Wednesday, August 1, 2012

More about hipster racism


I thought this was pretty great, and relevant to this blog.

858 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 858   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

"Even going so far as to insult mya's daughter just for being a pretty girl."

I love when you two resort to making shit up.

Anonymous said...

Do these people always blame the same two or three people for everything? It looks that way to me. Could they be more obsessed? Scary.

Anonymous said...

Some of these people should look into getting online restraining orders. Restricting these people from ever mentioning their names again. it's harassment and libel happening here.

Anonymous said...

Isn't M*a a lawyer or legal assistant? Maybe she could put a stop to this.

Anonymous said...

Bet Mayo's glad he's done with all this shit.

Anonymous said...

Somebody really should let Mya know about that story that's being spread around about her. She deserves a chance to defend herself and tell her side of the story.

Anonymous said...

Gotta give it to Mayo. He knew all and he never gave up the respect of the anonymous.

Anonymous said...

I ♥ Mayo

Anonymous said...

Just read the story. "The ugly one" lol Looks like the accused never mentioned any names. She didn't have to. But her blogger name has been mentioned here and in the story. This Mya can be identified from that story. Not good for this Kapunau from a legal standpoint. She already lost her job for saying things she shouldn't have said online. What else does she want to lose? Just asking.

Anonymous said...

That whole story just makes me so sad. Even though it's one sided. That poor girl was miserable in her job for years and years. According to her, Her bosses made fun of her physical appearance for years and she accepted that. Without question. She accepted it. That's so sad. How weak she must have been. How defeated she must have felt. I can't imagine.

Anonymous said...

"my alias" lol

Anonymous said...

Mayo's blog was better than a soap opera. Better than twice dead characters coming back to life again.

Anonymous said...

Mayo's blog was just sad. The people still holding onto that place are even sadder.

Anonymous said...

The problem really was those watchers. Putting romantic ideas in people's heads. People believing those ideas and getting too possessive, territorial and too big for their bloomers. I wonder if any of the watchers will ever accept any responsibliity for what happened at Mayo's blog? For what's still happening here.

Anonymous said...

I personally think the "watchers" was just one of the "lovelies" trying to make a bigger deal out of the place than it was. Nobody in the MCR fandom took the place seriously. If they knew about it at all, it was just a joke. People thought Mayo was a fangirl trying to get attention.

Anonymous said...

Mayo stopped posting because people stopped caring about MCR. Whoever "he" was is probably off pretending to be a member of 1D or some other popular person now.

kapunua said...

LMFAO. Having fun?

Anonymous said...

Wow. WTF happened? Troll invasion of massive proportions, looks like.

I vote we talk about Tom Hiddleston's ass or Tom Hardy's lips or something, you know. Pleasant. Fun. Not crazy.

kapunua said...

Those definitely are pleasant. ^_^

Anonymous said...

I think the perfect man would have Tom Hardy's lips, Cillian Murphy's eyes and Tom Hiddleston's voice. :) I'm still pondering the other parts.

Anonymous said...

1D. LOL

Anonymous said...

It might "him" feel young again.

kapunua said...

I love Tom Hardy's voice though, too!

kapunua said...

For a second getting back to the icky stuff, check this out:

Republican Meltdown over Bear-hug Man.

That pizzaria owner guy who hugged Obama? Republicans are spamming and harassing him now. *Sigh*

Trigger warning for homophobia.

Anonymous said...

See, this is the thing I don't understand about Republicans. They can't accept anything other than their own views. If somebody hugged Mitt Romney (LOL, like that would happen), Obama supporters would not care. It wouldn't make even a blip on anybody's radar.

I don't get it.

kapunua said...

What it comes down to for me is the fact that, liberals have never tried to force their lifestyle / views on other people. No one HAS to get gay-married. No one HAS to have an abortion. Etc.

But the right wingers just can't leave other people alone. They have to regulate women, LGBT, minorities. They can't just not do what they disagree with themselves - they have to try to make laws that prevent others from doing it, too.

Same with religion (which goes hand in hand with right wing/GOP these days.) I'm all for believing in whatever the hell you want. Wizard in the sky, talking snakes, Earth being 3000 years old and flat, magic rib-people, flying spaghetti monster, whatever. Have fun! The problem comes when they insist that everyone else not only believe it, too, but act according to some book's outdated rules.

Your right to your religion ends when your religion starts trampling on my rights.

Anonymous said...

Your right to your religion ends when your religion starts trampling on my rights.

Exactly.

People on the extreme right have a mob mentality. When they get together in a group, they think they can run roughshod over anyone who disagrees with them.

That link made my stomach turn. Those people harassing Scott van Duzer -- that's what the KKK looks like in the 21st century.

Anonymous said...

The thing that kills me is that the guy who owns Papa John's is a huge Romney supporter. Also, isn't Domino's part of Bain Capital? And you don't see Democrats threatening them because of their association to Romney. So fucking ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

So when people were boycotting and saying bad things about Chick Fil A... that was all right?

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between boycotting and harassing. If you go on an individual's facebook and call them names or go to their ratings page and say their pizza sucks because of who they support politically, that's harassment.

Besides, nobody cares who Chik fil a owners support for President. They care that they give money to anti-gay groups. So your example is false equivalency.

kapunua said...

Seeing as how Chick-Fil-A was giving money to aan anti-gay legitimately certified by the Southern Poverty Law Center) the only way to get certified as an actual hate group,) and were trying to take away people's civil rights, and the only thing this guy did was hug another person, YES, there is a huge difference.

Some of you folks seem to think that calling someone out on their BS is the same as constant, threatening, life-altering harassment. I wonder who those people could be!

kapunua said...

*anti-gay group, sorry.

Anonymous said...

I like Tom Hardy's voice too. I think it would be a toss up between him and Tom Hiddleston for voice, but I'd definitely pick Hiddleston's ass and legs (which go on for miles). :D

Yes to Cillian Murphy's eyes. And Dan Stevens' (Matthew Crawley on Downton Abbey) hair.

Anonymous said...

It is episodes like the one with Scott Van Duzer that are ultimately going to win the election for Obama.

The Romney campaign and, for that matter, the entire GOP since the Tea Party reared its ugly head, has built its entire platform on hate, pessimism, and disdain for the citizens of our country as it exists today. The United States is not a nation of white Cleaver families. We can't go back to the 50's, no matter how much the racists and homophobes who make up the Tea Party want us to.

People want hope and optimism. They don't want to hear that America's best days are behind us. Reagan understood that. Clinton understood that. Our President understands it. Hell, even GW Bush understood that. Mitt Romney does not.

Anonymous said...

It's the UK now:

http://feminspire.com/bad-news-for-british-women-after-government-reshuffle/

Anonymous said...

Music for the morning:

Saschienne - Unknown

Anonymous said...

Mitt the Twit strikes again.

This man just cannot stop putting his foot in his mouth. Not only did he break our country's long tradition of showing unity in the face of national tragedy, he spoke before he had all the facts (not that facts have ever mattered to this guy), and blamed the President for a statement made by the American Embassy in Cairo. Not only that, he did it on 9/11, when our leaders should be showing coming together in respect for the lives lost in 2001, not taking cheap shots at one another.

His statement is drawing fire even from the GOP. What an idiot.

Anonymous said...

*disregard the extra showing One day, I'll learn to preview. :(

Anonymous said...

The film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

It reminds me of a Monty Python skit. Such senseless violence and death over nothing.

Anonymous said...

"Eleven years ago today, thousands of Americans were murdered by radical Islamic terrorists, but despite the subsequent security precautions and the killing of Osama bin Laden, most adults in this country still think another 9/11-style attack is at least somewhat likely in the next 10 years.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of Americans believe another 9/11 might take place in this country in the next 10 years."

Anonymous said...

Hilary Clinton was great in her speech paying Tribute to Chris Stevens.

"I ask myself, how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?"

"Chris Stevens risked his life to stop a tyrant, and gave it trying to build a better Libya."


http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/hillary-clinton-chris-stevens-death-shock-17217756

Anonymous said...

So is racism and homophobia 3:06.


"A would-be-juror could face jail after claiming he was unable to fulfil his service because of his “extreme homophobic and racist” views.

The man – who cannot be named for legal reasons – was selected to serve on an assault and dangerous driving trial.

However, he wrote a letter to Southampton Crown Court explaining why he shouldn’t serve on the jury.

Judge Gary Burrell QC read the letter out in open court, in which the man said his extreme views made it impossible for him to be impartial.

In the note, the man wrote: “I believe that it would be a serious injustice to the legal system to select me for jury service.

“I hold extreme prejudices against homosexuals and black/foreign people and couldn’t possibly be impartial if either appeared in court.

“It would not be in the court’s interest to have me a juror.”


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/juror-faces-jail-for-claiming-hes-1317908


I don't know what's worse. That man's hatred or a justice system that would prosecute him for being honest.
"

Anonymous said...

Insanity.


Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-administration-asks-youtube-to-review-innocence-of-muslims-video-20120913,0,610679.story

So much for freedom of speech. Why not just arrest the film makers and put them in the jail cell next to Pussy Riot.

Anonymous said...

“We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," YouTube said in a statement released Wednesday. "This can be a challenge because what's okay in one country can be offensive elsewhere.

YouTube declined comment on the administration request.

Earlier in the week, YouTube said it found that the video was "clearly within" its guidelines,



Kudos to youtube. Let's hope they don't bow to administration and outside pressure from those who wish to silence freedom of speech and stop free people from expressing their views.

That would be more disgusting and reprehensible than the video.

Anonymous said...

bumpin'

bumpin'

bumpin'

bumpin'

bumpin'

bumpin'

bumpin'

house stompin'

Anonymous said...

So much for freedom of speech. Why not just arrest the film makers and put them in the jail cell next to Pussy Riot.

What an idiotic statement. Nobody is being arrested, and that is what freedom of speech means.

Had Youtube decided the video violated their terms, they could have had it removed, and that wouldn't have violated freedom of speech because Youtube has the right to decide what is published on their site.

People seriously need to learn what freedom of speech actually means and how it works.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, but I get tired of people who don't understand the term "freedom of speech".

MissTottenham said...

Hiya guys, how are you all?

Honestly? I feel like a goddamn extra-terrestrial about 99% of the time. How sad is it that I have to come to the internet to get some relief from the insanity?

I think you are a good person, hold your head high and just get on with your own life sweetie. Sad that that's how things still are in the 21st century.


Listening to you guys talking about politics I cannot believe that some of the people running for election get away with saying such offensive things. Do people im America in the 21st century really hold such views on womens rights, abortion and rape issues, black people, gays etc? The UK and the US are supposed to be similar people with a "special relationship" but we are nothing like you guys because we do not hold strong religious views anymore. We are more like people in Sweden, Norway, Germany, France etc. Europe flinches when we hear religous Americans views on these things.

Surely people are entitled to hold whatever religious views they want but also surely there are certain areas of life where religion should play absolutely no part and they include poltitics and education.

I believe that in all countries as it totally applies to us as well, that no one with more than a certain amount of money should be able to be in politics. Politics need real people and you can have no idea what affects real people if you are rich.

I'll tell you what though. This blog proves it's true what they say about the things in life which cause the most arguments being politics and religion. Don't shout at each other people.


I'm all for believing in whatever the hell you want. Wizard in the sky, talking snakes, Earth being 3000 years old and flat, magic rib-people, flying spaghetti monster, whatever. Have fun!

Blimey K, it's like you can read my mind. Those are all the things I believe in. I thought I was the only one.

Your right to your religion ends when your religion starts trampling on my rights.


That's true. It's like over here when people break into someone's home then gets shot or stabbed. Even the prime minster said to burglers "your human rights stop at my door".


I don't know what's worse. That man's hatred or a justice system that would prosecute him for being honest.
"


I agree with you there. That was in our newspapers the other day. Although it is bad for someone to hold those views, I think to punish him (and to be honest, having worked in court, I don't think that's gonna happen) would be unfair. Because of his honesty, the court has at least been saved the cost of a re-trial which would have occured if he had sat as a juror and tried to corrupt the others. Bad situation, but it could have been worse if he had agreed to sit as a juror.


Anonymous said...

Funny how wingnuts always yell, "FREE SPEECH!!!" when it suits their need to criticize the other side, but when hecklers are forcibly removed from Paul Ryan appearances for exercising their right to free speech, they don't say a word.

Anonymous said...

^Actually, they chant, "USA! USA!" as if they truly believe that Romney's assertion that "corporations are people" is an American value.

These people seriously frighten the shit out of me.

Anonymous said...

Hilary Clinton makes another great speech. She's running for president in 2016. I'll be shocked if she doesn't.


While delivering a powerful speech on the occasion of the Eid-ul-Fitr’s reception to mark the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that while making a film against someone’s religion is wrong, using religion as an excuse to commit acts of violence is something that will never be tolerated.
While Clinton largely expressed her own beliefs about religion, at several times during the speech, her comments appeared to be a direct response to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya and the death of four diplomats as a result of it.
She strongly rejected the idea of anti-Islamic film spreading like fire over the internet, calling it “inflammable and despicable.” Clinton, however, noted that all religions face insults at the hands of people belonging to other religions, but how a person reacts to that insult is something that separates people of true faith from religious fanatics.

"When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence," said Clinton, according to a report by ABC News. "The same goes for all faiths, including Islam."

Enforcing her point a degree more, Clinton said that such difficult times are a test of one’s faith and responding to such ignorant actions with enlightenment is what the world needs to do. "I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries," said Clinton. "Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable."



Anonymous said...

Bet Mayo's glad he's done with all this shit

Imo he/she should have just said their goodbyes and deleted it.

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe that some of the people running for election get away with saying such offensive things. Do people im America in the 21st century really hold such views on womens rights, abortion and rape issues, black people, gays etc?

I can't believe it either.

Anonymous said...

Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable."

I agree with what she said.

Anonymous said...

"you're on a different road
I'm in the milky way
you want me down on earth
but I am up in space"

Anonymous said...

"you're from the 70's, but I'm a 90's bitch"

Anonymous said...

Great tune!

Anonymous said...

Would anyone be able to recommend a plant based serum you can rub on your belly that doesn't contain any essential oils?

It would be much appreciated!

Anonymous said...

Are you wanting something to prevent stretch marks? I don't know of any serums, but I used pure shea butter during my pregnancy and I don't have a single stretch mark.



Anonymous said...

Thank you 1:20!

Will try.

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON - Google is refusing a White House request to take down an anti-Muslim clip on YouTube, but is restricting access to it in certain countries.

The White House said Friday that it had asked YouTube to review whether the video violated its terms of use. Google owns YouTube, the online video sharing site.

YouTube said in a statement Friday that the video is widely available on the Web and is "clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube."





The controversy underscores how some Internet firms have been thrust into debates over the limits of free speech.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFDKiye9esVpmVF4aQMqF8u0KqSg?docId=d3229902978743dd885676f161763ec7


Google's tired of explaining free speech and being asked to remove videos too 10:27 AM. I think they have a much better understanding of free speech and the limitations of it than you do. That's obvious from your comment.

"What an idiotic statement.Nobody is being arrested, and that is what freedom of speech means."

Oh brother. You can't be serious. Is that really what you think freedom of speech means? That's all you think freedom of speech means?



I am glad that you used the word idiotic. Assaults on free speech are idiotic.

Anonymous said...

"The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [...] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [...] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [...] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." Judge Stewart R. Dalzell



"We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers." World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)














Governments, administrations, organizations and politicians need to stop trying to fetter Google's, film makers, artists and individuals speech.

Anonymous said...

Nobody here is saying that Google was not acting within their rights to keep the video trailer up. But to imply that by simply asking Google to review the film to see if it violated its terms of use, their right to free speech was somehow being usurped is a bit idiotic.

Google has an anti-hate speech stance, which, had they determined this film violated, they would have taken it down.

The earlier comment suggested that the government had violated Google's and the film-maker's free speech with their request. This is simply not true. Had they demanded that Google take the film down, and penalized them in some way for not complying, that would have been a violation of free speech.

I think this incident is an excellent example of how free speech works in the US.

Anonymous said...

I'm so excited for Looper. So far, the reviews are fantastic.

September 28 can't come fast enough. :)

Anonymous said...

For one to imply that the only way free speech can be violated is by arrest shows complete ignorance of what freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean. I don't think that person should be calling anyone else idiotic.

Anonymous said...

For one to imply that freedom of speech can be violated by simply asking a website to review content for the purpose of determining whether or not it violates their terms of service is just as idiotic.

Anonymous said...

Google feels differently. The administration should never have asked them to remove the video. That was idiotic. Many religions are parodied on youtube. It was and is governmental interference in freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

The administration didn't ask Google to just review the video. They asked Google to remove the video.

Anonymous said...

Google gave a great big fuck you in the name of freedom of speech to the White House and the current and future administrations.

Anonymous said...

The government has no business pressuring a website to take down a video. Any video.

Anonymous said...

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.





Lies. They first asked youtube to remove the video. When that didn't seem to support free speech they then asked youtube to review the video.

Anonymous said...

What I find most troubling is that the administration asked Google and youtube to do their dirty work for them. Google and youtube refused.

Anonymous said...

Google lists eight reasons on its "YouTube Community Guidelines" page for why it might take down a video. Inciting riots is not among them. But after the Obama administration warned Tuesday that a crude anti-Muslim movie trailer had sparked lethal violence in the Middle East, Google acted.

Days later, controversy over the 14-minute clip from "Innocence of Muslims" was still roiling the Islamic world, with access blocked in Egypt, Libya, India, Indonesia and Afghanistan, keeping it from easy viewing in countries where more than one-quarter of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims live.

Legal experts and civil libertarians said the controversy highlighted how Internet companies, most based in the United States, have become global arbiters of free speech, weighing complex issues that traditionally are the province of courts, judges and, occasionally, international treaties.

"Notice that Google (which owns YouTube) has more power over this than either the Egyptian or the U.S. government," said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor. "Most free speech today has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with companies."

In temporarily blocking the video in some countries, legal experts say, Google implicitly invoked the concept of "clear and present danger." That's a key exception to the broad First Amendment protections in the United States, where free speech is more jealously guarded than almost anywhere in the world.



http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019168899_mideastgoogle16.html

Anonymous said...

Lies. They first asked youtube to remove the video. When that didn't seem to support free speech they then asked youtube to review the video.

Really? Do you have proof?

What I find most troubling is that the administration asked Google and youtube to do their dirty work for them. Google and youtube refused.

What "dirty work" are you referring to? Stopping the riots? Do you consider that to be dirty? How odd.

You know, most Republicans are now focusing on trying to blame Al Qaeda for the attacks instead of the video because the "President Obama wants to infringe on Google's right to free speech" rhetoric isn't flying.

I suggest you go back to Faux News or breitbart.com and try to get a new talking point.

Regardless, it won't change the fact that right now, Romney is still behind in the polls.

Anonymous said...

Lies. They first asked youtube to remove the video. When that didn't seem to support free speech they then asked youtube to review the video.

No, actually you're the one who is lying. Even the people at Fox News disagree with you.

"The Obama administration was not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards."

Anonymous said...

Why are any of you even arguing over this? What this all really comes down to is this, that video (whatever it entails), just gave a great deal of people overseas the excuse to terrorize, attack, kill and ineviatably bring about further war on Americans and America. People are being hurt and killed overseas simply for being American because of this video. Is it wrong here to tell people what they can and cannot say? Yes, it is. Free Speech is part of what makes America more free than other countries. Does this mean that everyone here should have no thought about the possible consequences of their actions? No, it doesn't. Stop arguing over the rights to put the damn video up. This is so much bigger than free speech. Anyone with a brain knows how delicate the situation with certain other countries and America is, this video was a blatant disguard for that sitaution. Making it, and putting it up where everyone in the world with internet access can see, just endangered everyone overseas who is either American, considered a "sympathizer" of Americans, and very likely anyone here in America if more war is to come about because of this. Just because we have certain rights here, doesn't mean we should be irresponsible when using them. If we are, then maybe we don't deserve them. Look at the bigger picture.

Anonymous said...

This is so much bigger than free speech. Anyone with a brain knows how delicate the situation with certain other countries and America is, this video was a blatant disguard for that sitaution. Making it, and putting it up where everyone in the world with internet access can see, just endangered everyone overseas who is either American, considered a "sympathizer" of Americans, and very likely anyone here in America if more war is to come about because of this. Just because we have certain rights here, doesn't mean we should be irresponsible when using them. If we are, then maybe we don't deserve them. Look at the bigger picture.

Copied, pasted, italicized, and bolded for truth.

People need to stop politicizing this incident. Lives are being lost. The fuck is wrong with people?

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/conservatives-democrats-free-speech-muslims


Anonymous said...

Off topic...

Just watched a new William Gibson interview.

I am so uber mega excited (x3) about his future new novel!!!

Anonymous said...

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/study-distortion-in-rock-music-brings-out-the-animal-in-us/259421/

kapunua said...

Mitt Romney secretly taped.

And his one has a lot more videos, in which he insults half of America, talks about how everything would be so much easier for him if only he was Latino, and about how he and his company Bain were trying to buy a Chinese factory where young girls worked in substandard conditions.


WOW.

Anonymous said...

I've just been watching those.

He doesn't care about "those people". People like my widowed sister who is raising two kids on a hairdresser's salary and pays no income tax because she struggles just to get by. I can promise you that she works harder than most, yet Mitt thinks of her as a freeloader.

Anonymous said...

A huge chunk of the 47% who don't pay income taxes are the elderly, who don't pay income taxes on their pensions and social security. Mitt outright admitted that he doesn't care about them. No wonder he and Ryan want to voucherize Medicare.

Anonymous said...

"my job is not to worry about those people"

I guess they're the "you people" that Ann was talking about.

kapunua said...

He's horrible, but I'm really glad this came out.

Anonymous said...

He truly is horrible. The privilege in his words and his overall tone legit turns my stomach.

The most accurate description I've ever heard of this jerk: "Mitt Romney was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."

He doesn't have a clue about the day to day struggles of most Americans, and I say this from my comfortable home with my two children sleeping upstairs. My life has never been easy, and I've needed help now and again (social security survivor's benefits when my dad died, financial aid for school, an FHA loan for my first home, etc.), and I worked my ass off to pull myself up out of a bad situation. I consider myself lucky and proud to pay my income taxes -- and guess what? I voted for Obama last time and I'll vote for him again.

That arrogant bastard Romney knows fuck all about who makes up Obama's base. We are all colors, shapes, income and educational levels. I resent the hell out of him daring to pigeonhole me. Fuck him.

kapunua said...

Yup, exactly. And the implication that Obama supporters don't pay taxes? When Romney won't even release his taxes? COME ON.

Also, I love how a richass, privileged white guy playing life on the "easy" setting thinks that somehow, it would be even easier for him if he were Latino.

I mean, WHAT.

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/07/republican-voter-id-laws-civil-rights?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Anonymous said...

CERRITOS, Calif. (AP) — While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.
It's a paradox that makes little sense to those protesting and calling for blood. To them, the movie dialogue denigrating the Prophet Muhammad is all the evidence needed to pursue justice — vigilante or otherwise — against Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an American citizen originally from Egypt.
In America, there's nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election — how to express outrage over the movie's treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom.



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/free-speech-religion-clash-anti-muslim-film-17260873#.UFiXho6yp0g

Anonymous said...

Barack will save the day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wiu_fHvPoHk

Anonymous said...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters in key 2012 election swing states remain closely divided in their presidential vote preferences, with 48% supporting President Barack Obama and 46% Mitt Romney. Other than a nine-point lead for Obama in March, the two candidates have been essentially tied in the swing states throughout the campaign.


The results are based on a Sept. 11-17 USA Today/Gallup Swing States poll of 1,096 registered voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Gallup Daily tracking of registered voters nationwide now finds Obama at 47% and Romney at 46%, suggesting a fading of Obama's post-convention bounce. At this point, it is too early to tell what impact a newly released video of Romney's unflattering characterization of Obama supporters from an early 2012 fundraising speech might have on the race.

One in Five Swing-State Voters Could Change Minds

Twenty-two percent of swing-state voters are either undecided (5%) or say there is at least a slight chance (17%) they may change their vote preference between now and the election, underscoring the competitiveness of the election and the uncertainty about its ultimate outcome.

That 22% of swing-state voters includes 10% who currently support Obama and 7% who now prefer Romney. The candidates have roughly the same percentage of committed voters -- 39% of Romney supporters and 38% of Obama supporters in the swing states say there is no chance they will change their mind.

Anonymous said...

It's a total sham that 5 or 6 states out of 50 can decide who will be president of a country . A sham and a shame.

Anonymous said...

The USA either has to do away with the electoral college and decide its president by popular vote or give every state equal footing. 1 electoral vote per state.

It is time for change.

Anonymous said...

People wonder why the Unites States are so divided. That's one reason. An outdated election system.

I think each state should have two electoral votes if we stick with the current system. One vote per senator from each state. Each of the two senators votes would be determined by that states national congressional representatives. I can't think of a better way for state politicians to represent and be forced to answer to the people of their states come their re-election time.

Anonymous said...

http://philhardwickblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/2008_election_map-counties.jpg


That's why so many americans are pissed off. President Obama would've only carried 5 or 6 states if each state had equal footing. He might not have even carried California.



Anonymous said...

lol Oklahoma and Alaska are 100% red. New York, massachusetts and Connecticut 100% blue. Now we know were each side's real extremists live.

Anonymous said...

Kansas, Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming each had 2 or counties that carried Obama in 2008. Maine had 1 county that carried Mccain in 2008.

kapunua said...

I agree, the electoral college system is so dumb. I honestly have no idea why we don't go by popular vote.

Anonymous said...

Hawaii was all blue Obama too in ' 08

Anonymous said...

I think it's because congress still feels that the popular vote wouldn't give each state equal representation in DC. Guess what? The current system doesn't give each state equal representation in DC. It needs to be changed.

Anonymous said...

^That 1:09


That map is proof of that.

Anonymous said...

States do have equal representation under the law as it's currently written. States with large populations like California, New York, Florida, and Texas get the most electoral votes. A few densely populated urban areas of those states can determine which candidate wins that state's electoral votes.

Anonymous said...

I get the feeling another civil war is in the future of the USA. Within the next 50 years. Unless something is done soon. It'll be fought for the same reason as first civil war. States rights. Too many citizens in too many states feel disenfranchised, marginalized.

Anonymous said...

I think it's interesting how the poorest states, the states with the highest poverty levels are all Republican Party Red states and the states with richest populaces are Democratic Party Blue. What's more surprising is that the media rarely makes a point of this.

Anonymous said...

That must mean that they're poor and dumb. Especially if those states peoples are voting for Mitt the Twit this year.

Anonymous said...

I could win the presidency if I rubbed shoulders with Beyounce, JayZ and Clooney.

Anonymous said...

People vote against their self-interest. I know people who are small business owners who are being squeezed out by corporations every day who will vote Republican because of social issues like abortion and gay marriage. It makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly, I don't think my state is capable of governing itself. I live in the south, and my state just recently passed a law allowing Creationism to be taught in schools. If our legislature had its way, abortion would be illegal and children would be saying the Lord's Prayer in schools. Blacks would probably still have separate bathrooms too.

Anonymous said...

Or they vote Republican because they are fiscal conservatives. I don't know any small business owners who vote because of social issues. The ones I know vote because of fiscal issues. It's the bottom line that matters when it comes to business owners. Small or big. Especially struggling small businesses.

Anonymous said...

What state do you live in 1:54? It sounds more like you're living in the dark ages. Does your state disallow the teaching of evolution? Are these public schools paid for by the tax payers of your county? Do you vote for your district's school board members? You do have a voice if you vote.

Anonymous said...

I don't know any small business owners who vote because of social issues. The ones I know vote because of fiscal issues.

You must not know many small business owners from the South. Or, if you do, they are voting Republican because they have been duped into thinking that Republicans give a crap about them, when in reality, they only care about big business.

Anonymous said...

If you're dissatisfied by your current representation then vote them out of office 1:54. Who are your state's representatives?

Anonymous said...

I know several small business owners. Half of them are Dems and half are repubs. All of them are fiscal conservatives. Look up that term 2:03.

Anonymous said...

I live in Tennessee, where a state law was passed saying that teachers are allowed to challenge evolution in the classroom. It has been dubbed the "monkey bill".

Our governor refused to sign it, because he was afraid it would drive away industry (because people won't want their kids educated here), but it didn't require his signature to become law.

Anonymous said...

Fiscal conservatism
is a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending.
Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

Anonymous said...

If you're dissatisfied by your current representation then vote them out of office 1:54

I voted against them, but it doesn't help much when you're in the minority.

Anonymous said...

I know what a fiscal conservative is, 2:06. What I'm saying is that in some parts of the country, people let their religious beliefs cloud their intellectual judgement.

Anonymous said...

Tennessee. Home of the original Monkey Trial. How appropriate.

Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to challenge evolution? Why shouldn't they be allowed to challenge creationism? It seems to me that your state is looking out for the interests of all of its citizens.

Anonymous said...

Jesus. I'd move the fuck out of that state.

Anonymous said...

Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to challenge evolution?

I'll tell you why. Because we have some counties where people still conduct religious ceremonies with poisonous snakes. And some of our science teachers believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Would you have them teaching your kids? Or would you not care if your kid gets into a good university?

Anonymous said...

It's my understanding that the missing link in either theory has never been found. Evolution or Creationism. There are gaps in both theories so why shouldn't both theories be taught in schools paid for by the tax payers of either belief?

Anonymous said...

Creationism has absolutely no science to back it up, and it is not accepted by the scientific community. Evolution does have scientific evidence on its side, and although imperfect, it is accepted as the most plausible theory by the scientific community.

Incidentally, these teachers are also given the power by this bill to dispute climate science if they so choose.

As for moving out of the state -- trust me, I'm working on it.

Anonymous said...

You have proof that humanoids and dinosaurs didn't coexist?

I think a good university would look at a potential student's academic record and wouldn't care about their religious beliefs. I think a really good university would appreciate a potential student's understanding of both theories.

I would be proud to have any qualified teacher teaching my children.

Anonymous said...

You have proof that humanoids and dinosaurs didn't coexist?

Pfft. I think you're trolling.

Anonymous said...

We're back to square one. Creationism has no science to back it up and Evolution has no spiritualism and centuries of belief to back up its pure scientific theory. No Buddha, Zeus, no God, Muhammad, no Lillith, Gaia, no Ouranos, no Pontos.

Anonymous said...

Trolling? Why? Because they disagree with you. New fossils from the age of Dinosaurs are being discovered frequently. Most recently a new prehistoric species of shark. Can you say with any degree of certainty that human fossils from that age will never be found? That our ancestors DNA will never show up in a fossil. Ever.

Anonymous said...

I think they're looking up who Gaia, Ouranos and Pontos are. ^_~

Anonymous said...

zomg! They shouldn't be allowed to teach all that ancient God spiritual stuff in skoolz. Not even in elective classes.

Anonymous said...

Mythology was one of my favorite HS electives. That and Intro to American Gov't.

Anonymous said...

There is proof of Creationism. It's called the BIBLE and it has been around for thousands of years. Let me know when evolution has stood that kind of test of time.

Anonymous said...

Creationism has no science to back it up and Evolution has no spiritualism and centuries of belief to back up its pure scientific theory. No Buddha, Zeus, no God, Muhammad, no Lillith, Gaia, no Ouranos, no Pontos.

Exactly. So Creationism should not be taught in Science class and Evolution shouldn't be taught in Mythology class.

Anonymous said...

It looks like 2:27 from Tennessee has a Republican governor who refused to sign that "monkey bill".


The Republican governor said he allowed the legislation encouraging classroom debate about evolution to become law despite his misgivings because he thinks it will not significantly affect the state’s science curriculum.

“I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers,” Haslam said in a statement. “However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.”
“The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature,” he added.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75014.html#ixzz26xODap9D

Anonymous said...

Anybody here seen Jon Stewart's clip about how even Mitt Romney's dad wouldn't have voted for him? It's great.

Did you know that at one point George Romney was on welfare?

"You see, George Romney arrived in El Paso, Texas, as part of 4,000 other refugees fleeing the Mexican Revolution. Once they arrived, the United States did not just wave them by, to let them fend for themselves. Instead, it opened up its arms, welcoming them not only into the United States, but granted to them $250 each, equal to just under of $6,000 today. On top of that, the US provided food, clothing, and supplies. George Romney grew up with his food, housing, and schooling taken care of by the US Government. And he had a large sum of money granted to him, which the family had used to buy stocks and bonds, which George then used to pay for his college, and getting started in life."

Anonymous said...

Tennessee must really be a hell hole. I'm glad I don't live there.

Anonymous said...

What? Mitt Romney was born into poverty? You don't say. His dad used government funding to pay for Mitt's schooling, invest in his son's future and buy stocks and bonds? I guess Mitt knows what he's talking about afterall. How to make something out of nothing.

Anonymous said...

It looks like 2:27 from Tennessee has a Republican governor who refused to sign that "monkey bill".

Well, duh. Tennessee is a red state. Both its senators are Republicans and so are most of the people who hold office.

The governor probably wanted to avoid having his name attached to something so embarrassing, probably because he's a rare moderate in today's TGOP. I'd hate to have my signature on that bill when it eventually gets repealed.

Poor Tennessee. First the Scopes trial. Now this. :(

Anonymous said...

What? Mitt Romney was born into poverty? You don't say. His dad used government funding to pay for Mitt's schooling, invest in his son's future and buy stocks and bonds? I guess Mitt knows what he's talking about afterall. How to make something out of nothing.

No, honey. You must have gone to school in Tennessee. Poor reading comprehension. Mitt's dad was wealthy by the time Mitt was born.

Anonymous said...

I think Mya is from South Carolina, not Tennessee.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that bill will be repealed any time soon. Any more than the Scopes decision will ever be repealed. Debate is healthy and educational.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that bill will be repealed any time soon.

Not soon. But eventually, when people stop living in a time warp. When people from Tennessee come to grips with the fact that they can't compete in a world that has left them behind.

Anonymous said...

Tell that to 3:23, 3:34. That's the honey you need to correct. Were you born in Tennessee with that poor comment reading comprehension? I think you must have been born in the backwoods of Arkansas.

Anonymous said...

Nowhere in that comment does it say "Mitt Romney" was born into poverty, 3:40. It's what you said at 3:30. You obviously misread.

Anonymous said...

I think they were born in the Maine mountains. Those mountain people like to inbreed.

Anonymous said...

"George Romney grew up with his food, housing, and schooling taken care of by the US Government. And he had a large sum of money granted to him, which the family had used to buy stocks and bonds, which George then used to pay for his college, and getting started in life."




Traditionally, born in the purple was a term used to describe members of royal families born during the reign of their parents. The term was later expanded to include all children born of prominent or high ranking parents. The parents must be prominent at the time of the child's birth so that the child is always in the spotlight and destined for a prominent role in life. A child born before the parents become prominent would not be "born in the purple."

They would be born peasants.

Anonymous said...

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he said.





It looks to me that that's exactly what George and Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama did. They all took personal responsibility and charge of their own lives. Unfortunately there is a percentage of people who will never do what they did.

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney never needed a government handout like Barrack Obama did.

Anonymous said...

Nearly half of the people in this country are moochers. They live off the rest of us. It wasn't like that when George Romney needed help. He took that help and made something of his life. B. Hussein Obama will be content to let the moochers live off the government for as long as they want.

That's how the Dems get their base.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately there is a percentage of people who will never do what they did.


47 percent to be exact. How disgusting. If Obama is reelected it will be over 50 by 2016. Then we can all celebrate Dependence Day in July.

Anonymous said...

Tennessee must really be a hell hole.


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47000.html


Persons below poverty level, percent, 2006-2010 16.5%

2012
Child poverty rate: 24%
Senior poverty rate: 14%
Women in poverty: 19%
Percent of single-parent families with related children that are below poverty: 40%

High school graduation rate: 65.4%

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/map-detail.aspx?state=Tennessee




If that's not hell I don't know what is. Can you imagine not being able to feed your children? Having only a 65 % chance of graduating high school? High fucking school.


Diss them if you will. It's the superior heart that'll help them. Give them a hand up and not just a hand out.

Anonymous said...

http://suwanneedemocrat.com/mayo/x1078460347/SLIDESHOW-10-states-with-highest-poverty-rates



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/us-poverty-level-1960s_n_1692744.html

Anonymous said...


In an election year dominated by discussion of the middle class, Fritz's case highlights a dim reality for the growing group in poverty. Millions could fall through the cracks as government aid from unemployment insurance, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps diminishes.
"The issues aren't just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy," said Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy.

"I'm reluctant to say that we've gone back to where we were in the 1960s. The programs we enacted make a big difference. The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon," Edelman said.









That's heartbreaking.

Anonymous said...


$12 million for writing a book about giving a man a blowjob. Proof it's not about who you know, it's about who you blow. lulz



London: Former White House intern Monica Lewinsky is reportedly going to pen a tell-all book about her affair with Bill Clinton which may reveal her intimate love letters and how the ex-US president had an insatiable desire for threesomes.

Lewinsky, 39, reportedly seeks revenge on Clinton, as she believes he escaped unscathed while she had never been able to shake the disgrace of their Oval Office trysts, reported Daily Mail citing her friends.

These friends claim publishers are scrambling to get their hands on the book and she could get as much a $12 million for recounting every tawdry detail.

Anonymous said...

You think Michelle O or Laura W will get that much for penning a book about their sexual exploits with their husbands? We all know that Hillary wasn't doing it for Bill.

Anonymous said...

Is it a coincidence that 8 of the 10 states listed as having the highest poverty are red states?

Anonymous said...

Is it also a coincidence that our two not-so-friendly wingnut trolls from Mayo's are each from one of those 10 states?

kapunua said...


I live in Tennessee, where a state law was passed saying that teachers are allowed to challenge evolution in the classroom. It has been dubbed the "monkey bill".

Ugh, that is so horrible!

I guess Mitt knows what he's talking about afterall. How to make something out of nothing.

No. His father knew how to do that. Mitt Romney was born with a yacht up his ass. He's a trust fund prince. And as president, he would have screwed his own lazy, victimized, dependent Dad.

As far as creationism goes, I think Bill Nye summed that up really well when he said that if you want to live in your illogical, crazy "creationism" world, go right on ahead. But don't teach it to your children, because we actually need them to be scientifically literate.

Anonymous said...

What were you born with up your ass Kapunua? It wasn't Mayo. That's for sure. Must everyone who disagrees with any of you people be a troll or a troll from Mayo's? Look at the fucking map. A color blind person can see it's more red than blue.

Anonymous said...

Bill Nye's days are numbered. Science is not religion is not spirituality. His spirit guide will be gobbling him up soon. Ask any medicine man. Any high priestess. He . is . cancer. The world can not exist without belief in the unexplainable.

Anonymous said...

Ever heard a song playing on the radio at the precise moment you were thinking of a lost loved one? That's unexplainable.

Ever thought it might be your lost loved one tryring to tell you something? That's belief. If it crossed your mind for a fraction of one second. That a lost loved one was trying to communicate with you and tell you something. That's belief. Belief in more than just science.

Anonymous said...

A song. A lost piece of jewelry found. A phrase overheard. A cool breeze on a breezeless day. A scent that overwhelms you. There is no scientific proof but you don't need scientific proof. It's familiar. It's a familiar and it can't be explained by science.

Who here who has lost someone dear to them can deny feeling any of those things? Who here who has felt any of those things can explain them?

Anonymous said...

There are things in this world that cannot be explained by Bill Nye the Science Guy. No matter how much you wish they could be explained by science.

The most brilliant works of art in the world would not exist without the belief of something more than science.

kapunua said...

Gotta be a troll. No, not because it "disagrees." But because it's honestly too stupid to be a real person honestly giving an opinion.

I'm sorry, but really? No one is that dumb. Or actually, yes, there are people that dumb, but they usually don't come around here.

I call troll.

Anonymous said...

Prometheus would not exist without the belief of a God. A superior being and the man who tries to create life. Tries to be a God.

Anonymous said...

No Kapunua. Just because you say they're a troll doesn't make them one. Can anyone have a serious discussion with you if they dare to disagree with you or are they all called dumb trolls and tried to be swept under the carpet? I hope you don't expect me to bow down to you. I would never bow down to such an inferior being who resorts to calling anyone who challenges her a troll. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

" or are they all called dumb trolls and tried to be swept under the carpet"
"




Yes and yes. Just wait for VV to get here and read this. A new blog will posted within minutes.

Anonymous said...

Who is JGL supporting for president Kapunau? Is he as divisive as you are or is he trying to promote understanding and unity? Is he out there calling people trolls on hiTRecord?

Anonymous said...

No. He isn't and he wouldn't. Try to learn from your Idols example.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure JGL wouldn't refer to a presidential candidate as Mitt the Twit. Nor would he refer to the 48% of Romney supporters as Mitt the Twit's supporters or right wing nuts. He's smart enough to know that half of the people, half of his fans, would seriously disagree with him.

Anonymous said...

No wonder she was fired from her last job and had no grounds to sue anyone. Not her former boss. Not this Mya. She really is an insufferable, intolerable know it all. I don;t know how her former boss put up with her for so many years. He deserves a medal.

Anonymous said...

I hope that Ms. tennessee likes lobster and surfing. There are only a handful of true blue states she can move to from Tennessee. All on the upper east coast or Hawaii.

Anonymous said...

Look at the fucking map. A color blind person can see it's more red than blue.

God, but you are stupid. Do you know nothing about the population of the US? The red states in the Midwest are the most sparsely populated, which is why they don't get as many electoral votes as some smaller states.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the anon @9:28 thinks land is people. Lol, wouldn't surprise me since most wingnuts think corporations are people and money is speech.

Anonymous said...

According to current polling, Obama is only 23 electoral votes shy of the 270 he needs to win.

If you look at the No Toss Ups map, (which shows swing states where a candidate is currently leading in polls), Obama is way ahead.

I seriously doubt the debates will go in Romney's favor, so I think we're going to be looking at a second Obama term.

But hey, Troll, you can always move to Canada. I hear they have good healtcare. ;)

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney-47-unsuitable-president

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/election-campaign-mitt-romney

kapunua said...

Can anyone have a serious discussion with you...

...

Bill Nye's days are numbered. Science is not religion is not spirituality. His spirit guide will be gobbling him up soon. Ask any medicine man. Any high priestess. He . is . cancer.


A serious discussion? Sure. This? LMFAO.

kapunua said...

5:12, I know that's a good point, but we can't call it quits just yet. Obviously, there still are right wingnuts who are going to vote for this hateful human being.

It's appalling.

See, I really believe that history is going to look back on this time with such shame, that we actually *still* had to fight for the rights of lgbt people, people of color, and women. Everyone knows who everyone else supports right now, and years from now, there are going to be a lot of people who feel ashamed that their families put in their vote for the guy who committed a hate crime. Time's gonna tell on this one.

Anonymous said...

See, I really believe that history is going to look back on this time with such shame, that we actually *still* had to fight for the rights of lgbt people, people of color, and women. Everyone knows who everyone else supports right now, and years from now, there are going to be a lot of people who feel ashamed that their families put in their vote for the guy who committed a hate crime. Time's gonna tell on this one.

I agree with this completely. It's like the people who pushed for segregation of black people back in the 1960's. Those people were so full of hatred that they just could not see how illogical and just downright wrong their actions were.

As far as Creationism goes, there are numerous myths as to how the earth was created. Every religion has had their own. Thing is, we as a society rejected most of the others a long time ago, so why do the Christians still cling to theirs, despite scientific evidence that clearly disputes it?

I know Christians who regard the Adam and Eve story as a fable, despite their Christian faith. They accept evolution as part of God's plan. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are at least being open minded and sensible. It's the crazy fundies who want to throw science out the window and force their beliefs on everyone else who are creating all the controversy.

Anonymous said...

Bill Nye on creationism.


Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we're the world's most advanced technological—I mean, you could say Japan—but generally, the United States is where most of the innovations still happens. People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.

As my old professor, Carl Sagan, said, "When you're in love you want to tell the world." So, once in a while I get people that really—or that claim—they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is "Well, why not? Really, why not?" Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.

And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

It's just really hard a thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it.

kapunua said...

I agree with this completely. It's like the people who pushed for segregation of black people back in the 1960's. Those people were so full of hatred that they just could not see how illogical and just downright wrong their actions were.

Exactly. The next generation is going to hear stories about how, after all this time, we were still fighting for rights of marginalized people, things that should have been worked out ages ago. Yes, black youths are still being killed because they dare to walk home from the store. Yes, the right wing government is still trying to control women's bodies. Yes, gay people are still told that they're "different," and there's a guy running for president, with a good chance of winning, who assaulted a gay boy, and who still refuses gay people their basic human rights.

And the people who support him are going to look exactly like the ones who supported "separate but equal" back in the day.

Exactly the same.

kapunua said...

Oh, and as far as JGL goes, he and his Mom said on Twitter once that they're not afraid of being associated with socialism. Joe is openly extremely liberal, and a very vocal supporter of Obama.

Anonymous said...

JOE TOKKI

Anonymous said...

SNL is going to be so funny with him on it again!

Anonymous said...

A serious discussion? Sure. This? LMFAO.

Thank you for saying this, Kapunua.

I really hate when the troll comes around (and I really think it's only one who comments over and over, agreeing with herself), because no matter how sensibly you try to talk to her, she just keeps on with the crazy, and she always ends up with the personal attacks.

The best course of action is usually just to ignore, but some of the statements about how "spirituality" belongs in a science class were just too much.

Anonymous said...

Republican Texas homeowner Bud Johnson has a "lynched" empty chair on display in his front yard in what is likely a display of opposition to President Barack Obama.

When asked about the display, Johnson said he didn't "give a shit" if it was offensive and went on to criticize the president.

"I don't really give a damn whether it disturbs you or not," Johnson told Burnt Orange Report. "You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you. I don't give a shit. If you don't like it, don't come down my street."


Link to the article.

Incidentally, one of my co-workers sent me one of those dreadful emails today which referred to the President as "Sambo". Of course she assumed I would not be offended because I live in the South. :/

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/mitt-romney-class-warrior.html?_r=0

Anonymous said...

My goodness!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-dyed-face-brown-fake-tan-univision_n_1900707.html

Anonymous said...

I just... What is wrong with him?

MissTottenham said...

Hiya guys, how are you all?

Anonymous said...
I live in Tennessee, where a state law was passed saying that teachers are allowed to challenge evolution in the classroom. It has been dubbed the "monkey bill".


Wow, surely in the 21st century this has got to be a sick joke.

It's like I said before, religion has no place in education. Surely education has to be about learning actual facts. Beliefs should be kept behind closed doors and not imposed on children.


Anonymous said...
There is proof of Creationism. It's called the BIBLE and it has been around for thousands of years. Let me know when evolution has stood that kind of test of time.


The bible is just a book made up by a human being. Most of the stuff in it is knicked from other religions. Hardly anything in the bible is actualy original. Sorry if I offend but that's true. Having studied ancient religion I can tell you that huge chunks have been taken from Egyptian religion.

There was a creator god who lived in the heavens, he created the whole universe. He sent his semi mortal son to earth to live amongst men. Whilst there he was killed but was resurrected then he went off to rule over the afterlife. You'd think that was the story of god and jesus wouldn't you but it's actually the story of Re and Osiris which happened thousands of years before Christianity. Blimey, where did Christians get an idea like that from? And that's just one example.

Religion is brilliant if you take it for what it is and that is just really good fairy stories. The problems start when people actually begin to believe it and then become willing to fight in the name of it.

The really dangerous thing is when people try to indoctrinate children with their beliefs. Childrens minds should be left alone until they are old enough to decide what they chose to believe in. Its like Richard Dawkins says "there's no such thing as a jewish child, just a child born to jewish parents, no such thing as a christian child, just a child born to christian parents". It is the parents who have the religions, children are all religion-less.

Please let's leave the children out of religion, in school and anywhere else.




kapunua said...

^ Everything Misty just said.

kapunua said...

2:29 - But of course, there is NO racism in America, nope, not at all! We live in a post racial society, don't ya know.

Anonymous said...

What I can't stand is parents who think they can indoctrinate their kids by keeping them away from all things secular. I know parents who either home school or put their kids in church sponsored schools so they can monitor everything their children are being exposed to. These poor kids are being fed fundamentalist beliefs from morning to night, and they don't have much choice but to accept it. To me, this is brainwashing.

If you don't give your kids a choice, then how is their faith real? I mean, even among Christians, aren't people supposed to choose Jesus? If it's all they've ever known, then where does the choice come in?

It seems to me that these people are too frightened that their kids will make the wrong choice. To me that's disrespectful. These parents might as well say, "Oh, I know you're too evil and stupid to make your own choice about religion, so I'll make it for you."

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Robbie Williams is now a daddy.

She's absolutely beautiful! Then again all babies are.

Anonymous said...

Anybody here see Tom Hiddleston on the live Times Talks Madrid stream today? He's just so damn nice. How can anybody be that nice?

I'm not sure he's real.

kapunua said...

Umm.

Did anyone see SNL tonight?



O_O

Anonymous said...

"President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 then he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama."

Anonymous said...

HOLY SHIT JGL

Anonymous said...

Actually, 8:08, it just means that President Obama hasn't released a book in a while.

Anonymous said...

Missed SNL but just watched a clip of the monologue. JGL is so cute and he seemed to be having a great time. He's very comfortable on the SNL stage. Not many people are.

I still liked the "Make 'em laugh" one he did a couple of years ago better though.

Does anyone have a link to the Tom Hiddleston thing?

Anonymous said...

For anyone who missed it...

FUCKIN HELL JGL

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 858   Newer› Newest»