- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 10:33
|
|
- ts12
- Jul 24, 2007
-
|
An AP piece titled: Mrs Obama: Some give her 'angry black woman' image
Boring article that basically just points out that Michelle Obama isn't really pleased with racist attacks etc. The comments though!!
proudvietnamvet 67/68 , US ARMY INFANTRY DRILL INSTRUCTOR[/quote posted:delta1 posted:Ah, the angry black woman is ANGRY because someone is suddenly telling the truth about her ignorant and incompetent husband and her dislike for America and the white folks that she has been FORCED TO DEAL WITH while pretending to be the gracious and caring FIRST LADY.
What goes around comes around and now it's time to FIRE the Obama's and restore some dignity to the WHITE HOUSE.
fishinfool posted:Easy for people to portray her as some kind of angry black woman when she spent years in front rows of Reverend Wright's church as he spewed message of Separatism and hate, and then tried to denounce that they were of the same beliefs.Also when she got up and said she was just now proud to be an american and wasn't before.The people know ,you can see it looking at her expressions that she carries alot of hate and just keeps it bottled up,because they keep her quiet so she doesn't end up in sound bites on the national news each evening.Remember when John kerry's wife started speaking her mind how fast his numbers dropped?
LOCKED_N_LOADED posted:
She's a scary looking thing.
Matt posted:If she doesn't want that label, she shouldn't portray the stereotype.
It's like some white guy who drives a lifted truck, lives in the country, listens to country music, goes hunting and fishing, raises livestock etc. not liking being called a redneck. Well guess what? You might be a redneck..... Thanks Jeff Foxworthy.
palmettopalflorida posted:Mrs. Obama should hope that people see her as "some kind of angry black woman." I believe that most see her as "some kind of black Marie Antoinette." How about taking time out from one of your lavish vacations to address that label, Mrs. Obama.
and some random lovely tea party article about the incoming socialist takeover
quote:I am shocked and offended by William Roberts’ Jan. 8 letter to the editor regarding the Tea Party.
I have been involved in the national Tea Party Patriots from inception and I fully understand the focus of our organization.
I do agree with Mr. Roberts regarding the big corporations’ taxes. We must change to a “flat” or “fair” tax to close the loopholes the batteries of attorneys use to avoid paying taxes and moving their assets overseas. It’s time the big corporations start paying their “fair” share.
It isn’t the small mom and pop companies who are paying too little; they are the folks who will hire more and pay more if Washington doesn’t “regulate them out of business.”
Many politicos have equated the “Tea activists” with the Occupy Wall Street group, which couldn’t be further from the truth. We want smaller government and less regulation. You’ll find we always put forth a peaceful face in our gatherings.
The occupiers feel they are owed or deserving of something from those who have earned their money. The Tea folks just want the opportunity to earn a higher position in the pecking order without socialistic over-regulation (i.e., right to work, pipelines, drilling, etc.), which restricts employment and growth. If the socialists in Washington will get out of our way, we’ll bring this economy back.
Since the country is rapidly going bankrupt, I’d like one of the left-leaning economist readers to tell me what we are going to do to stop the bleeding. The statistics prove we could totally eliminate the military, foreign aid, earmarks and tax the one percent at 100 percent and we’d still have to borrow money from China and Russia (both are foreign aid recipients) to pay our bills!
Frank Eldridge
Palma Sola
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 03:16
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
ts12 posted:
An AP piece titled: Mrs Obama: Some give her 'angry black woman' image
Boring article that basically just points out that Michelle Obama isn't really pleased with racist attacks etc. The comments though!!
Amen to that brother
and some random lovely tea party article about the incoming socialist takeover
I really don't see where people get this "angry" vibe from Michelle Obama, but I'd kind of like it if she were. I already think she's pretty hot and she'd only get hotter if she started smacking some Birthers around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 11:48
|
|
- Riptor
- Apr 13, 2003
-
here's to feelin' good all the time
|
katlington posted:
loving native animals messing with my pet toy dogs. Coyote's should just lay down in the street and die!
Well to be clear they are an invasive species in this area but yeah, no need for a coyotstallnacht
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 14:40
|
|
- sub supau
- Aug 28, 2007
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
I really don't see where people get this "angry" vibe from Michelle Obama
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 11:00
|
|
- LP97S
- Apr 25, 2008
-
|
TetsuoTW posted:
They can't say "uppity."
Not in public at least. Plus she's married to a terrible president and has plenty of white knights against any criticism, legitimate or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 11:18
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
LP97S posted:
Not in public at least. Plus she's married to a terrible president and has plenty of white knights against any criticism, legitimate or not.
I'm generally very critical of Barack Obama, despite (because?) having voted for him, but Michelle just seems awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 14:40
|
|
- Paul MaudDib
- May 3, 2006
-
TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE
|
How's this for a terrible op ed:
quote:
Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?
By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE
I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.
One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.
Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.
As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?
If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:
“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”
That approach is what one reader was getting at in a recent message to the public editor. He wrote:
“My question is what role the paper’s hard-news coverage should play with regard to false statements – by candidates or by others. In general, the Times sets its documentation of falsehoods in articles apart from its primary coverage. If the newspaper’s overarching goal is truth, oughtn’t the truth be embedded in its principal stories? In other words, if a candidate repeatedly utters an outright falsehood (I leave aside ambiguous implications), shouldn’t the Times’s coverage nail it right at the point where the article quotes it?”
This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.
Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?
Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, The Times has employed a separate fact-check sidebar to assess the validity of the candidates’ statements. Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting? How should The Times continue a function like this when we move to the general campaign and there’s less time spent in debates and more time on the road?
Hmm so do you think we should actually critically report and check the veracity of the stories we print, or should we just report that a vomit of words fell out of someone's mouth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 22:23
|
|
- Benly
- Aug 2, 2011
-
20% of the time, it works every time.
|
katlington posted:
loving native animals messing with my pet toy dogs. Coyote's should just lay down in the street and die!
Massachusetts isn't exactly coyote country. If there's a serious coyote problem in MA, it's pretty hosed up. Not that "kill all the coyotes" is a remotely appropriate solution, but it's not exactly "fuckin' native fauna" - it's indicative of larger problems that do seriously need to be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 04:36
|
|
- OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
- Sep 11, 2008
-
Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola
-Cheap Trick
-
Nap Ghost
|
I liked Vanity Fair's response.
quote:Just as New York Times public editor Arthur S. Brisbane is concerned whether his newspaper is printing lies or the truth, we here at V.F. are looking for reader input on whether and when Vanity Fair should spell “words” correctly in the stories we publish.
One example: the word “maintenance” seems like it should only have one “a” in it. It should be “maintenence,” right? But it’s not. So is it our job as reporters and editors to spell it correctly?
Another example: who decides “Michele Bachmann” should be spelled with one “l” in “Michele” and two “n”s in “Bachmann”? I’ve never seen it spelled like that in any other circumstance, so should we print it just because that’s how she spells it? I don’t know.
As one reader recently wrote in a message to the spelling editor:
“My question is what role the magazine’s news coverage should play with regard to stupidly spelled words. In general, Vanity Fair spells stuff correctly, but sometimes words just look wrong. ‘Broccoli,’ for instance, looks dumb. If a magazine’s overarching goal is to be correct, but something makes you do a double-take because it just looks so bad, should Vanity Fair just let these oddities stand?”
Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can Vanity Fair do this in a way that is objective and fair? Whose job is it to decide what words look strange and what words just look fancy? And at what point does an exotic extra consonant become distracting?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 04:38
|
|
- Elim Garak
- Aug 5, 2010
-
|
Benly posted:
Massachusetts isn't exactly coyote country. If there's a serious coyote problem in MA, it's pretty hosed up. Not that "kill all the coyotes" is a remotely appropriate solution, but it's not exactly "fuckin' native fauna" - it's indicative of larger problems that do seriously need to be addressed.
Coyotes are indigenous to most of North America, not just the plains or the deserts. That being said, they have become a problem here, especially in the last ten to fifteen years. The column actually goes into the larger problem that the traps that are approved for coyotes are ineffectual. To me the answer isn't to start a campaign to shoot them all, however.
Alex Beam isn't a humor columnist in the vein of Dave Barry, but he's not exactly a straight columnist either. I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of over the top "solution" to the problem that missed its mark. I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was totally serious. It just seems sort of off for him.
Elim Garak fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jan 14, 2012
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 04:55
|
|
- Rand alPaul
- Feb 3, 2010
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
katlington posted:
loving native animals messing with my pet toy dogs. Coyote's should just lay down in the street and die!
What's funny is that when all the predators are driven out of the city, people like this author will be up in arms over the explosion in the rat population.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 09:52
|
|
- Benly
- Aug 2, 2011
-
20% of the time, it works every time.
|
Elim Garak posted:
Coyotes are indigenous to most of North America, not just the plains or the deserts. That being said, they have become a problem here, especially in the last ten to fifteen years. The column actually goes into the larger problem that the traps that are approved for coyotes are ineffectual. To me the answer isn't to start a campaign to shoot them all, however.
Alex Beam isn't a humor columnist in the vein of Dave Barry, but he's not exactly a straight columnist either. I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of over the top "solution" to the problem that missed its mark. I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was totally serious. It just seems sort of off for him.
Well, clarifying: Newton isn't exactly coyote country. If friggin' Middlesex is having coyote problems it's probably indicative of poo poo being seriously hosed in the rural/wilder areas.
I grew up in Framingham but moved out of MA in the early 2000s. The idea of a coyote epidemic in Middlesex is sufficiently bizarre to me that it feels on a gut level like it must indicate something being severely hosed.
(Unless there were coyotes in Middlesex the whole time and I just never knew about them? Which is entirely possible.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 10:38
|
|
- Elim Garak
- Aug 5, 2010
-
|
Benly posted:
Well, clarifying: Newton isn't exactly coyote country. If friggin' Middlesex is having coyote problems it's probably indicative of poo poo being seriously hosed in the rural/wilder areas.
I grew up in Framingham but moved out of MA in the early 2000s. The idea of a coyote epidemic in Middlesex is sufficiently bizarre to me that it feels on a gut level like it must indicate something being severely hosed.
(Unless there were coyotes in Middlesex the whole time and I just never knew about them? Which is entirely possible.)
There's been a general resurgence of wildlife over eastern Massachusetts, and the coyotes seem to be one of the species recovering the best. It's not hard to imagine wildlife like that in a lot of Middlesex, IMO, like Concord, Acton, that area. The fact that the they've gotten in as far as the W-burbs and Newton (and honestly, even into Brookline and parts of Boston) is indicative of the fact that there is no management strategy in place really. But the general resurgence of wildlife on the whole is really awesome. I spent the last ten years on Cape Cod and the increase in amount of fox, turkey, possum etc. was really noticeable over that time period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 12:40
|
|
- Benly
- Aug 2, 2011
-
20% of the time, it works every time.
|
Elim Garak posted:
There's been a general resurgence of wildlife over eastern Massachusetts, and the coyotes seem to be one of the species recovering the best. It's not hard to imagine wildlife like that in a lot of Middlesex, IMO, like Concord, Acton, that area. The fact that the they've gotten in as far as the W-burbs and Newton (and honestly, even into Brookline and parts of Boston) is indicative of the fact that there is no management strategy in place really. But the general resurgence of wildlife on the whole is really awesome. I spent the last ten years on Cape Cod and the increase in amount of fox, turkey, possum etc. was really noticeable over that time period.
Right, I tend to think of Middlesex in terms of the denser parts of it (since that's where I lived) but I guess it's less surprising in the less-dense parts. Anyhow, fox, turkey and possum don't surprise me, just for some reason "coyote epidemic in Newton" seems really intensely strange. It's not an invasive-species situation, and "kill them all" is obviously a terrible response, but it's still a thing where I think people are justified in being surprised and worried as opposed to katlington's view of it as being purely "gently caress the local wildlife".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 22:47
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
https://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/137316293.html
quote:Once again (this time in Wednesday's newspaper), the Star Tribune has printed a letter that attacks people by labeling them as hateful because they take a position against homosexuality. The paper should at least have required the letter writer to provide the reason for using that label.
Those wanting to change a societal norm about homosexuality have the burden to show the reason for this major alteration. They need to provide civil answers to questions like these:
1) Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted because they thought homosexuality was wrong? Some may think that accepting homosexuality is innovative and progressive, but others say abandoning our previous norm may be presumptuous on our part. In other words, our ancestors might have been right, and we might be wrong.
2) Don't our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?
3) It is no secret that the human sex drive is a lot stronger than is needed for reproduction. Do we just give into those desires, or do we try to control them? The ancients told us that controlling our physical desires is one of the things that distinguish us from the beasts. Sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.
4) Most everyone still agrees that humans can take their sexuality to where it is morally wrong. Almost all will agree that, among other things, adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. Why should homosexuality, which was once included in this group, be moved to normal sexuality?
Is it based on an argument that there is no moral choice involved in homosexuality; that it is a product of nature?
Couldn't others in the group above use the same argument -- they just couldn't help themselves -- they were born with those desires? Why does the nature argument work for homosexuality but not the others?
5)Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted. Why is it going to work this time when all the other appearances failed? Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Why should we go down this road again when many, probably a majority, will always see homosexuality as going against nature, not normal? Can't we learn from the past that prevalent homosexuality will not work in society?
6) Here's one religious question, directed not toward those practicing homosexuality but toward those who support others who do. Should we be trying to encourage others to repent of a wrong, or pat them on the back as they go down a road that could lead to perdition?
The supportive group may consider themselves full of justice and love, but if there is a God who is opposed to homosexuality, as many religions claim, they may be doing indescribable harm to those they are patting on the back, and most likely to themselves.
• • •
These are nonhateful questions that need to be answered by those wanting to change an ancient norm. Calling your opponent vile names may work in the short term.
Many propagandists have used that technique very successfully. But if the underlying idea is not based on truth, it is doomed to fail.
If all you have is name-calling, you have no valid position. If truth is on your side, answer these questions in a civil manner.
* * *
Dan Nye lives in Edina.
I'm just asking non-hateful questions, but isn't homosexuality pretty much similar to pedophilia and bestiality?
Also what the hell does this guy mean when he says "Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted." Does he think was there some kind of mass extinction in human history caused by homosexuality, or is it just "Gay sex caused the fall of the Roman Empire"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 03:16
|
|
- Amarkov
- Jun 21, 2010
-
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:
Also what the hell does this guy mean when he says "Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted." Does he think was there some kind of mass extinction in human history caused by homosexuality, or is it just "Gay sex caused the fall of the Roman Empire"
No, that's it. There's a fairly common talking point that cultures who permit "sexual deviancy" (whatever the commentator thinks that means) start decaying and get their country destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 03:18
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:
Also what the hell does this guy mean when he says "Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted." Does he think was there some kind of mass extinction in human history caused by homosexuality, or is it just "Gay sex caused the fall of the Roman Empire"
More importantly, doesn't that part refute his first point that, "1) Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted because they thought homosexuality was wrong? Some may think that accepting homosexuality is innovative and progressive, but others say abandoning our previous norm may be presumptuous on our part. In other words, our ancestors might have been right, and we might be wrong."
If "prevalent homosexuality" was popular and accepted by different cultures throughout history (Ancient Greece, Ancient/Imperial Rome, medieval Japan, etc.), then doesn't that mean that our "ancestors" were, at most, divided on the issue of homosexuality and therefore you can't really use an appeal to tradition (which is already a logical fallacy) to support homophobia?
It's frustrating how people like him think that comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality is somehow not hateful or judgmental, though it is pretty funny that his intro and conclusion are classic examples of "You're intolerant of my intolerance!!!"
Amarkov posted:
No, that's it. There's a fairly common talking point that cultures who permit "sexual deviancy" (whatever the commentator thinks that means) start decaying and get their country destroyed.
I've personally heard that, too, and my response is generally that no nation/country/civilization has ever lasted indefinitely, irrespective of their sociocultural positions on homosexuality. Everything is basically ephemeral and prone to change, eventually making the current reality incomprehensible to the past.
These kinds of regressive people like to pretend that there was some kind of Golden Age in the past and if we can just get back to it, everything will be perfect and we'll have none of our current problems. That past never existed and these people live in a fantasy world because they don't want to change with the times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 12:05
|
|
- Craptacular!
- Jul 9, 2001
-
Fuck the DH
|
Going to the blogosphere for a bit. I found this gay Republican blogger due to his page asking the million dollar question, Is Barack Obama Gay? We'll get back around to that in a moment.
My favourite story is an article about chasing down an XTube user for masturbating in a Cleveland mall. That activity is, well, pretty disgusting; but apparently the Paul Blarts of the mall couldn't give a poo poo to catch him in the act, so Internet Detectives will have to take the case.
We start off with the usual..
quote:The Galleria at Erieview is a now almost-abandoned (yet still gorgeous) downtown shopping mall in Cleveland, Ohio with soaring glass cathedral ceilings that were repurposed as an urban greenhouse after most of the retail tenants vacated their storefronts in the Obama economy.
That "Obama's recession" routine is pretty tame stuff, so let's kick it up a notch. As commenters are suspicious, his response a leap off the rails:
quote:If you watch the video, this man is in obsessively gym-toned shape. Some of you might argue with me on this one (and note that your straight cousin is an exception or your straight neighbor’s not gay but does this too), but it’s incredibly rare to find a straight male who is that buff. In the gyms here in Chicago for instance, a lot of straight guys workout on a very regular basis; some of them become obsessed with exercise too…but it’s the gay men who really keep themselves in the shape that “KSUHurdler” keeps himself in. The straight men who spend a lot of time in the gym are usually guys who do it for stress-relief or to maintain their weight. Some straight guys become the crazy marathon runner or cyclist guys; you can tell them immediately because they tend to look gaunt and exhausted all the time and are guys that have very strange and obsessive personalities that make them seem like they could explode at any minute. Gay guys, however, bulk up and keep themselves as trim as possible because they want the attention from other guys that this conditioning brings. It’s a peacock thing. The guy in this video is preening and exhibiting himself in a video he knows is going to be viewed by other guys exclusively. A straight guy just wouldn’t do this. Yes, there are indeed straight male bodybuilders who enjoy showing off their bodies, but these guys don’t masturbate in public and film themselves for videos that they post with gay-coded words on a fetish site like XTube. Most bodybuilders that are straight are guys that use the bodybuilding to desperately try to repair self-esteem and self-confidence issues they had before they became gym rats (I would hazard that 80% of these guys were fat kids, had bad relationships with their dads, or otherwise needed to get into the weight training to get over something emotionally scarring in their lives).
quote:If you watch the video, the guy has gay-face. You can see it in his eyes, even factoring out the fact that he’s engaged in something that’s distracting him, he’s still got gay-face that makes him look a little like RuPaul Charles if RuPaul was an extremely buff, zero body fat, fetishist publicly masturbating at the Galleria at Erieview in downtown Cleveland.
We've got a running start, it's time for lift-off...
quote:Gay bathhouses in Chicago like Steamworks or Man’s Country (where both Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel used to frequently “play”) have vending machines that dispense Poppers, lube, condoms, and all sorts of other sexual gear the way regular vending machines spit out Doritos or Lays chips. Let’s put it this way: it’s as likely for a straight guy to be using Poppers as it is for a straight guy to be rocking out to Madonna or Lady Gaga on his iPod while walking down the street wearing a little Yassir Arafat-style scarf with his hair styled into a cupie-doll-esque “faux hawk”.
Barack Obama was a regular visitor to the Man’s Country bathhouse here in Chicago before he became a US Senator, which means the current President of the United States more likely than not used Poppers and behaved in public the way the man in this video is behaving (though, by all accounts, he is not as well-endowed). You’ll never read any of that in the agenda-driven media, but if you ever want to really understand Obama and the things that he’s doing in the Oval Office, you need to remember the sorts of things he got up to in the bathhouses.
This is about as  as Gingrich and the "anti-colonial viewpoint" statement. No wonder for I'm disappointed in Obama, I voted for a gay nightclub agenda and was given a bathhouse instead!
Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Jan 16, 2012
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 12:48
|
|
- ContinuityNewTimes
- Dec 30, 2010
-
Я выдуман напрочь
|
Taerkar posted:
What, are you trying to imply that they instead fell because of internal weaknesses caused by an ineffectual government, idle populace, and a ruined economy brought about by an over-privileged few?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 12:57
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Craptacular! posted:quote:
Gay bathhouses in Chicago like Steamworks or Man’s Country (where both Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel used to frequently “play”) have vending machines that dispense Poppers, lube, condoms, and all sorts of other sexual gear the way regular vending machines spit out Doritos or Lays chips. Let’s put it this way: it’s as likely for a straight guy to be using Poppers as it is for a straight guy to be rocking out to Madonna or Lady Gaga on his iPod while walking down the street wearing a little Yassir Arafat-style scarf with his hair styled into a cupie-doll-esque “faux hawk”.
Barack Obama was a regular visitor to the Man’s Country bathhouse here in Chicago before he became a US Senator, which means the current President of the United States more likely than not used Poppers and behaved in public the way the man in this video is behaving (though, by all accounts, he is not as well-endowed). You’ll never read any of that in the agenda-driven media, but if you ever want to really understand Obama and the things that he’s doing in the Oval Office, you need to remember the sorts of things he got up to in the bathhouses.
So, does that mean that Hunter S. Thompson was gay because I'm pretty sure that he used poppers in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 13:03
|
|
- Shasta Orange Soda
- Apr 25, 2007
-
|
That's different. If you do every drug you can name at once and one of them happens to be poppers, you're a drug addict, not a gay. Totally different kind of degenerate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 13:57
|
|
- Armyman25
- Sep 6, 2005
-
|
This guy seems to have a lot of inside knowledge on the gay subculture in Chicago.
Just sayin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 14:05
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
He's just doing research to prove how depraved and damaging homosexuality is to our culture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 14:16
|
|
- Craptacular!
- Jul 9, 2001
-
Fuck the DH
|
Well, he is gay and lives in Chicago. Writing about how nice the gaybourhood is when it isn't teeming with inappropriate displays of vulgarity seems to be a pastime for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 15:03
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
katlington posted:
loving native animals messing with my pet toy dogs. Coyote's should just lay down in the street and die!
One thing I loved in Alaska was the annual summer trickle of news stories about tourists' toy dogs getting taken by eagles.
Also coyotes are awesome.
VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jan 16, 2012
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 17:30
|
|
- Peanut President
- Nov 5, 2008
-
by Athanatos(and can't post for 8 days!)
|
From the Evansville C&P's comments on an article about Dr. King. Also note that RTW has been a big issue here in Indiana.
shurm347 posted:
Let's see what Dr. King had to say about another recent issue.
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped.”
The good doctor has a way with words. The fight continues....
your_name_here posted:A great example of how his message has been hijacked since his death. What a shame. He would be so dissapointed in how the so called "black leadership" has destroyed his message.
The original King quote comes from 1961 iirc. No one has posted the oft-quoted "MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS A REPUBLICAN"....yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 17:48
|
|
- Perfect painting
- Nov 27, 2011
-
|
In Rhode Island there was recently a court ruling that ordered a local public high school to remove a mural depicting a Christian prayer from the school's auditorium, in respect to the 1st Amendment, separation of church and state, etc. The entire case was started a year and a half ago by a 16-year-old girl filing suit with the ACLU and the whole thing's been predictably blowing up in the news ever since the ruling was made. The poor girl's been receiving threats on facebook, the original author of the prayer is angry, the school hasn't fully complied in its removal- there are too many pieces of commentary on this clusterfuck to list, but you can read most of them here if you're more interested.
Naturally, the fallout from this has resulted in a ton of hilariously stupid letters to the editor.
quote:Gee, the Cranston prayer banner talks about being kind, helpful, honest and doing our best for mankind.
And the ACLU and its supporters in the court system disagree with this.
Maybe they should obtain residence in the countries that would make them feel more comfortable, like Iran.
quote:My first reaction to U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux's decision regarding the school-prayer banner at Cranston West was one of anger. I asked myself what possible satisfaction could anyone get from upsetting so many people who believed the banner should stay. I ask anyone who wanted the banner to stay to do what a true Christian would do in this case:
Pray for Jessica Ahlquist. Pray that her "We Won" attitude be changed with the help of "Our Heavenly Father."
("Our Heavenly Father" was the title of the prayer)
quote:In regards to Jessica Ahlquist and any article printed in The Journal: I wonder if she ever said to herself, during a difficult exam; "God help me pass this test."
quote:There is a controversy about the school-prayer display in the Cranston High School West. I think that the majority of students in that school are Christian believing. If the few atheists or different religion students don't like it they should move to another school or move to a different religion community.
The display should stay!
That's freedom of religion!
That's freedom of speech!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 20:34
|
|
- RC and Moon Pie
- May 5, 2011
-
|
I was on the lookout for a negative letter or column about Martin Luther King, Jr. Whenever I'm looking for insanity or right-wing mumbo-jumbo, I always check the Gainesville (Ga.) Times first. It never disappoints.
Some racist rear end in a top hat from Flowery Branch posted:
Celebrations of historic birthdays don’t match up
This month we observe the birthday of two famous American men. Since it is no longer politically correct to study truth in history, it is only fair and honest for someone to make a comparison of the two individuals in question. I will make a description and you decide the identity of these two men.
Famous American No. 1 has a national holiday named for him. He is famous for disobedience, disorder and civil unrest. This individual has a record of plagiarizing his doctoral thesis. His credentials for earning his advanced degree were called into question. He was a known womanizer. This information was confirmed by one of his own buddies, the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, in the book "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down."
This man was a socialist by his own admission. At least three of his high-ranking advisers were Communists (Bayard Rustin, Stanley David Levison and Hunter Pitts O'Dell). Prior to his death he was dabbling in the anti-war movement along with the likes of Jane Fonda.
For those of you who at this point know whom I am talking about and are screaming outrageous about these comments, let me ask you a question: Why did a federal judge seal this man's FBI record for 50 years? Fifteen file cabinets of documents out of public view for 50 years. I doubt the information contained in these files will ever see the light of day. Were his records sealed because of his sterling character? I don't think so.
Let's look at famous American No. 2. This individual is hardly recognized, seldom studied in government schools, yet he completed his studies at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point without so much as one demerit. He is the only cadet to have accomplished this remarkable feat. Surprisingly, to the good credit of the Academy they still tout this American as one of their finest.
This individual has no record of an attack on his character and integrity by either friend or foe. Today military experts still study his leadership of troops in the armies of two nations. This man was an unsurpassed military officer, exception educator and a gentleman of the highest degree. He has been praised and honored by such notables as President Dwight Eisenhower and Sir Winston Churchill.
It is sad that history has pushed American No. 1 to the forefront and American No. 2 is mostly forgotten. I long for the day, if it ever happens, when we can once again have truth in history.
In case you're wondering who this totally ignored individual is, it's Robert E. Lee. We have a loving state holiday for him, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:15
|
|
- Armyman25
- Sep 6, 2005
-
|
Did Robert E. Lee do anything of real note prior to the Civil War?
From my limited understanding, he married into a wealthy family from Virginia, was a very clever general during the war, and died within a couple of years of the surrender.
What did he do that was the equivalent of Dr. King?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:21
|
|
- ts12
- Jul 24, 2007
-
|
Well, first off, he was white, so he wins the most important battle there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:23
|
|
- The Dark One
- Aug 19, 2005
-
I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!
|
I think people have this fantasy that if the South had won the war, Robert E Lee, Renaissance Man, would have ensured that the slaves would have been freed anyway. They were just fighting against the federal encroachment of their rights, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:39
|
|
- Carl Von Awesomwitz
- May 2, 2006
-
Sisko Lied, Romulans Died
|
The Dark One posted:
I think people have this fantasy that if the South had won the war, Robert E Lee, Renaissance Man, would have ensured that the slaves would have been freed anyway. They were just fighting against the federal encroachment of their rights, after all.
That was the plot of Guns of the South. That and time traveling South Africans handing out millions of AK-47s to the Confederacy in 1864.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 22:57
|
|
- Peanut President
- Nov 5, 2008
-
by Athanatos(and can't post for 8 days!)
|
The Dark One posted:
I think people have this fantasy that if the South had won the war, Robert E Lee, Renaissance Man, would have ensured that the slaves would have been freed anyway. They were just fighting against the federal encroachment of their rights, after all.
You are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 23:45
|
|
- Riptor
- Apr 13, 2003
-
here's to feelin' good all the time
|
Carl Von Awesomwitz posted:
That was the plot of Guns of the South. That and time traveling South Africans handing out millions of AK-47s to the Confederacy in 1864.
That book rules so hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 00:46
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Limbo posted:
I love the way Dr. King was known for 'disobedience, disorder and civil unrest' while the guy who betrayed his country and led an army which killed thousands upon thousands of American soldiers in a loving civil war somehow comes out the better man. Nope, nothing disorderly about that.
It's amazing how dumb and obtuse some people are when they chastise one of history's greatest civil rights figures for creating "disorder" in the peaceful fight for equality, while simultaneously deifying a blatant traitor who contributed to our bloodiest war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:53
|
|
- Saint Sputnik
- Apr 1, 2007
-
Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!
|
Reading Star Parker is like reading a high school libertarian or something, whose folks let her stay up late to watch FNC and chat about it over dinner and she wants to sound cool too
Star Parker posted:
According to a new Pew Research Center survey, 66 percent of respondents agree that there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between rich and poor in America. This is up from 47 percent that agreed with this two years ago.
In a Gallup poll last October, 52 percent said they trust the “ideas and opinions” of President Barack Obama for creating jobs compared to 45 percent that said they trust executives of major corporations.
The point is, sadly, there is mistrust in America about the very thing that any conservative will tell you is the mother’s milk of our country – freedom and free enterprise.
Mistrust in our country about free enterprise has always been a problem but never more than now.
Why? Two important reasons.
First, we have never had a left-wing ideologue occupying the White House like we have today. The man is serious and committed.
He told Americans he would change the country, and change it he has.
Now he is about to run for a second term with no pretensions about who he is. He is going to run on a platform of so-called fairness and against what he will label unbridled, merciless capitalism.
Republicans will have their work cut out to defend business and freedom against this onslaught, particularly in today’s environment of mistrust about these very things.
Second, our nation is at a genuine crossroads. Even if we could scale back the trillions in new spending that Obama has larded into our federal budget, we would still be in trouble.
Government has taken over major parts of American life and to regain our vitality, significant reforms must be made.
Even if Obamacare is repealed, American health care is still in crisis. We’ll need creative market-based reforms to alter the way Americans get their health care.
Our entitlement morass can only be fixed with market-based reforms that involve phase out of government and phase in of ownership and choice.
Reforms of major areas of American life where Americans have grown accustomed to the heavy hand of government will be impossible if a large percentage of our population is mistrustful of free markets and business.
To get this kind of change, leadership that inspires trust in free enterprise is essential.
There’s good reason for skepticism when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney showcases his business background as the reason he will inspire this kind of trust.
America’s biggest and most powerful businesses are notoriously unreliable defenders of free markets. They have a deserved reputation for being unprincipled.
Take Romney’s own former company Bain.
Among the top 100 contributors to each member of Congress in each election since 2000, of the 29 members where Bain appears in these top 100, 26 are Democrats.
Bain executives generously supported champions of big government including former Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Executive ranks of Bain, the bastion of capitalism that Romney led for 25 years, are populated by left-wing Democrats.
Businessmen may roll their eyes when Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, says, as he did the other day, that one of America’s most notorious crooks, Bernie Madoff, did what he did “in the name of capitalism.”
But, unfortunately, Clyburn expresses the sentiments of many blacks.
And corporate America enables this through the millions it pours into left-wing organizations – the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and the National Urban League.
American big businessmen are generally about expediency, not principles.
Expedient better describes Romney than moderate or conservative.
He may be saying what sounds good now. But it’s the expedient thing to do.
Unprincipled business leaders helped lead us into the mess we’re in today.
More expediency is not going to get us out of it. Only principled leadership that inspires trust in free enterprise and capitalism will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:44
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 10:33
|
|
- Dr. Tough
- Oct 22, 2007
-
|
An editorial where the author confuses "socialism" with "socialization"
quote:
Major function for teacher union is to socialize students
Public education has become Socialists' primary instrument to promote Socialism.
The National Education Association (NEA) meets every year for a big national convention and teachers from all over the country show up for this event.
An agenda is usually presented showing all the things nationally that the NEA is either for or against. Many of the issues they choose to address have little or nothing to do with education, but everything to do with their leftist worldview.
While many have heard of the NEA, they don't have any idea of how long it has been around or what it really does, only that many of their kids' teachers belong to it. The compliant media, when it reports on NEA conventions, is not about to give out any more real information than it has to. In all fairness to public school teachers, there are some that are not in favor of what this "teachers union" does, but their opposition is generally ignored or ridiculed.
Samuel Blumenfeld in his informative book "NEA, Trojan Horse in American Education" has given us a view of the NEA that is seldom presented in other places.
Blumenfeld noted on page 13 of his book that it was in 1829 that Josiah Holbrook launched the Lyceum movement to organize the educators of America into a powerful lobby for public education. And if the socialists decided to further their cause through the instrument of public education, we can then understand why the system has had such a pro-socialist bias for as long as anyone can remember. Indeed, public education was to become the socialists' primary instrument for promoting socialism."
Also in 1829, radical socialist and feminist Frances Wright lectured in this country. She spoke in favor of a national system of education -- and who was to be the beneficiary of that system? The students? Hardly! In speaking of public education, Ms. Wright said quite forthrightly "That measure is national, rational, republican education, free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the state, at the expense of the state, for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state."
That's quite a mouthful of socialist dogma. Karl Marx would have loved it. Maybe he did. Frances Wright, after all, was a little ahead of him in promoting "Free education for all children in public schools." Remember now, we are talking about events that happened in 1829 -- not 1929, but 1829 -- a mere forty-two years after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Blumenfeld has informed us that: "The NEA was founded in 1857 at a meeting in Philadelphia called by the presidents of ten state teachers associations."
Thomas W. Valentine, president of the New York Teachers Association, told the gathering, "I trust the time will come when our government will have its educational department, just as it now has one for agriculture, for the interior, for the navy, etc."
Blumenfeld continued: "Thus it should come as no surprise that the call for a federal department of education was made at the very first organizational meeting." The socialists didn't get what they wanted right away, but they never quit working toward it and planning for it. Jimmy Carter finally gave it to them during his one-term presidency in the late 1970s as a payback for teacher union support during his election. Ronald Reagan claimed he wanted to disband it, but, somehow, he never quite got around to it.
Trouble is, the Constitution, as flawed as it is, gave the federal government absolutely NO role to play in education in this country, so the feds just usurped the power and did it anyway. Few people dared to complain. After all, it was "for the kids" right? Well, not exactly. Originally the organization was called the National Teachers Association but, according to Blumenfeld, in 1870 the name was changed to the National Education Association and membership was opened to include"any person in any way connected with the work of education."
Shortly, the NEA became the "forum" where all the educational issues of the day were dealt with such as public vs.private education, the role of government in education, religious educations vs. secular (humanist) education and others. And Blumenfeld has noted that these problems remain with us even today "just as insoluble now as they were then."
As you dig further into the socialist origins of both the public school system and the National Education Association, you learn more and more about the socialist direction public education has always taken in this country -- if you are willing to look.
Many of you have heard of John Dewey, one of the giants of public education in the 20th century. His name is to 20th century public education what Horace Mann's name was to 19th century public education. John Dewey was an atheist, a socialist, and just happened to belong to fifteen different Marxist front organizations, as well as being a co-author of the Humanist Manifesto. Dewey had an "interesting" education philosophy which should give parents no comfort. He said: "You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society, which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."
Look at what he said. With a statement like that do you wonder why the minions of both the NEA and the government school system hate homeschoolers so much? Most homeschoolers learn to think independently, at least to some degree. Therefore, they will ask questions; they will even question authority where they feel it is right to do so. So they won't fit easily into the socialist collective that public education and big government are planning for us. They will not go easily into the New World Order, but will question and resist -- therefore they must be suppressed at every opportunity that the "socialist collective" may flourish.
Back in 1936 the NEA stated a position from which it has never retreated. It said: "We stand for socializing the individual . . . The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy."
Notice that this statement did not say that education was a major function of the public school. because it never has been, but rather"social orientation." That statement alone should tell you what the public school system is really all about, and folks, it ain't education! Paul Haubner, an NEA specialist, has informed us that "The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kinds of values-education their children receive in school . . . that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values." Christian ideals are not in line with what the schools have for an agenda and so must be put down in whatever way possible.
I hope you have noticed that, through all of this, there is almost no emphasis on real education, but every emphasis on changing the values of the students away from what their parents have taught them.
REAL NEWS
thenewsman@ij.net.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:47
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 02:47
