kind of horror or travesty (e.g. Darfur, Sandusky, Virginia Tech, etc.) and the anti-abortion folks have to write in and try to one up the story with how terrible abortion is, e.g. "50,000,000 dead babies! Worse than the Holocaust!"

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





Your editorial about the City Council vote to amend the municipal code against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was business as usual and is what we've come to expect from those who have managed to position themselves in power or influence.

They seldom fail to disappoint. You stated this action was done as "ever so slowly and ever so quietly in this old river city and moved itself into the 21st century." Rather than moving us forward, this moves us all the way back to Biblical times. The consequences of practicing such a lifestyle aren't new and it is a disservice to make such people a protected class because of their behavior.

If the entire population had a vote on this, I doubt it would have been a yes. That's why it was done "quietly." It was strictly political correctness done in an undemocratic way. You couch the action in terms that you think make it acceptable to people and the gullible will agree, but the informed population know better and that can include "the aging population in this old city" that you decry.

You stated that to take this action was "right and smart." I beg to differ. Anything that encourages the practice of homosexuality goes against statistics that prove to us that it's dangerous to the person who lives it and costly in terms of bad health, crushing to families, lost lives and treatment for the ever-increasing spread of HIV and AIDS.

Why in the world would anyone want to foster more of that? If attracting job-producers to the city hinges on this, we would do better to look for other incentives.

Congratulations are not in order here. What we should do is educate about the dangers of homosexuality and to guard against pressures to engage in this lifestyle. That would be something to applaud.

I know my views are not politically correct and I am setting myself up as a target for the arrows that always come, but someone has to tell the truth.

Charlotte Koewler
Newburgh, Indiana

(note that she lives in a suburb that is not even in the same county as Evansville, the city she is referring to)

Maneck
Sep 11, 2011
I CAN'T STOP ROLLING AROUND IN MY OWN SHIT


Peanut President posted:

What we should do is educate about the dangers of homosexuality and to guard against pressures to engage in this lifestyle.
...
I know my views are not politically correct and I am setting myself up as a target for the arrows that always come, but someone has to tell the truth.

Charlotte Koewler
Newburgh, Indiana

The "dangers" of homosexuality? She's advocating for teaching things beyond "absitence only"? Bully for her!

Oh wait, that part means she thinks that what she thinks the bible says makes it okay for her to trumpet bigotry.

DeepSpaceBeans
Nov 2, 2005

Let's build us a happy, little cloud that floats around the sky.

Maneck posted:

The "dangers" of homosexuality? She's advocating for teaching things beyond "absitence only"? Bully for her!

Oh wait, that part means she thinks that what she thinks the bible says makes it okay for her to trumpet bigotry.

I'm just curious when she's going to write a similar rant on the benefits of lesbianism, given their lower rates of HIV/AIDs than even heterosexual couples.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


DeepSpaceBeans posted:

I'm just curious when she's going to write a similar rant on the benefits of lesbianism, given their lower rates of HIV/AIDs than even heterosexual couples.

See, that's how you know that homophobic bigots are all a bunch of intellectually dishonest hatemongers.

When they try to paint homosexuality as some kind of disease or at least inherently harmful, they completely avoid mentioning that heterosexual men and women have higher raters of HIV/AIDS than lesbian women and instead only mention homosexual men. Most people don't know about this, so they just swallow that bullshit about homosexual men without any critical thought.

Even worse, they completely fail to mention that HIV is almost 100% preventable if people reliably use condoms and dental dams if they are not completely monogamous with their sexual partner. HIV is not a homosexual disease but rather a sexually-transmitted disease which is easily preventable.

This reminds me of an absolutely horrendous editorial from one of the worst homophobic bigots I've ever heard of, Bryan Fischer from the American Family association.

Bryan Fischer: I'm with the gay porn actor: fine gays for unprotected sex

quote:

A gay porn actor is way ahead of me, but Iím all caught up now. He wants to fine people who donít use a condom when they have gay sex.

Now he wants to restrict the fine to people in the porn industry, but why stop there? If contracting HIV/AIDS is the threat to human health he says it is, why shouldnít we try to protect everybody?

Derek Burts is an actor in both straight and gay porn films, and shut down the porn industry late last fall when he tested positive for HIV, which he says he almost certainly contracted while filming gay sex scenes.

Now, according to the Los Angeles Times, another sex performer has been diagnosed with HIV, and once again the porn industry has been temporarily shuttered.

Burts and others are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which, if passed by voters in 2012, will require all performers in adult films shot in L.A. to wear condoms during filming, whether the sex is gay or straight. The only standards in place right now are strictly voluntary, and ask performers to be tested every 30 days.

The president of the foundation, one Michael Weinstein, says that not requiring gay porn actors to wear condoms shows ďoutrageous disregard for the health and safety of performers and the community at large.Ē So he too admits that gay sex is an enormous threat to public health, and that the threat is community-wide. In other words, heís saying that homosexual sex, indeed random sex in general, is not a victimless crime. I couldnít agree more. I feel like Iím listening to myself here.

Adds Weinstein, in words that could have come from one of my columns, ďHow many performers must become infected with HIV and other serious STDs before the industry will clean up its act and government will do the right thing?Ē How many, indeed?

Iíve repeatedly stressed that our best argument against the normalization of homosexuality is the enormous danger it poses to human health. It is so risky to public health that the FDA will not let a male donate blood if heís had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.

And lo and behold, Derek Burts agrees with me on the dangers of gay sex. ďItís very dangerous,Ē he says, speaking of filming gay sex scenes in particular. On top of contracting HIV, by the way, he also contracted chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes while working in the porn industry.

e knows he contracted all these diseases while having sex on camera because the only sex he has outside of work is with his girlfriend. She must feel so special.

Heís a walking one-man billboard for abstinence before marriage and fidelity after.

Because of the enormous health risks involved in gay sex, he says, "It should be required that you wear a condom on the set."

According to a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade group, performers who had sex with this most recently infected HIV individual will be notified so they too can get tested. The Coalition will attempt to identify what she called ďfirst- and second- generation partners,Ē by which she means all those who had sex with the person and all those who had sex with anyone who had sex with the infected person. Given that many homosexuals have between 500 and 1000 sexual partners in a lifetime, good luck with that.

Itís a reminder that when you have sex with someone, youíre not just having sex with them - youíre having sex with everyone theyíve had sex with.

Now if condoms are going to be required in filming gay sex scenes, then there must be some penalty for failing to do so. I was unable to find out exactly what the proposed penalty is, but Iím assuming itís in the nature of a fine.

What Iím suggesting is that we enact ordinances in city after city and laws in state after state that mandate that same exact penalty - whatever penalty gay activists think is appropriate - for unprotected homosexual sex. Hey, if itís good enough for porn stars, it should be good enough for the average gay man on the street.

And if someone wants to extend that same penalty to unmarried straights who have sex, who am I to complain?

Why should we only care about the health of those who get paid $1000 to $2000 for filming a sex scene and not care about the little people who have gay sex in public bathrooms for free?

Of course, this is just the place to begin, but it is a first step in de-normalizing and de-legitimizing homosexual sex. And the beauty here is that we would be following the lead of homosexual activists. We ought to take their advice in the simple interest of human health and out of concern for future possible HIV victims.

So oddly, I find myself in the same corner on this issue as gay porn stars. Iím willing to take their suggestion and apply it not just in L.A. but nationwide and not just for people who get paid to have sex but for every gay sex partner in the land. Itís not all we can do, but itís the least we can do.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

I'M ESCAPING TO THE ONE PLACE THAT HASN'T BEEN CORRUPTED BY CAPITALISM...

SPACE!


Do actors in porn world have a union? Sounds like they need one.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Helsing posted:

Do actors in porn world have a union? Sounds like they need one.

The funny thing is that Bryan Fischer is the kind of right-wing shill who normally hates on things like workers rights and social justice, so he'd not only be against that union but also against OSHA regulations to preserve workplace safety.

He's one of the most terrible people I've read about that isn't a mass murderer, serial killer, or pedophile.

Marxist-Jezzinist
Dec 30, 2010

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.


quote:

Because of the enormous health risks involved in gay sex, he says, "It should be required that you wear a condom on the set."
Even the camera guy?

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Baracula posted:

Even the camera guy?

Of course, you know how "infectious" gay sex is, it will look so hot that the cameraman will probably jizz just from watching, so we have to make sure no one else comes into contact with his semen.

FISHMANPET
Mar 3, 2007

Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams


Bruce Leroy posted:

Even worse, they completely fail to mention that HIV is almost 100% preventable if people reliably use condoms and dental dams if they are not completely monogamous with their sexual partner. HIV is not a homosexual disease but rather a sexually-transmitted disease which is easily preventable.

But you see the gays are monsters and literal sex fiends and it's not just that they engage in monogamous sex with a single man ever, but that they're having all sorts of wild swinger sex and orgies and all manner of morally reprehensible sex acts.

There's all sorts of hypocrisy in there, but I can sort of understand how someone can mentally get to the point where that poo poo makes sense.

MaxxBot
Oct 6, 2003

you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!


Bruce Leroy posted:

Even worse, they completely fail to mention that HIV is almost 100% preventable if people reliably use condoms and dental dams if they are not completely monogamous with their sexual partner. HIV is not a homosexual disease but rather a sexually-transmitted disease which is easily preventable.

Logically you'd think that conservatives would apply the same "personal responsibility" shtick to HIV that they would to every other issue but in this case their desire to criticize gays outweighs even the desire to preach the message of bootstraps. An impoverished minority living in a broken home in a high crime area can simply work hard and bootstrap their way to success but if you're gay you're gonna get AIDS and die no matter what unless you repent and turn from your filthy immoral ways.

Benly
Aug 2, 2011

20% of the time, it works every time.


MaxxBot posted:

Logically you'd think that conservatives would apply the same "personal responsibility" shtick to HIV that they would to every other issue but in this case their desire to criticize gays outweighs even the desire to preach the message of bootstraps. An impoverished minority living in a broken home in a high crime area can simply work hard and bootstrap their way to success but if you're gay you're gonna get AIDS and die no matter what unless you repent and turn from your filthy immoral ways.

This is not exactly inconsistent because they believe you can and should bootstrap yourself out of being gay.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Benly posted:

This is not exactly inconsistent because they believe you can and should bootstrap yourself out of being gay.

Each and every time I hear a person claim that homosexuals can just stop being gay, I want to bring them the first gay person I can find of the same sex and say, "Well, if it can work one way, it should work the other, so get on your knees and start being gay."

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Bruce Leroy posted:

Each and every time I hear a person claim that homosexuals can just stop being gay, I want to bring them the first gay person I can find of the same sex and say, "Well, if it can work one way, it should work the other, so get on your knees and start being gay."
That's not a particularly compelling counter. They do (profess to) believe that that's exactly how it works, and that it could work the other way - they would simply refuse on the basis of its supposed immorality.

A better response to ask if they feel that they've actually "chosen" heterosexuality, whether they ever experienced a powerful attraction to someone of the same gender, as gay people do. Most of the time, presumably, the answer will be 'no,' and this makes a significant difference that you can then use. And if the answer is 'yes,' well, then you've got a whole weird situation. But that's unlikely.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Strudel Man posted:

That's not a particularly compelling counter. They do (profess to) believe that that's exactly how it works, and that it could work the other way - they would simply refuse on the basis of its supposed immorality.

A better response to ask if they feel that they've actually "chosen" heterosexuality, whether they ever experienced a powerful attraction to someone of the same gender, as gay people do. Most of the time, presumably, the answer will be 'no,' and this makes a significant difference that you can then use. And if the answer is 'yes,' well, then you've got a whole weird situation. But that's unlikely.

My point is more so that the onus is on them to prove sexuality is a choice by showing that they, the person making the exorbitant claim, can do so. It's basically like asking the CEO of a natural gas company to live in a house next to a fracking site for a year if fracking is harmless and no big deal for the ecosystem and people living near it.

If they aren't willing to subject themselves to the same thing they are expecting of another person, they can just gently caress off.

Your response to the scenario isn't much better because the homophobes claim that they didn't choose to be heterosexual because it's the default position of humans, while homosexuality is an uncommon aberration, requiring conscious choice or child sexual abuse. These people aren't really responsive to the counter that homosexuality isn't a choice because heterosexuality isn't a choice. To them, it's like saying that eating feces is normal and natural because it used to be food and humans naturally eat food.

These homophobes are loving assholes and no argument is really ever going to persuade them. Generally, it seems like only personal experience gets them to change, e.g. having a gay child or being really good friends with someone and finding out later that they are gay, causing them to realize that gays are just as cool as everyone else, which forces them to reevaluate their positions on homosexuality.

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Bruce Leroy posted:

My point is more so that the onus is on them to prove sexuality is a choice by showing that they, the person making the exorbitant claim, can do so. It's basically like asking the CEO of a natural gas company to live in a house next to a fracking site for a year if fracking is harmless and no big deal for the ecosystem and people living near it.

If they aren't willing to subject themselves to the same thing they are expecting of another person, they can just gently caress off.
"I am subjecting myself to the same thing I'm expecting from them - a heterosexual lifestyle."

quote:

Your response to the scenario isn't much better because the homophobes claim that they didn't choose to be heterosexual because it's the default position of humans, while homosexuality is an uncommon aberration, requiring conscious choice or child sexual abuse. These people aren't really responsive to the counter that homosexuality isn't a choice because heterosexuality isn't a choice. To them, it's like saying that eating feces is normal and natural because it used to be food and humans naturally eat food.
That's why my response was specifically to ask about whether or not they had experienced homosexual desire.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Strudel Man posted:

"I am subjecting myself to the same thing I'm expecting from them - a heterosexual lifestyle."

Touche, but again, my point is expecting someone to change their sexuality, not to experience heterosexuality.

Thenipwax
Jun 20, 2001

by Ozmaugh


Even if homosexuality were a choice (it's not), who loving cares? We are supposed to live in a free country! Who gives a poo poo if somebody wants to do something that you personally don't want to do?

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Bruce Leroy posted:

Bryan Fischer: I'm with the gay porn actor: fine gays for unprotected sex
Burts and others are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation which, if passed by voters in 2012, will require all performers in adult films shot in L.A. to wear condoms during filming, whether the sex is gay or straight. The only standards in place right now are strictly voluntary, and ask performers to be tested every 30 days.

I like how this entire premise is contradicted by the facts he brought up. They aren't fining people for gay sex, they're mandating protection be used by all porn actors.

This is all bullshit cooked up out of nothing to feed his narrative.

Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Johnny Pussy?


http://www.telegram.com/article/20111211/NEWS/112119840

This guy contradicts himself so bad in this piece in an effort to criticize Obama and T Roosevelt. It's pretty funny.


Also, who the gently caress uses the word poppycock to title an opinion piece?

Davethulhu
Aug 12, 2003

Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

Morbid Hound

Boondock Saint posted:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20111211/NEWS/112119840

This guy contradicts himself so bad in this piece in an effort to criticize Obama and T Roosevelt. It's pretty funny.


Also, who the gently caress uses the word poppycock to title an opinion piece?

Old people.

Zeroisanumber
Oct 23, 2010



Nap Ghost

Boondock Saint posted:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20111211/NEWS/112119840

This guy contradicts himself so bad in this piece in an effort to criticize Obama and T Roosevelt. It's pretty funny.


Also, who the gently caress uses the word poppycock to title an opinion piece?

Me, but I like old words, and I know it's a personal flaw.

Borneo Jimmy
Feb 27, 2007

by Smythe


This is horrible on so many levels

http://news.yahoo.com/poor-black-kid-122507789.html

quote:

President Obama gave an excellent speech last week in Kansas about inequality in America.

ďThis is the defining issue of our time.Ē He said. ďThis is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because whatís at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.Ē

Heís right. The spread between rich and poor has gotten wider over the decades. And the opportunities for the 99% have become harder to realize.

The President's speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia. The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011.

I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesnít mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesnít mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I donít believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.

It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology. As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this.

If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldnít care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, youíre severely limiting the limited opportunities you have.

And I would use the technology available to me as a student. I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service nowadays. That because (and sadly) itís oftentimes a necessary thing to keep their kids safe at home then on the streets. And libraries and schools have computers available too. Computers can be purchased cheaply at outlets like TigerDirect and Dellís Outlet. Professional organizations like accountants and architects often offer used computers from their members, sometimes at no cost at all.

If I was a poor black kid Iíd use the free technology available to help me study. Iíd become expert at Google Scholar. Iíd visit study sites like SparkNotes and CliffsNotes to help me understand books. Iíd watch relevant teachings on Academic Earth, TED and the Khan Academy. (I say relevant because some of these lectures may not be related to my work or too advanced for my age. But there are plenty of videos on these sites that are suitable to my studies and would help me stand out.) I would also, when possible, get my books for free at Project Gutenberg and learn how to do research at the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia to help me with my studies.

I would use homework tools like Backpack, and Diigo to help me store and share my work with other classmates. I would use Skype to study with other students who also want to do well in my school. I would take advantage of study websites like Evernote, Study Rails, Flashcard Machine, Quizlet, and free online calculators. Is this easy? No itís not. Itís hard. It takes a special kind of kid to succeed. And to succeed even with these tools is much harder for a black kid from West Philadelphia than a white kid from the suburbs. But itís not impossible. The tools are there. The technology is there. And the opportunities there.

In Philadelphia, there are nationally recognized magnet schools like Central, Girls High and Masterman. These schools are free. But they are hard to get in to. You need good grades and good test scores. And there are also other good magnet and charter schools in the city. You also need good grades to get into those. In a school system that is so broken these are bright spots. Getting into one of these schools opens up a world of opportunities. More than 90% of the kids that go to Central go on to college. I would use the internet to research each one of these schools so I could find out how I could be admitted. I would find out the names of the admissions people and go to meet with them. If I was a poor black kid I would make it my goal to get into one of these schools.

Or even a private school. Most private schools I know are filled to the brim with the 1%. Thatís because these schools are exclusive and expensive, costing anywhere between $20 and $50k per year. But thereís a secret about them. Most have scholarship programs. Most have boards of trustees that want to give opportunities to kids that canít afford the tuition. Many would provide funding for not only tuition but also for transportation or even boarding. Trust me, they want to show diversity. They want to show smiling, smart kids of many different colors and races on their fundraising brochures. If I was a poor black kid Iíd be using technology to research these schools on the internet too and making them know that I exist and that I get good grades want to go to their school.

And once admitted to one of these schools the first person Iíd introduce myself to would be the schoolís guidance counselor. This is the person who will one day help me go to a college. This is the person who knows everything there is to know about financial aid, grants, minority programs and the like. This is the person who may also know of job programs and co-op learning opportunities that I could participate in. This is the person who could help me get summer employment at a law firm or a business owned by the 1% where I could meet people and show off my stuff.

If I was a poor black kid I would get technical. I would learn software. I would learn how to write code. I would seek out courses in my high school that teaches these skills or figure out where to learn more online. I would study on my own. I would make sure my writing and communication skills stay polished.

Because a poor black kid who gets good grades, has a part time job and becomes proficient with a technical skill will go to college. There is financial aid available. There are programs available. And no matter what he or she majors in that person will have opportunities. They will find jobs in a country of business owners like me who are starved for smart, skilled people. They will succeed.

President Obama was right in his speech last week. The division between rich and poor is a national problem. But the biggest challenge we face isnít inequality. Itís ignorance. So many kids from West Philadelphia donít even know these opportunities exist for them. Many come from single-parent families whose mom or dad (or in many cases their grand mom) is working two jobs to survive and are just (understandably) too plain tired to do anything else in the few short hours theyíre home. Many have teachers who are overburdened and too stressed to find the time to help every kid that needs it. Many of these kids donít have the brains to figure this out themselves Ė like my kids. Except that my kids are just lucky enough to have parents and a well-funded school system around to push them in the right direction.

Technology can help these kids. But only if the kids want to be helped. Yes, there is much inequality. But the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.

Maneck
Sep 11, 2011
I CAN'T STOP ROLLING AROUND IN MY OWN SHIT


^Yes, many, many things wrong.

Most atrocious is that he keeps making the same mistake over and over. He, as a guy with all the advantages, can think of ways that he could succeed even if he was poor. Whereas, the problem is lack of awareness of opportunities, and even an lack of ability to recognize opportunities.

I believe he makes that same mistake 12 times.

Schmoe Cwead
Apr 19, 2007

LUCKY DUCK


"I admit I'm privileged in this society, but that won't stop me from telling those who aren't to stop being so loving lazy."

Amarkov
Jun 21, 2010


The worst part is, he's not even arguing that all poor kids can or should bootstrap themselves into success. He's arguing that only the smart ones will be able to live decently, and somehow that isn't bad.

Tatonka
Nov 25, 2009


http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com...0320/Greed-good
Greed is good.

Does that statement make your blood boil?

Tough!

I'm not rich. But I aspire to wealth. Always have. Always will.

And that's in spite of the evil connotation being wealthy has been given in recent months thanks to President Barack Obama.

This nation was built by people who had a goal in life of making themselves better.

In the process of making themselves rich, they carried the United States along with them.

Henry Ford may have built his first automobile because he felt tooling around in a gasoline-powered contraption was better than riding a horse and wagon around town. But he created Ford Motor Co. because he was making money building cars and trucks. Lots of money.

If there was no profit in the risks Henry Ford took, there would be no automobile industry.

That's the history of America, folks.

Those who are successful carry the rest of us along with them.

John D. Rockefeller became a billionaire oil mogul. He did it not out of the goodness of his heart, but because there was profit in finding, drilling and processing oil.

As his wealth grew, he made wealth for others. He created jobs. In the process he created successful lives for hundreds of thousands of workers and families.

He wasn't embarrassed by his wealth. He shouldn't be.

"It is a man's duty to make all the money he can, keep all that he can and give away all that he can," Rockefeller said.

The president thinks rich people are evil. He thinks they should be embarrassed by their success.

What he doesn't realize is the wealthy pay for much of what goes on in America.

He believes it is unnecessary to reward ingenuity. He doesn't think hard work should be rewarded. He doesn't want to reward risk-takers.

He thinks everyone should feed from the same trough.

However, if no one is getting rich, if no one is making money to help the government fill up that trough, the government's money and its food well will soon run dry.

When that happens, we'll all go hungry.

The president wants to punish the successful, the risk-takers, the job creators. Worst of all, he wants other Americans to hate the successful. He shames them publicly in almost every speech he gives.

The president wants to take more of their income and give it to the poor, the downtrodden -- and the lazy.

Yes, the lazy.

I spent five years in the appliance/TV/furniture rental business in Columbus and Cleveland.

Much of our profit came courtesy of Social Security, welfare and Aid to Dependent Children checks.

Granted, many used that money for food, bills and to raise their families. But not everyone. Many of our customers used those checks to pay for stereos, wide-screen TVs and VCRs. Now those checks help pay for iPads, iPhones, computers and flat-screen TVs.

How do I know? Because I would stand at the counter at work the first of each month and cash those government checks. Most of that money went to pay for those non-essential accoutrements.

Rockefeller believed in a handup, not a handout.

"Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it," he said.

What happened to that sentiment?

If someone has wasted their hand up, they should no longer be my problem. They shouldn't be allowed to live on the government's dime their entire life.

During a speech in Kansas last week, the president said: "This country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They're American values. And we have to reclaim them."

He's correct. Everyone deserves a fair shot.

What they do with that fair shot is up to them.

Some will take risks. Some will succeed.

Others will do nothing. They won't succeed.

The wealthiest few in this nation took risks. They're successful. And they already pay more than their fair share of taxes. They do, in fact, support the rest of us.

The rich, the wealthy, the risk-takers -- they are not the problem.

The problem is our government, which refuses to tackle the real issue in front of its face, that too many Americans have been given a free ride.

It's not necessary to strive for excellence anymore. There is no need to better yourself. The government will take care of you.

The president believes no reward is merited for being successful.

That's what's wrong with this country.

Americans used to have to work for their silver spoon.

President Obama wants to give one to every American for free.

Russ Kent is a copy editor and paginator for the Media Network of Central Ohio. He is more conservative than liberal. And he has a dry, sarcastic sense of humor. You may not agree with his views. That's fine. He probably doesn't agree with you. But that's what this page is all about. Share your feelings by commenting on this column at MansfieldNewsJournal.com.

ts12
Jul 24, 2007

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Just another temporarily embarrassed millionaire

Kieselguhr Kid
May 16, 2010

WHY USE ONE WORD WHEN SIX FUCKING PARAGRAPHS WILL DO?

(If this post doesn't passive-aggressively lash out at one of the women in Auspol please send the police to do a welfare check.)

The rich still despise you no matter how much you lick their boots.

American right-wing rhetoric is so grovelling it's disgusting.

ts12
Jul 24, 2007

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Christianity the top religion in population for a reason
Letters to the Editor, Dec. 11

An answer for which religion to choose for official meetings.
First of all, thanks for the letter with research listing populations of 21 religions. The first argument is, as far as I can see, that Christianity is No. 1.
There is a reason for that. First of all, it is the true one. The Bible has never been proven to be wrong no matter how hard the pseudo-scientific minds of the ACLU, the atheist community and the liberal agenda that wants to accept all that mumbo-jumbo that has been fed to us about what the Bible calls sin.
And if you want to know the definition of sin, I would suggest you try reading the Bible. Like it or not it is the word of God. And one day all who oppose it will have to answer for what they believe.
There is a word that says ďLet God be true and every man a liar.Ē I know you can argue who God is or which one to serve. But the fact remains there is but one true God who has a son named Jesus. This is the truth upon which this nation was founded, which is also another great reason to continue to pray in His name.
I would also suggest that this nation wake up and really understand that separation of church and state as has been fed to us by a liberal media and some in government just is not there. The real reason we have this misunderstanding is so that those behind it can take Christ away from our nation and allow the false religions to come in and demand equal status.
George Hefner
Ellenton

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ThePeteEffect
Jun 12, 2007

I'm just crackers about cheese!


Fun Shoe

If you ever thought that creepy MRA bullshit was contained to Reddit, think again: http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus...p?article=35389

quote:

Muslim countries regularly insist on the extreme that women are forbidden to reveal feminine charms in public. In short, women can do no right.

In the U.S. we see the opposite extreme, where women are permitted to flaunt their sexuality with seductive clothing as well as sexually suggestive behaviors. Yet men are condemned if they respond to these baitings by women, unless the response is by that particular man the woman is fishing for. In short, men can do no right.

And so we have caustic cartoons like the Nov. 25 This Modern World. And the ongoing scapegoating of men continues.

Richard Rathmann, Andrew Glickman, Madison Men's Organization

Yes, because the only reason women dress nicely is to attract attention from men, not because they feel more confident from it or anything. You can feel the privilege oozing off this letter.

  • Locked thread
«106 »