Unable to save comment (key failed)
I have a different take on this: The story was offensive to many but at least people knew what they were offended by.
The real damage done by the Stooge is in the blackouts ... the inaccurate and dishonest reporting that is so common.
People who let their reality be defined by the Stooge can never have a real understanding of what Delaware is about...
am
You printed four lame sentences about Rosa Parks and her death.
You have printed more than 50 sentences about the Riverside story.
Give me a break.
You claim again and again that legislation is the only protection we can offer against racism and other social ills. Instead of taking a moment to see the clear connection between this young man's tragic life and death and the selfless act of Rosa Parks, you turn any opportunity you have to exact real change, in your thoughts and your deeds, into typical suburban disgust.
It's so ugly to see what happens to talented young men in our country today, as heavily protected as they may be by legislation, isn't it Kiddo?
Nothing but a rotten, undeserving, violent criminal. He had a TON of choices. Man coulda been a doctor, right?
How DARE he be treated like a human being, how DARE we look at any positive impact he might have had in his community, why, oh WHY are we even looking at all???
It's so much nicer when we don't. So much easier to look at the past and it's squeky-clean heros and believe that the world has been relieved of oppression, racism, and injustice by a single act of a brave black woman. We'll reserve a seat for Rosa in the front of the bus, and all will be right in the world again.
No young man's potential will be wasted, his damaged psyche will not compel him to inflict harm on others, structural violence will be perpetuated against the African-American, or any oppressed, community no longer.
It's all good, right?
As long as we don't have to look at what's left of our heros, as long as we don't grant humanity and dignity to those who the system has failed, then we can have our Rosa Parks and eat it too.
'Cause it's all good, right? And nobody cares about a dumb-ass thug from the hood.
You are a part of the system that uses money and power to terrorize the poor, and creates monsters. You then hide behind the mask of neutrality and hang the burden of "personal responsibility" on the heads of each and every person who threatens to expose you with their behavior.
It's not too late for you, Kid. You don't have to believe abortion is okay, or that prayer should be taken out of school...
but don't dare for a moment believe that an *idea* cannot kill a man, or make a woman stand her ground. We all, for our refusal to *act* in the best interests of human beings who are still subjected to dehuminization, regardless of what is written in law, have the blood of the lost on our hands.
J
Kid: It's not society's fault that that thug acted the way he did and did what he did. That's just garbage leftist university-speak.
I know. College changed my politics when I was an undergrad, but they soon changed back once I was in the real world. Universities are isolated wombs of ... overthink. The best examples are how no one -- except white males -- are responsible for their actions. Because it is all said white males' fault for every societal ill on the planet (and even beyond).
And Jaime is the perfect personification of this.
Stay true to your beliefs, Kid. It's no shame to change your views here and there, but at the very least be persuaded by an argument that makes a modicum of sense. Jaime's is far from it.
So, like, the "real-world" as in suburban-educated-white-male-it's-not-my-problem-
and-where's-my-401k real world or millions of people are dying as we speak and most of them are black and poor "real world"?
I'm not willing to say that people are unaccountable for their actions, but I am completely unwilling to wash my hands of my part in their oppression.
The world is what we make of it. I happen to think, or "overthink", it could use a little love. And that's a value that knows no right or left, and cannot be taught in a university classroom.
And by the way, I'm not a "leftist" or a "liberal". I'm a centrist.
Spell that "s-e-n-s-i-b-l-e".
I'm also off to play some beer pong. Say it with me, denizens of the blogosphere- left, right, and otherwise: *beer pong*
Hey Kid: beer+college= fun.
Have a good weekend my peeps, creeps, and Pubbies...
J
Jesus what I wouldn't do to get you in bed Jaime Anne! Beer pong AND politics. What a woman.
Awwwwwwww.....
Now you've gone and made it a religious issue.
Bad Mike.... Bad Mike
I'm cute, too.
So, like, the "real-world" as in suburban-educated-white-male-it's-not-my-problem- and-where's-my-401k real world or millions of people are dying as we speak and most of them are black and poor "real world"?
For all that, you never did say what the white man's burden is. Is it to try to go into the African tribes and civilize them and so on?
What's your sensible recomendation to the white men that you're criticizing so that they can cure the ills of the world and save the "black and poor" from their poverty, starvation, tribalism, etc.?
I happen to think...it could use a little love. And that's a value that knows no right or left, and cannot be taught in a university classroom.
So now it's about love, loooove. Love isn't going to stop an Islamist of the Sudan from cutting your head off, even if you are trying to stop starvation.
I am completely unwilling to wash my hands of my part in their oppression. [...] I'm...off to play some beer pong.
These screeds wouldn't have more to do with a smarmy sense of moral vanity than actually helping anyone, would they? Quick, make a sensible recomendation about exaclty what the white man's burden is these days, lest most Africans starve.
"White man's burden?" Mynym you would be far more effective at being offensive if you didn't present yourself so much as an antique.
Good morning, freaks and geeks, gouls and Libertarians-
First off, warning to all of my Pubbies in the blogosphere: I am SEPTA-on-strike *cranky* this morning. Ugh. And I spilled coffee all over my new pink cardigan and was nearly molested by a cabbie. Monday...
Mynym is cranky too- and if I was as incapable of understanding the simplest premise, I suppose I would find myself out-of-sorts on a fairly regular basis as well. In the immortal words of Michael Jackson: It don't matter if you're black or white.
It's not about your WASP suburban guilt here, Mynymie, honeysweetiepie. Or your obvious frustration with your lack of positive, proactive impact in the lives of others.
The first step in becoming a responsible citizen is to educate thyself on matters great and small. It's not always best to venture only to consume that media which we already agree with.
This requires an openess to the descriptive as well as the prescriptive, and I'm giving you both here- So dust off that library card, and get ready for your exciting new life as a bleeding heart centrist.
And I 'aint arguing with you until you have a little vocab lesson.
"Structural violence" and "macroeconomics" are your first two phrases for today. Can you say "structural violence", boys and girls??
Some of these don't have full author's names or any at all...but you're a bright boy; the title should be sufficient.
-Jonathon Kozol- Savage Inequalities
-(last name) Farmer- Pathologies of Power
-In the Deep Heart's Core
-The Great White Lie
- Schaffer's Macroeconomics
-The American Intellectual Tradition Vol 2.
-Mark Haller : The Peoples of Philadelphia (a little regional take on immigration for ya)
- Elie Wiesel's "Night" I also recommend visiting the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity website.
-Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda
There will be a quiz.
When you're done, you can sit quietly with your mouth agape and check your work, or
you can go to www.idealist.org to find a nice little volunteer position somewhere.
(in case you suddenly recognize the ethical imperitive to stop whining, gawking, and bickering and DO SOMETHING ALREADY!!!)
Have a nice day!
Jaime
"It's not about your WASP suburban guilt here, Mynymie, honeysweetiepie."
Your ignorant and stupid claims weren't about me personally in the first place but apparently you can't support them and now for the shift. It's a tactic typical to Leftists, e.g.:
Despite its logical untenability, the genealogical method holds a great attraction for Foucault and his followers. In debates with their opponents, especially if the opponent is a 'positivist' or a 'piecemeal empiricist,' they hold what they believe is an unassailable position by focusing on who is speaking rather than on what is being said. They use the genealogical method to absolve themselves of the need to examine the content of any statement. All they see the need to do is examine the conditions of its production--not 'is it true?' but 'who made the statement and for what reason?'. This is a tactic that is well known in Marxist circles where, to refute a speaker, one simply identifies his class position and ignores what he actually says.
(The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past
By Keith Windschuttle (The Free Press. NY.) (1997) :132)
But instead of focusing on who a writer is rather than what is being written, what you were writing about is just a new sort of canard built up by Leftists on the old version of the white man's burden just as Marxism was built on the old notion of Christian charity.
"Or your obvious frustration with your lack of positive, proactive impact in the lives of others."
Given the neuroses typical to the Leftist mind you contradict yourself within a few sentences, e.g.: "It's not about your WASP suburban guilt here....you're obviously frustrated about a lack of proactive impact in the lives of others!" The only thing that is increasingly obvious is that you lack the intelligence or the knowledge to support your own ideas. Perhaps you should content yourself with murmuring about love, loooove.
Can you say "structural violence", boys and girls??
Stuctures do not commit acts of violence people do, little one, your claims are based on the same old Leftist drivel about how inanimate objects should be treated as if they are people and people as if they are inanimate objects.
"White man's burden?" Mynym you would be far more effective at being offensive if you didn't present yourself so much as an antique.
Leftism is just history repeated, as progressives are too busy progressing on to their next mistake to see their last. Once again, all you've done is shift the focus to me, my supposed feelings about things, what I have or have not done, my supposed autistic Puritan false Self, and so on.
The fact is that this sentiment:"....the "real-world" as in suburban-educated-white-male-it's-not-my-problem- and-where's-my-401k real world or millions of people are dying as we speak and most of the
Is the white man's burden updated for modern times in progressive ideology.
"...in case you suddenly recognize the ethical imperitive to stop whining, gawking, and bickering and DO SOMETHING ALREADY!!!"
The MTV generation: "Do somethin' or other...well, I'm off to play beer pong. Do somethin', I says!"
How do you think that the American Founders sought to establish Liberty, was it based on "Let's just do somethin' here..." or on philosophy and knowledge? If you've actually read all those books then it would seem that you could make a better case about what should be done than this.
Let me preface this by asking: What does everyone think of Ann Coulter as a Halloween costume? Yeah? Or just too scary?
Okay, Mynym: as they say on MTV, "It's on".
"Your ignorant and stupid claims weren't about me personally in the first place but apparently you can't support them and now for the shift. It's a tactic typical to Leftists, e.g.:"
While I don't see the utility in name-calling per se, I suppose I could indeed have done a better job of offering more supporting arguments. They'll be forthcoming thoughout this post, however, if I'm late for class, I blame you.
"The only thing that is increasingly obvious is that you lack the intelligence or the knowledge to support your own ideas. Perhaps you should content yourself with murmuring about love, loooove."
Wow, okay, we're still on this "stupid leftist bimbo" rant. Hang on, I'm still looking for your actual argumentation.
"Given the neuroses..."
Wait. Make that "*neurotic* stupid leftist."
"Stuctures do not commit acts of violence people do, little one, your claims are based on the same old Leftist drivel about how inanimate objects should be treated as if they are people and people as if they are inanimate objects."
Okay. Let's begin with some super simple context:
"Structural violence": "Direct violence is horrific, but its brutality usually gets our attention: we notice it, and often respond to it. Structural violence, however, is almost always invisible, embedded in ubiquitous social structures, normalized by stable institutions and regular experience. Structural violence occurs whenever people are disadvantaged by political, legal, economic or cultural traditions. Because they are longstanding, structural inequities usually seem ordinary, the way things are and always have been. Johan Galtung originally framed the term structural violence to refer to any constraint on human potential due to economic and political structures (1969). Unequal access to resources, to political power, to education, to health care, or to legal standing, are forms of structural violence. When inner city children have inadequate schools while others do not, when gays and lesbians are fired for their sexual orientation, when laborers toil in inhumane conditions, when people of color endure environmental toxins in their neighborhoods, structural violence exists. Unfortunately, even those who are victims of structural violence often do not see the systematic ways in which their plight is choreographed by unequal and unfair distribution of societys resources." -Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana Leighton (1996)
Some further reading on structural violence from the unintelligent "little one":
Blau, P.M. & Golden, R.M. (1986). Metropolitan structure and criminal violence. Sociological Quarterly, 27(1), 15-26.
Cairns, E. & Darby, J., (199
. The conflict in Northern Ireland: Causes, consequences, and controls. American Psychologist, 53(7), 754-760.
Jamie Anne...please stop now. You're getting me excited! 
Okay, Mynym: as they say on MTV, "It's on".
It's about time. So no more maternalistic talk I suppose. I kind of liked the, "Now, boys and girls...coochy coo!" and the murmuring about looove. Well, maybe you can still be like politakid's mommy.
"...if I'm late for class, I blame you."
It would seem that you cannot blame yourself for anything, although you do seem to feel guilty about things and somehow project that onto an impersonal "structure." Maybe you should blame the structural violence inherent in the system in which alcohol companies sell you beers, which prevent mental retards from reaching their full human pontential. In this way a member of the longest lived, wealthiest, best educated and most privileged class of people ever to walk the face of the earth (i.e. female American college students) can once again find a way to snivel, a favorite activity of humanity....but only some gather together to study their supposedly special victimization.
"Make that *neurotic* stupid leftist."
A neurotic need to sooth a guilty conscience bleeds through every other word that you wrote, take the "Do somethin', I says!" urge:
Not long ago I sat up late listening to two friends debate. The first maintained that federal antipoverty policies were an engine of misery, which had bought off the poor with checks and coupons while undermining their families and fossilizing them in permanent dependence on the government. For a while the second denied the charge, but his denials were half-hearted and at last he conceded it. Whether the state is really doing more harm than good is not my present point; believe, if you will, that he should have held his ground. But the interesting thing is what happened next.(The Revenge of Conscience
Having admitted that the federal antipoverty policies were doing harm, he defended them anyway. “What do you propose doing instead he demanded. "Nothing?" My other friend replied that he meant no such thing, and spoke of what people could do individually and through the churches. Friend one was contemptuous “Government is unique,” he said “You cannot convince me that mere charity can take its place.” “I don’t want it to,” said friend two. “We’ve already agreed that government hurts instead of helping. Besides, I’m not trying to end poverty. I don’t know how. I’m Just trying to help where I can reach.” [I.e., doing what one can even if it is not saving all the Africans from their tyrants.] Friend one was unmoved. “We have to do something,” he said, and so he went on repeating.
The two friends were at cross-purposes. The rule of the first was “Do no harm, and help where possible”; of the second, “Better to harm magnificently in the name of help, than to help but a little.” Not that he would have put it that way. He was medicating his pity with symbols, and the power of the drug depends on self-deception.
By J. Budziszewski :
"....those who are victims of structural violence often do not see the systematic ways in which their plight is choreographed by unequal and unfair distribution of society's resources."
Who is distributing "society's resources" now in America? Is it the mysterious "system" at it again? Why, just the other day the system kept following me around trying to do some violence to me. No wonder no one can see the system that you're talking about, you haven't even said who defines or controls it or how you would define it beyond a vague sense of, "Say, people are hurtin'...someone really ought to do somethin'!."
"Unequal access to resources, to political power, to education, to health care, or to legal standing, are forms of structural violence."
Who is ensuring unequal access to resources, thus committing structural violence? Are the poor drug addicts committing structural violence against themselves, or others? Do they make their own structures, or exist only in structures made by the Man? Is it politakid comitting the structural violence, is this your way of saying that he's a violent fellow? Actually, you did say that, although the notion is absurd no matter how much the nebulous notion of "system" is thrown around. The system can be used to support any claim, e.g. you're comitting structural violence against everyone else because you exist in the same system that they do, using its resources in a struggle for life.
After the rise and fall of socialism on a tragic scale the average progressive's argument seems to be, "Let's bang our head against the structural wall one more time and starve millions of people in the name of equality, on to the equality of starvation!" It's an empirical and historical fact that millions of people have been starved in the name of equality and a Marxist "redistribution of society's resources." Who is going to redistribute society's resources? Who is distributing them now?
The Marxist statement of from each according to their ability and to each according to their need as a guiding principle of a disembodied structure like the State* only leads to more people being needy and less people being abled, i.e. a rapid inflation of disability.
*(Somehow the structure that actually exists in the most tangible or coercive ways is the one that is overlooked by Marxists.)
"In this way a member of the longest lived, wealthiest, best educated and most privileged class of people ever to walk the face of the earth (i.e. female American college students)"
Hi. You're wrong, check your facts.
"Who is distributing "society's resources" now in America? Is it the mysterious "system" at it again? Why, just the other day the system kept following me around trying to do some violence to me. No wonder no one can see the system that you're talking about, you haven't even said who defines or controls it"
The system = all of us. Like, everyone on the planet. Hence my suggestion of some reading of macroeconomics. But I'll bet you haven't even gone to the library yet, have you naughty boy?
"Who is ensuring unequal access to resources, thus committing structural violence?"
It's like fifth grade, dude. The people with the most don't wanna share with the people with none cause then they'll have less. Got it? I can't break it down for you anymore than that. Work with me, mymnym...I sound like a freakin parrot here.
Structural violence is not something someone "commits". It is a sociopolitical structure with profound economic implications that allows for the perpetuation of violence. *Again*, this doesn't necessitate bullets and bloodshed, although it perpetuates that as well, but manifests itself in many forms: like the dperivation of healthcare and housing, i.e.; basic human rights.
"Are the poor drug addicts committing structural violence against themselves, or others? Do they make their own structures, or exist only in structures made by the Man? Is it politakid comitting the structural violence, is this your way of saying that he's a violent fellow?"
Say it with me: "we all do it" Everybody. On. The. Planet.
Sheesh.
"Actually, you did say that, although the notion is absurd no matter how much the nebulous notion of "system" is thrown around"
Why is the notion absurd? Support your arguments here.
"you're comitting structural violence against everyone else because you exist in the same system that they do, using its resources in a struggle for life."
Human beings are fortunate enough to live in the mercy and grace of a dignity that your reductionism of "competing for resources" doesn't grant them.
I know it gets you all worked up when I talk like that, Mynym.
More later after homework. Homework is the priority, people. I *love* homework.
J
J,
Why do you consider healthcare a basic human right? (Curious)
Carl
Carl,
Why do you not?
Hi. You're wrong, check your facts.
Actually I should have said the professors that teach sniveling techniques, as students are not that wealthy.
Why is the notion absurd? Support your arguments here.
Because the collectivist notions typical to the Left are not only morally degenerate and unjust to the individual while also dehumanizing to the person, they've also been proven to be a failure when it comes to the general welfare as well. Do you really not know of all the examples that refute the "system" argument you are making? From Robert Owen and New Harmony to the Kibbutz and others besides the well known cases of Lenin, Mao, etc. Again, it's an issue of people and not the system. Now you're saying that the system is everyone which is just another way out of defining it. Is a Hindu sage that devotes his life to respecting all Life a part of the "system"? Is someone who never seeks wealth and spends their time in Africa feeding starving kids in the "system"? Once again you haven't really said anything other than "something" that apparently amounts to: "I feel bad about the state of the world. Somebody...should do somethin'! What should be done? I uh, eh, it's everything...and everyone, I say! Well, I'm off to drink some beers again." All that is to say, it seems to be your own feelings that are the issue based on a guilty conscience. Ironically, you probably are not guilty of all that you've been taught. Just because you have a nice meal here, does not mean that the so-called "system" makes some poor African kid starve to death. The pattern of reasons for their starvation will always have much more to do with tyrants, corruption and moral degeneracy on a national scale than the fact that you had a good meal or drive a nice car, own a computer, etc. You have little to nothing to do with it. There's plenty to feel guilty about without blaming yourself for starving kids in Africa or crime in the inner cities based on what some half-wit professor taught you about the "system," you know.
Human beings are fortunate enough to live in the mercy and grace of a dignity that your reductionism of "competing for resources" doesn't grant them.
It was just an example given of a possible argument based on Darwinism. Note that Darwinism is treated as some sort of sacred dogma on most campuses that must not be questioned, so it should be treated consistently as a "scientific fact" by Leftists on campus. What of mercy, grace and dignity for Homo sapiens? Have you not heard that we are just a cosmic accident of matter in motion, bits of cosmic dust on a speck of a planet that given the Copernican principle has no purpose?
Say it with me: "we all do it" Everybody. On. The. Planet.
If everyone is engaged in "structural violence" and morality is relative to culture then is it not rather silly of you to keep on saying, "Now see here, I know what is moral! It'
"It's to do somethin'!" and so on? To do what, exactly? You still haven't said what it is you're writing about. I would agree with anyone arguing that we should all do what we can based on a sound sense of "ought" that's written right into the type of beings that we are. But that's not what Leftists are arguing. And note that such a notion contradicts Darwinism and other campus dogmas of the Left such as cultural relativism.
So, clarify something here for me, Mynym. Are you pissy and mean because you don't understand me, because you can't support your own postulations with examples and analysis, or because you think I'm a liberal?
Or becuase you have a little bit of a crush and you want my phone number?
Why do you not?
I think he asked first.
As for me I haven't thought about it that much, so I may want to revise this, but it would seem that no one has a "right" for someone else to care for their health because the language of rights is inherently coercive. I.e., if there is an intrinsic right to life given the categorical state of "being human" then people must all be made to admit to it through a revolution or bloodshed if necessary. Similarly, if there is a right to have someone else care for your health, then you must be prepared to force them to care for it. I.e., not only is there a right to live but there is also a right to have your diaper changed and so on. Well, someone is going to have to change the diapers and unlike the right to live they'll be coerced in some form by this type of right. The Founders specified the right to pursue happiness, not the right to happiness itself, as the language of rights is often inherently coercive and ought to be used carefully.
Note that if people are forced to care for your health through healthcare then they will be one step away from caring about your health and seeking to control it by regulating what you eat, etc. Do we want to go down the road to a maternalistic State? Some mothers smother their children, or even begin to poison them to care for their health more and more because they loooove them so.
... you can't support your own postulations with examples and analysis...
It's hard for me to believe that you've read a lot of books yet don't know of the examples or the whole historical pattern of the rise and fall of socialism. But very well, I'll get to examples and the how and why of how the socialist "system" fails time and again. I may do some on my blog for the sake of space as I don't know that politakid wants his blog clogged with comments and Haloscan cuts them off.
Supposedly you've read a lot of books about the nature of the "system," yet you're reduced to the nebulous notion of "Well, it's pretty much everyone. I'm a systematically violent women, don't you know. It's me starving the kids in Africa, which is why I feel so guilty about it all."
It's good to help people in poverty to be sure. I just don't know why you feel so guilty about it, trying to hide in the crowd of "everyone" doesn't help.
Supposedly you have gleaned knowledge from the books you have read about what is to be done, right? Yet you can't even answer the question of what the "something" is that you're talking about? I could learn from you in a dialectical process but it seems that you do not know very much, other than a booklist that you apparently haven't read.
Now we're back to my supposed feelings again. Those ruled by their feelings don't have much of a sense of their own feelings, let alone another person's. Consider that I write some things to see what your feelings are. At any rate, I'm not sure that autistic Puritans hiding behind a Fake Self are interested in the dance of romance. Maybe Dana would know what my real Self wants.
Dry Ice, mynym
Jaime Anne,
You'll find Mynym's humor-barriers to be quite impregnable. Tell him a joke and he'll go on a mile-long diatribe about why it wasn't funny and how morally corrupt it is. I'm sure he'll quote some scholar or philosopher to refute his point that said joke is stupid. But in the end, I suppose the joke's on him.
We love ya, Mynym!
I think there are actually some important issues brought up by Mynym here. While I think the implication that I haven't done my homework so to speak, or read the books I suggest, is just silly, the need for further, or more concrete, operationalization of constructs is fundamental in a discussion of this nature.
Mynym-
My impetus for action here is ill-defined as "guilt", however. I experience it as compassion, however your line of argumentation would preclude that experience. It also necessitates my actions and expressed beliefs come from a place of this "guilt" you speak of. Basing your analysis on my percived emotional experience is a mistake commonly made by the Liberal scourge, Mynym. Not sensible gentlemynym such as yourself, right?
You know, I crack *myself* up. That's really all that counts...
Anyhoo... I would be more than willing to explore the dialectical implications of our operationalizations and paradigms at length. I don't think it will be at all productive if the smarm and abuse continues however. I tell you here, if we cannot play nicely, I simply will not play.
Philosophy is some serious [stuff], after all.
My email address is available.
-J
Edited By Siteowner for language
I experience it as compassion, however your line of argumentation would preclude that experience.
No it wouldn't. It does tend to preclude shifting the burden of compassion or "caring" onto an impersonal system with the capacity for dehumanization like the State though. And that is what you are doing.
I tell you here, if we cannot play nicely, I simply will not play.
That's quite a retreat. You began with the fearsome rhetoric about what amounts to the white man's burden revisited in language typical to progressives, then you failed to support it with anything more than a booklist, then you shifted to claiming that I needed to make and support a case when you hadn't even really made one anyway and now it's "Let's be nice..." That would be fine with me, if you were being nice. Somehow I suspect that you feel that being "nice" includes brutish attacks on some groups of people's intents and motivations based on their ethnic heritage and so on.
Basing your analysis on my percived emotional experience is a mistake commonly made by the Liberal scourge...
Sometimes emotional experience and projections about the same is all there is to what has become of American Liberalism. I'm not going to back up the case against socialism in this thread. This was mainly about questioning your assertions and your case. I'll get to a case against socialism or attempts to try to have the State care for our health in the future.
Later. My email address is also available...be nice!
"You'll find Mynym's humor-barriers to be quite impregnable. Tell him a joke and he'll..."
I'm curious about what jokes you think that you've told. Was "Damn queer comics." one of them? That seems to me to be a way of arguing that I'm a bigot using clichés typical to the American Left. Yes, I'm sure that all your Gays© will get beat up if Dollman battling the Dress Suit is chuckled at. Save your Gays©, Mike, save them!
I wonder if it is sexual desires or effeminacy that you are using to define "them" as Gay©. Anyway, I'm out of this thread so bring it up elsewhere if you want.
Later.
credit card with co signer credit card with co signer credit card with co signer // independent insurance agents & brokers of independent insurance agents & brokers of independent insurance agents & brokers of
Commenting by HaloScan
