|
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.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Saint Sputnik posted:I couldn't even finish this. Eat poo poo Susan Brown. Conservatives live in Opposite Land.txt
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
It's more the Rovian-concept-of-using-the-weakest-aspect-of-your-party-to-attack-the-other-party.txt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
There were orgies? Why didn't anybody tell me?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
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 16:37 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Short but sweet letter today:quote:I’ve tried to be patient and good, but after seeing the poster child for Planned Parenthood I can’t. Literally, this guy who wants an income he can live on should have been aborted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Saint Sputnik posted:Short but sweet letter today: To be fair, Warsaw is a pretty terrible place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 09:27
|
|
|
My local newspaper is full of this garbage. Here's one comparing "abortionists" to child molesters: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/where-s-outrage-action-concerning-abortions/article_7015defa-2061-11e1-9be5-0019bb2963f4.html ignorance over Occupy Wall Street: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/anti-business-attitude-won-t-help-economy/article_2da6080e-1a19-11e1-8cef-001cc4c03286.html Oh, and the end times are coming! http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_e0e48614-f90f-11e0-a7a3-001cc4c002e0.html This is a paper that published all of this, yet refused to publish my letter addressing the media bias regarding OWS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
bairfanx posted:My local newspaper is full of this garbage. Here's one comparing "abortionists" to child molesters: 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!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
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)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:What we should do is educate about the dangers of homosexuality and to guard against pressures to engage in this lifestyle. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
Maneck posted:The "dangers" of homosexuality? She's advocating for teaching things beyond "absitence only"? Bully for her! 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
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 I’m all caught up now. He wants to fine people who don’t use a condom when they have gay sex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
Do actors in porn world have a union? Sounds like they need one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
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."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
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."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
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." 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 08:09
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Bryan Fischer: I'm with the gay porn actor: fine gays for unprotected sex 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:http://www.telegram.com/article/20111211/NEWS/112119840 Old people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:http://www.telegram.com/article/20111211/NEWS/112119840 Me, but I like old words, and I know it's a personal flaw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
^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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
"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."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20111211/OPINION02/112110320/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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Just another temporarily embarrassed millionaire 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
The rich still despise you no matter how much you lick their boots. American right-wing rhetoric is so grovelling it's disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
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 “Let God be true and every man a liar.” 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
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
If you ever thought that creepy MRA bullshit was contained to Reddit, think again: http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=35389quote:Muslim countries regularly insist on the extreme that women are forbidden to reveal feminine charms in public. In short, women can do no right. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 05:13
|
|
