Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) Can you give an example of the SCOTUS deciding something that is explicitly in opposition to something in the Constitution? I just saw this post. Most of the decisions regarding religion are against what the constitution says. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In nearly every case they've ignored the "shall make no law" part. Now it's just acting in anyway, include inferring that a religion exists.

I agree: http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) What would they make instead? People act like movies aren't getting made because of Spider-Man. Good movies?

I agree with SS2K5. People should boycott s*** movies like this so that Hollywood will stop making them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) It's hard to get anything like that from this trailer. Especially with that really 2002ish CGI cut scene that made it look more cartoony than anything else.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) At the risk of wading into this cesspool, I will say that this is unacceptable for the same reason that its unacceptable to use racial slurs in the workplace. It's inappropriate for the workplace. And although this may still be a game, last time I checked, it was still their workplace and usually during a game, that would be considered "on the clock" time. If the only punishment is an invitation to a gay softball game, I fail to see the appropriateness of your outrage. There was no outrage, and I agree that what he did was unprofessional and wrong and he should have apologized like he did. But I do think it's bulls*** to essentially be held out for ransom from this guy and his group - "prove you're sorry and either give me money or your presence at our event."

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) Ugh, OUT. Do we need a reboot of a movie that came out less than 10 years ago?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) Probably one of the worst arguments you've ever had on this site. Come on. Even if 1% of the gay population was truly "harmed" by what someone writes in the sand to a friend, that's well within the norm for pretty much anything that people can overhear in everyday language.

I'm sorry, bigruss and alpha, your personal anecdotes aren't evidence of anything. All poor people are single mothers with 3 kids working three jobs. The blogosphere has proven this time and time again.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) Oh please. What if a 15 year old, in the closet gay kid who loves the White Sox heard about this story? Isn't there a chance that Gordon making fun of gays just made it even more clear to this kid that gays are something to make fun of? Of course not to you since using the word gay in a derogatory way doesn't personally affect you in any way. You won't have to go to school and hide who you are because you might bet beat up or teased. Gordon didn't say "Getz is gay" because he hoped that if people thought Getz had homosexual relations that people would be excited and happy to hear about that. He wrote that because being gay is something to make fun of and laugh at. So when you say it doesn't hurt anyone what you're trying to say is it doesn't hurt you. By this logic every word uttered in public is harmful if heard by the right individual.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) It's been discussed ad nauseum so go back and re-read the thread. Exactly. It didn't.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) LOL Coming from a heterosexual. "Of course it's harmless because it didn't bother me personally!" Not to rehash the argument, but please tell me how a baseball player writing "gay" on a baseball field hurt someone.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) Press for what? To sell tickets to this event? His group. Plus this is one of those PR battles that have been expertly crafted by groups like his or PETA or the like. Someone does something stupid, they apologize, the group asks for proof that they're sorry by giving money or doing some sort of outreach or whatever. If they don't do it then they weren't really sorry (and the "zomg! the white sox hate gay people" onslaught begins), or if they do then the group gets the money or help from someone famous. Either way, huge win win for them, despite the absolutely harmless and insignificant act that started it all.

Bulls***. He wanted the press and some money. And he got both.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) Maybe we should have a panel...sort of like a death panel but for poor people. Going forward all poor people will have to take every purchase they make and run it by the "poor panel" to make sure it fits in line with their lifestyle of poverty. Decent gyms shoes? NO! Cell phone? NO! Nope, instead we should do the exact opposite - allow a "panel" to decide when someone is poor without even doing any investigation to see if they'd actually qualify: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...0,6804492.story

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:27 PM) Hey nice job dodging all my questions regarding potential advantages you held and then claiming I said poor people are incredibly stupid. edit: have you ever taken a class on or studied or read about sociology? Yeah, I addressed the "advantages" by making fun of that line of reasoning. Advantages aren't complete roadblocks. Might make the path a lot tougher to travel, but you can still travel it. And I inferred that you were claiming that poor people are stupid since apparently in your mind they can't figure out the importance of education and how to go talk to someone at their school about going to college. I didn't realize that took an IQ of 140 to understand that. But that's pretty typical for the liberal mind - people are inherently dumb and need me to tell them what to do and what to think. But hey, since you've taken sociology classes I guess you know better than me! SS you're so smart!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) Hey, they're not as bad off as Somalians, therefore lets cut all social spending! They don't really need it! This is just another form of blame the victim. Who said anything about cutting all social spending? "Victims" of what exactly? Are you really claiming that 7 million people in this country are poor because they're victims and not because they've contributed to their own position in life?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) Were you entirely responsible for all of your own living expenses and possibly those of your family as well? Did you have children or younger siblings to raise at the same time? Did you grow up with access to better schools and a better understanding of how to get into college, even if you need government assistance in the form of student loans? Are you really denying the existence of class privileges? Yes on housing, no on children because I chose (ZOMG!) to bag that s*** so that I WOULDN'T be poor. And I love that I can't use the excuse that poor people are poor because of some "poor" decisions in life, but you can throw out that every poor person is incredibly stupid and in total dependence on someone else to get them through the day? If you can play xbox, you can figure out how to go to college and better your life. It's not rocket science.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) The Census poverty level for a family of four is $22k. That's what Heritage is claiming is not really poor because they own cheap consumer electronics. 22k of "cash income" right? So, really we're talking about the expenses of 2 people (assuming two parents, one if only one adult in the family) since the kids are paid for with government checks. Oh and food is covered. And unemployment probably doesn't factor in. s***ty and not a fun life? Absolutely. What most people think of when they think "poor?" Probably not, which was in the beginning of his article - most people associate poor with dilapidated housing, no AC, no proper ways to cook meals, etc etc. That's not necessarily the case. But bleed on brother. Help that single mother with 3 kids working 3 jobs. Life screwed her over. She couldn't have done ANYTHING in her life differently to change where she's at.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:51 PM) Born into poverty, have to go to work as early as possible to support your family and never have time for school. But that's not a realistic scenario! It's called night school. I worked a full time job (paying s***) and got myself through law school by going to class at night. Oh, but i'm white and had a father in my life so I hit the life lottery and my situation doesn't compare! GMAFB.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:55 PM) Anecdotes and personal incredulity are all you need! I've been in Cabrini Green a few times and have seen this stuff. I know people that are landlords in poor areas of the city and in Gary, Indiana. Is that something to compare too nationally? Probably not, but it's enough that I don't buy into the bulls*** you guys do that unless you make 50k, have access to cable, internet, a smartphone and can afford college paying cash that you're "poor" and need government to help you through life.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) The Heritage Foundation hopes that people will assume "TV" means "brand-new LED 50" 3D", but there's no reason it can't mean "$30 TV picked up at a garage sale" But continue to ignore the valid and detailed criticisms of Heritage's garbage arguments for sustaining or increasing class privilege. Please. I'm not assuming that they're buying the latest $3000 tv, but let's not pretend they're getting hand me down electronics from 20 years ago either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) In the grand scheme of things they are. If you have zero chance of going to college and having a successful life then what's the harm in a $200 video game console to make your difficult life a tiny bit more bearable? How does anyone in this country have "zero chance" of going to college of have a "successful" life? GMAB. That's life choices that get in the way. Maybe for an incredibly small % of people it's impossible (doubt it) but not for the vast majority of the "poor."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) TV's and Xboxs and cell phones are really cheap. College isn't. "Possession of cheap appliances" doesn't actually address any of the real problems of poverty and the barriers to getting out of it. Ah yes, back to the what's "cheap" argument. I forgot that TV's, video game consoles, cell phones - thousands of dollars - are cheap and necessary to function in society.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Well, you hit on lack of access right away but don't seem to think it's a legitimate reason for the problem. Access to affordable-yet-healthy foods is the biggest problem. But that piece I linked goes over your objections pretty thoroughly, including lacking time to actually prepare meals when you're a single mom working two jobs and raising a couple of kids. Anyway this was just a throw-in when I was googling around about the Heritage report. This same guy seems to produce the same bad papers (poor people aren't really poor because they own some cheap appliances and eat food that makes them obese) year after year. I think that if someone has luxury goods like cell phones and xboxs and multiple tv's they're not making the right decisions to get themselves out of being poor.