More Stupidity of Social Justice

GET OVER ITEvery once in a while, I stumble across some really bizarre left-wing nonsense online and while most of the time I just ignore it, sometimes I want to use it to make a point.  This is one such time.  There are lots of people on the Internet, mostly on the left wing, whining about how unfair life is that people who make more money than they do… make more money than they do.  Well, there’s a reason they make more money, more often than not, because they actually worked hard and earned it.  Besides, who told you that life was going to be fair?  That’s a liberal fairy tale.

Yet they want to live in the magical liberal utopia where nobody has to work, the government hands out paychecks and everyone is equal regardless of what they do.  This thinking is unfortunately commonplace today, people don’t understand how the world works, they just want it to make them happy and emotionally comforted 24/7/365.  There had better not be anything that happens for any reason that makes them melancholy, the whole point of being alive is to exist, carefree, in a leftist paradise.

So here’s my take on 30+ examples of upper class privilege that really aren’t.

1. Politicians pay attention to your class, and fight for your vote in election seasons.

That’s because you have money and politicians cater to people who give money to their campaigns.  I might not necessarily agree with the way the system works but that’s just the way it is.  If you want politicians to pay attention to you, give them a big paycheck, then they’ll do anything you want them to do.

2. You can advocate for your class to politicians and not have to worry about being seen as looking for a handout.

By definition, a handout is anything that you get that you have not earned.  If you don’t want to be seen as getting a handout, get a job.  Now sure, I think that there are lots of handouts being given out by the government that shouldn’t be, I’m against corporate welfare as much as I’m against personal welfare and for the same reasons.  People, and companies, need to earn their own way.

3.  You can readily find accurate (or non-caricatured) examples of members your class depicted in films, television, and other media.

It seems I answered something very similar to this in a recent post on racism and for the same reason, it’s the exact same liberal whining going on.  Why the hell are you so worried about what’s on TV?  If it’s good, watch it. If not, don’t.  This is a prime example of the unfortunately all-too-common liberal mantra that says everyone has to make you feel good about the things you believe.  No they don’t.

4. New products are designed and marketed with your social class in mind.

New products are designed and marketed to people who have the money to buy them.  This is economics 101.

5. If you see something advertised that you really want, you will buy it.

Um… yeah?  That’s how it works?  This is just more liberal whining, “waaaaah!  I can’t get what I want  because I’m poor!  Waaaaah!”  Hey, I can’t go out and buy a new Lamborghini Veneno, should I whine about that too? Give me a fucking break.

6. You can swear (or commit a crime) without people attributing it to the low morals of your class.

I cuss up a fucking storm and I don’t give a shit what anyone thinks about it.

7. If you find yourself in a legally perilous situation, you can hire an attorney to ensure your case is heard justly.

Here’s a hint, don’t get yourself into any legally perilous situations.  I can afford an attorney whenever I want, heck, there was a time when I had a lawyer on retainer, and I have never really had to use him except to write a couple of letters.  I’ve never been in jail.  I’ve never been arrested.  I’m not stupid.  Stop being fucking stupid.

8.  You can talk with your mouth full and not have people attribute this to the uncivilized nature of your social class.

So essentially, you want to be a social misfit and not have anyone criticize you for it?  Fuck you.

9.  You can attend a “fancy” dinner without apprehension of doing something wrong or embarrassing the hosts.

I don’t have to do that because I actually know how to behave myself.  Why don’t you?

10.  You understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy food, and can choose to eat healthy food if you wish.

Yup, I make enough money to decide what I want to eat and be able to go to the corner store and buy it.  Get a job you lazy asshole.

11. You can walk around your neighborhood at night without legitimate concern for your safety.

That’s because I choose to live in a safe neighborhood.  I’ve lived in unsafe neighborhoods before, I opted to buy a house in a town where I can leave my doors unlocked all the time.  You ought to try it.  Get a job.

12.  In the case of medical emergency, you won’t have to decide against visiting a doctor or the hospital due to economic reasons.

That’s why you have a good job.

13. You have visited a doctor for a “check-up.”


14. Your eyesight, smile, and general health aren’t inhibited by your income.


15. If you become sick, you can seek medical care immediately and not just “hope it goes away.”

Okay, rather than just say the same thing through this entire article, since most of the answers seem to be “get a job you bum”, let me explain some things.  I can almost guarantee that the writer of this article is trying to live, perhaps with a family, on a minimum wage job.  This person is an idiot.  Anyone who tries to live on a minimum wage job is a moron.  This is not how things are supposed to work.  I’ll give you a personal example because this is how it’s supposed to be done.  I worked all the way through school.  Heck, I had jobs mowing people’s lawns from about the age of 13 and by the time I was 16, I worked part time, as many hours as I could, while pulling a complete course load at school.  This means that by the time I turned 18 and was ready for college, my employers were moving me up into management.  I paid not only for the last two years of a private high school, I paid 100% of my college expenses out of my own pocket.  I had no student loans whatsoever and by the time I got out of college, I had a ton of experience, a strong work ethic and stepped straight into a job that I deserved and was well paying.  Granted, I did this at a time when things were a little cheaper and student loans weren’t so prevalent (and the reason things are so expensive today is because of the liberal mindset), but I don’t think I’d have much problem doing the same today, given the same circumstances.  Back in the day, there was no medical insurance until you got into management but I had been covered by my parents’ policy so if I got sick, I went to the doctor, no problem.  This is how it’s supposed to work.  Stop being a pussy.

16. If you choose to wear hand-me-down or second-hand clothing, this won’t be attributed to your social class, and may actually be considered stylish.

Get a… yeah, I know.  Let’s just consider that a given from here on out.  Why are you worried about being stylish anyhow?  Clothes are clothes?  I spend all of my free hours wearing a t-shirt and jeans.  Style is about as far from my mind as you can get.

17. You can update your wardrobe with new clothes to match current styles and trends.

I don’t care about trends, current or otherwise. Stop being so fucking shallow.

18.  As a kid, you were able to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities (field trips, clubs, etc.) with school friends.

Yup, my parents had jobs.  Why don’t yours?

19. As a kid, your friends’ parents allowed your friends to play and sleep over at your house.

Are your parents ashamed of themselves and their situation?  If so… they should get better jobs.

20. You don’t have to worry that teachers or employers will treat you poorly or have negative expectations of you because of your class.

I’ve never been in that situation, even in a very expensive private high school where the majority of students drove to school in BMWs and Jaguars.  I didn’t.  Nobody ever had bad expectations of me, mostly because I was performing at the top of my class.

21. The schools you went to as a kid had updated textbooks, computers, and a solid faculty.

Yes they did because my parents worked hard to provide for it and I cared enough to work my ass off to pay for it in my Junior and Senior years.  Get a job.

22. Growing up, college was an expectation of you (whether you chose to go or not), not a lofty dream.

Yes it was.  I didn’t have to go, I wanted to go and I made sure that I had the money to go.  My parents never paid a red cent of my college expenses.  I bought my own first car out of my own pocket.  In fact, I’ve bought every car I’ve ever owned out of my own pocket.  I’ve paid for all the gas and maintenance. I’ve paid my own rent and mortgage.  I’ve paid everything because I’ve earned it.  Why don’t you give it a shot?

23.  Your decision to go or not to go to college wasn’t based entirely on financial determinants.

Nope, it was based on hard work.

24. People aren’t surprised if they realize you are intelligent, hard-working, or honest.

Clearly you’re not hard-working because you have massive money issues.

25. An annual raise in pay at your job is measured in dollars, not cents.

Of course it is, I don’t work for McDonalds or Walmart.  I have a high-paying job because I’ve earned it.

26.  You’ve likely never looked into a paycheck advance business (e.g., “Check Into Cash”), and have definitely never used one.

See: job.

27. You are never asked to speak for all members of your class.

I don’t even have a class, I’m not part of a group, I’m an individual.  You ought to try it.

28.  Whenever you’ve moved out of your home it has been voluntary, and you had another home to move into.

*sigh*  Job.  ’nuff said.

29. It’s your choice to own a reliable car or to choose other means of transportation.

Covered this one already.

30. Regardless of the season, you can count on being able to fall asleep in a room with a comfortable temperature.

Oh, I don’t necessarily know about that, during the summer it can get very hot and during the winter it can get very cold and it’s rare when I’ll run the heating or air conditioning all night, it’s a waste of energy.  Granted, I choose to live in an area where the temperate extremes aren’t… extreme and don’t have to.

31. When you flip a light switch in your house, you don’t have to wonder if the light will come on (or if your utilities have been terminated).

No, I’m a responsible person who pays his bills and takes his commitments seriously.  Try it.  It works.

32. People don’t assume you’ve made an active choice to be in your social class, but instead assume you’re working to improve it.

You should be making an active choice, anyone who lives in squalor and poverty and doesn’t work their ass off to get out of it is an idiot.  Every choice you’ve made in your life factors into your living conditions and social class. Don’t like where you are?  Change it.

33. The “dream” of a house, a healthy family, and a solid career isn’t a dream at all, but simply a plan.

It’s always a plan.  You have to set your goals and work toward them.  The problem with a lot of poor people is that they never realize that a family and a house and a career are things you need to earn, not things you can simply have whether you can afford it or not.  You should not get married until you can provide for your spouse, or you can provide for each other.  You should never have children until you are financially stable enough to do so.  If you are never stable enough?  Don’t ever have kids.  I don’t care what you want, personal responsibility is more important.

34. People do not assume based on the dialect you grew up speaking that you are unintelligent or lazy.

Because there are no successful southerners, right?

35. When you choose to use variants of language (e.g., slang terms) people chalk them up to plasticity in the language (rather than assuming your particular dialectical variants deserve redicule and punishment).

The way you act is going to affect how people see you, no matter what your social class is.  The difference is, people who are successful have learned where it is and is not appropriate to use such language, people who are not, typically, have not.  This is all part of the maturation process.  Some people never grow up.

I wish this kind of whining wasn’t commonplace among liberals but it is.  Remember the Occupy movement where college students wanted the government to forgive all the college loans because they were unhappy that they had to pay them back?  Welcome to reality.  Personal responsibility isn’t an ideal, it’s how things need to work and liberals, particularly young liberals, need to get that through their thick skulls.

412 thoughts on “More Stupidity of Social Justice”

  1. You are the master in the art of employing the strawman argument. Your two introductory paragraphs are the single largest strawman I have ever seen someone constructed. I know you think you are an exceptionally rational thinker. But the conviction with which you hold this self-portrait only reveals the enormous scale of the delusion that possess you.

  2. "That’s because you have money and politicians cater to people who give money to their campaigns. I might not necessarily agree with the way the system works but that’s just the way it is. If you want politicians to pay attention to you, give them a big paycheck, then they’ll do anything you want them to do."

    So this is the democracy you are willing to accept and settle for? You see no value in working to change the system so that it is more representative of its citizens? Just because something is the way it is does not mean that that is the way it should remain. If the Founding Fathers had accepted your attitude, we'd still be an appendage of England.

    1. Whether I like it or not doesn't change the reality that, at least at the moment, that's how things work. Unlike you liberals, I don't live in a fantasy world where things are necessarily rosy and wonderful, I accept things are the way they actually are in practice and if they need to be changed, work toward changing them. I never argued that's the way things ought to be, just that it's the way things are.

      I know you get off on whining and complaining, that's all you ever do, but you really ought to work on your reading comprehension.

      1. There are doing it again. Creating a false caricature of what liberals believe and then attacking it. I and other liberals don't live in a "fantasy world where things are necessarily rosy and wonderful." We know things are not rosy and wonderful. Why the hell do you think we work to change them so that they will move toward rosy and wonderful, rather than more toward bleak and dismal.

        So anything you do is directed to changing those things that need to be changed, and anything liberals do is not. Problem is with your statement "I accept the way things actually are in practice…" Difference between liberals like myself and conservatives like yourself is that we acknowledge the way things are but don't accept them. To accept them is to say that they you are okay with them as they are. No, liberals actually work to make the world a better place. So instead of acknowledging this about liberals you invent this notion in your mind that we aren't actually interested in improving things, but rather we are intentionally determined to wreck everything.

        How juvenile and intellectually easy it must be for such a shallow mind to dismiss my comment here as nothing but whining and complaining. Every one of my comments has been a direct and considered criticism of assertions, claims, statements and misrepresentations made by you. It is also odd – and I am being very polite in this description – that you should describe my comments as whining and complaining without recognizing that they these labels apply much more to your posts than to anything I have written. Afterall, it is you who titles your blogsite Bitchspot. Very little of what you write constitutes anything other than you grumbling about what you don't like. You rarely post any substantive or well-thought-out arguments, nor do you, as I have said many times now, provide evidence to support the claims and assertions you make. There is far more whining, complaining, pissing, moaning, etc. coming from you than from I. But I don't expect that you will acknowledge this and own up to it since you have so thoroughly encased your mind in self-justification style thinking.

  3. "Here’s a hint, don’t get yourself into any legally perilous situations. I can afford an attorney whenever I want, heck, there was a time when I had a lawyer on retainer, and I have never really had to use him except to write a couple of letters. I’ve never been in jail. I’ve never been arrested. I’m not stupid. Stop being fucking stupid."

    This comment assumes, incorrectly, that everyone who finds themselves in a legally perilous situation got there entirely as a result of something they did. This obviously is wrong. Many people are wrongly accused, for example, of crimes. If you happen to be poor (this includes someone working but earning a low wage) affording an attorney is pretty much out of the question. Why the hell you would support a legal system that makes it more difficult for the poor and indigent and even the lower middle-class to avail themselves of that legal system is beyond me. This is not even an issue of social justice. This is a plain-and-simple matter of justice. You sound as if you think it's okay for justice to go only to those who can afford it.

    1. It always amazes me how many people are so routinely arrested and charged for crimes that they didn't commit and are completely free of any responsibility for. Funny, I've never seen the inside of a jail cell in my life, I've never been arrested, I've never ridden in the back of a police car and, to my knowledge at least, neither has anyone that I've ever known. That includes black people, white people, Hispanic people, Asian people, men and women, wealthy and poor. Maybe we're all doing something wrong. Or maybe we're all doing something right. Everyone who goes to jail claims they're innocent. Even if they are innocent of the crime, they must have done something to make the police view them as a reasonable suspect for the crime. What did they do wrong to attract such suspicion?

      That's a question you liberals are afraid to ask.

      1. Wow, once again with you as the archetype, the paragon of virtue. It has never happened to you so it can't possibly have happened to others. Well, I too have never been arrested, never "seen the inside of a jail cell", never "ridden in the back of a police car". I too have many friends and acquaintances – white, hispanic, black, asian, men, women, wealthy, poor – who also have never experienced any of these things. So what. It does not establish your apparent claim that there are no instances of people be accused, charged, and convicted of a crime they did not commit and are completely blameless for becoming the target of the police and the prosecution. You are unaware, are you, of faulty eyewitness identification and testimony? If you are it is, I am sure, a willful ignorance. This is also another example of what I am criticizing so often in your posts and comments: your failure to actually inform yourself on a subject before you comment on it.

        I probably should not have used the word "many" in my statement about people being falsely accused. The number is most probably something less than what the word "many" implies. However, this does not change my criticism. Your comment to which I was replying was written in such a way that you appeared to be implying that all people who find themselves in legally perilous situations do so as a result of their own fault. That is demonstrably wrong.

        "IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?" (Source: Scientific American;

        "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing." (Source:

        Some people do become the target of a criminal investigation for reasons having nothing to do with anything they did. There is no question that we liberals are afraid to ask. But we don't answer questions without first informing ourselves, unlike you. We don't make such sweeping and broad generalized assumptions as do you. We actually educate ourselves on a subject before making judgements and drawing conclusions. I suggest you do this yourself.

  4. 10. You understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy food, and can choose to eat healthy food if you wish.

    "Yup, I make enough money to decide what I want to eat and be able to go to the corner store and buy it. Get a job you lazy asshole."

    This is not even a response to the statement. You frequently criticize others (liberals in particular) for engaging in emotional-based arguments. But you don't hesitate to do so yourself. The statement as written says nothing, explicitly or implicitly, to lead to the conclusion that the person must be unemployed if they are unable to make informed choices about eating healthy versus unhealthy foods. Furthermore, a person who is unemployed is not necessarily a lazy asshole. You are aware that the number of people in the workforce or capable of working and the number of jobs available are not equal? Even when the economy is booming, there is always some unemployment. Yet you think everyone who is not working is a lazy asshole? It is you who is not in touch with the real world.

    1. Yet it is a common argument from liberals that the poor, getting food stamps or other assistance, cannot afford to eat healthy because they're poor. That was the vein in which I answered the question and maybe I should have phrased it a little more carefully. You do have to go back to the original article and look at the context in which these questions are being asked. It was written to the well off as a complaint. It was written to blame the successful for their "privilege". There's no privilege involved. It's people who worked their asses off to make a successful life for themselves and are now reaping the benefit of their own hard work. The people who are complaining, presumably, are those who have not done so. If they had, they'd have no reason to complain.
      So again, we're looking at the poor, bitching at the rich because the rich did something with their lives and the poor didn't.

      Cry me a river.

      1. Perhaps you should investigate the matter rather than just assuming liberals are pulling this stuff out of thin air. There is a body of published research that supports the conclusion that the poor are at a distinct economic disadvantage when it comes to eating healthy. I suggest reading this from the Food Research and Action Center ( Take note of the studies cited in parentheses. I suggest you take a look at these.

        "Low-income neighborhoods frequently lack full-service grocery stores and farmers’ markets where residents can buy a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products (Beaulac et al., 2009; Larson et al., 2009).  Instead, residents – especially those without reliable transportation – may be limited to shopping at small neighborhood convenience and corner stores, where fresh produce and low-fat items are limited, if available at all.  One of the most comprehensive reviews of U.S. studies examining neighborhood disparities in food access found that neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to convenience stores tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity (Larson et al., 2009)."

        "When available, healthy food is often more expensive, whereas refined grains, added
        sugars, and fats are generally inexpensive and readily available in low-income communities
        (Drewnowski, 2010; Drewnowski et al., 2007; Drewnowski & Specter, 2004; Monsivais &
        Drewnowski, 2007; Monsivais & Drewnowski, 2009).  Households with limited resources to
        buy enough food often try to stretch their food budgets by purchasing cheap, energy-dense
        foods that are filling – that is, they try to maximize their calories per dollar in order to
        stave off hunger (Basiotis & Lino, 2002; DiSantis et al., 2013; Drewnowski & Specter, 2004;
        Drewnowski, 2009). While less expensive, energy-dense foods typically have lower
        nutritional quality and, because of overconsumption of calories, have been linked to
        obesity (Hartline-Grafton et al., 2009; Howarth et al., 2006; Kant & Graubard, 2005)."

        "When available, healthy food – especially fresh produce – is often of poorer quality in
        lower income neighborhoods, which diminishes the appeal of these items to buyers
        (Andreyeva et al., 2008; Zenk et al., 2006)."

        "Low-income communities have greater availability of fast food restaurants, especially
        near schools (Fleischhacker et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2009; Simon et al., 2008).  These
        restaurants serve many energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods at relatively low prices.  Fast
        food consumption is associated with a diet high in calories and low in nutrients, and
        frequent consumption may lead to weight gain (Bowman & Vinyard, 2004; Pereira et al.,

        Then there is a study published in the journal Health Affairs
        ( Below is the abstract.
        Note the summary of the findings in the last sentence.

        "The federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, emphasized the need for
        Americans to consume more potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D, and calcium, and to
        get fewer calories from saturated fat and added sugar. We examined the economic
        impact of meeting these guidelines for adults in King County, Washington. We found
        that increasing consumption of potassium—the most expensive of the four
        recommended nutrients—would add $380 per year to the average consumer’s food
        costs. Meanwhile, each time consumers obtained 1 percent more of their daily calories
        from saturated fat and added sugar, their food costs significantly declined. These
        findings suggest that improving the American diet will require additional guidance for
        consumers, especially those with little budget flexibility, and new policies to increase
        the availability and reduce the cost of healthful foods."

        I am not arguing that this is a slam-dunk argument. I am not even claiming that it is a particularly persuasive argument. It is not one that I use. But dismissing it as you are without even examining the research clearly is the tactic of someone driven by ideology and not a commitment to examining the actual evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence.

        Furthermore, you claim it is an argument in common use by liberals. I know that you are going to falsely interpret this once again as a complaint, but a rational thinker who claims an allegiance to the principle of arguing from the evidence, should provide the evidence. So If it is such a common argument among liberals, perhaps you will honor a commitment to arguing from the evidence by substantiating this assertion with links to instances where liberals have actually made this argument. I am not saying that your assertion is incorrect. I am merely, once again, demanding that you provide evidence that it is an argument made by liberals and that it is one they commonly use.

      2. "You do have to go back to the original article and look at the context in which these questions are being asked. It was written to the well off as a complaint. "

        No, the article was not written as a complaint to the well off. The author clearly states in the second of the two introductory paragraphs that the list was provided for informational and educational purposes. When you read the list there are no words or phrases used that convey a complaint. You are again reinterpreting both what was said and the author's intent to fit your own prejudice.

      3. "It was written to blame the successful for their "privilege".

        No it was not. Point to the specific language in the text of the article that is written in an accusatory style or tone? It isn't there. You are again engaging in a form of spin-doctoring.

      4. "There's no privilege involved. It's people who worked their asses off to make a successful life for themselves and are now reaping the benefit of their own hard work. "

        The concept of privilege is real. Pointing out the nature of this privilege is not an act of blaming. It is not an accusation. No one is criticizing people for reaping the benefits of their hard work. But if you take a closer look at that list and examine it without the prejudices you are bringing to bear, you should see that there are so-called benefits in that list that you don't get because of your hard work. Fact is all people have privilege of some type. Just as one example a police officer stops you for a traffic violation and doesn't issue you a ticket because you contributed to the FOP, or you drop the name of a police officer, or you are fellow police officer yourself, or are a public official, or use your gender, social, or political status or position to talk your way out of the ticket, you are using privilege that some other person doesn't have so he or she gets the ticket. You saying that privilege doesn't exist does not make your rejection true. If you want to persuade me or anyone else that there is no such thing as privilege, then offer a persuasive counter argument.

        At the same site from which you drew the privilege list that you criticized are several additional lists of privilege. Suggest you read them. There is a list of privileges that come with being heterosexual in our society. ( There is a list of Christian privilege ( I am sure you can find much fodder in this list for a future posting. There is a list on cisgender privilege (

        Here is a list of privilege lists. I am providing this to give you a source of material which you will likely wish to draw from to offer us some more of your smug, uninformed commentary.

        You really do need to read up on the subject of privilege rather than offer these knee-jerk comments. I'll offer you the opportunity to educate yourself by providing you a site where you might want to start:…. Very good discussion on what privilege is. Privilege is a recognized sociological subject, written about in the peer-reviewed literature.

        I also recommend you read the entry about privilege on the RationalWiki site. Yes, RationalWiki, a site devoted to rationalism and rational discussion of subjects. ( Here is an excerpt:

        "Privilege is the benefits and advantages held by a group in power, or in a majority, that arise because of the oppression and suppression of minority groups. Often these benefits and advantages are not codified as legal rights and arise as secondary qualities to suppression (see the examples below). This causes them to become difficult to spot, and remain unseen or unrecognised. This aspect in particular is known as privilege blindness.

        "Because of privilege and the related blindness to it, people who ostensibly support equal rights for people can still inadvertently marginalize them by being distanced from their concerns.
        "Privilege is a key concept within a sociological and social justice context. The term derives from the basic definition of "privilege" (that one has special rights over another), but is expanded upon as a specific term of art amongst social justice activists — and as a result can lead to it being misunderstood and dismissed immediately (see the misconceptions section below)."

        By the way, you suffer from privilege blindness.

      5. "The people who are complaining, presumably, are those who have not done so. If they had, they'd have no reason to complain."

        Again, the author of the list was not complaining. The list was not constructed as a list of complaints. The phrasing of each item in the list is not that of an accusation.

        "So again, we're looking at the poor, bitching at the rich because the rich did something with their lives and the poor didn't. "

        No, you are looking at a list written by one individual, who most likely is not poor. I made an argument as to why this person is not likely poor in another post in this thread. So what do you do? Assume without any evidence or just cause that the writer is poor and that the list was written in the form of a list of grievances. Again, the article was written to inform, to educate, to prod people in the middle and upper classes to do some introspection, something you would greatly benefit from.

        1. It doesn't matter what the writer of the list is or isn't, I'm responding to the list as written and the things on the list certainly are not new, they have been used in the past by the poor, or by people who claim to be poor, or by people who claim to speak for the poor. Whether this person is poor or not has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the arguments being made. And besides, how can we take these arguments seriously if they are not coming from the perspective described? How is it supposed to educate people in the middle and upper classes if the person making the arguments has no knowledge or understanding of them?

          Rational thought, that's something you would greatly benefit from.

          1. It does matter what the writer of this list is or isn't because you made an assertion based on some assumption(s) about what he is: a poor person working a minimum wage job. You said that not me. You made it an issue not me.

            That the items on the list are not new is irrelevant to my criticism of your responses to them and your intentional mischaracterizations of the list and the author's intent. That the list has been used in the past by "the poor, or by people who claim to be poor, or by people who claim to speak for the poor" is another irrelevancy and attempt to misdirect us from my criticisms of your comments.

            I never said that the quality of the arguments made had any relationship to whether the write of the list is or is not poor. This again is you trying to sidestep my comments all the while deluding yourself that you are actually responding to my comments. This is a common tactic of those who have no actual nothing of substance to say. By the way, the quality of whose arguments? If you are referring to the writer of the list, no argument was presented. It was simply a list the author offered outlining some of the aspects of privilege enjoyed by those in the middle and upper economic and social classes. The writer said he was offering them to make those person's in these classes aware of some of the privileges attached to their membership in these classes. Recall that in one of my replies in this thread I mentioned privilege blindness. People don't recognize their own privilege as a general rule. They won't know of their privilege unless it is brought to their attention by others. Now what they do with that information is entirely up to them. They can reflect on this information and with introspection recognize which items of privilege they may be engaging in. They can acknowledge their privilege but choose to change nothing and not care what impact this may have. They can acknowledge the privilege and actually, through this awareness, come to understand the circumstances of those who do not share this privilege. Or they can, such as yourself, be so blind to their privilege that they reject the notion that such a thing exists. This latter group are people who are behaving irrationally by refusing to actually engage with the information and knowledge about the subject. As I said, privilege is a socialogical phenomenon recognized by and written about by scholars in the disciplines of sociology, psychology, economics, and even history.

            What perspective are you talking about? The false and intentionally mischaracterized description you keep attempting presenting and defending? Besides, there is no argument in the article to take seriously because there is no argument in the article period. You are treating the article as thought it was offered as an argument. But it was not. It was offered to make others aware of their privilege. No argument is necessary since privilege is an established concept in sociology and psychology. Read up on the subject and educate yourself, or continue to willfully remain ignorant and offer up comments that serve only to display your ignorance. I gave you some sources to consult.

            What makes you think that the person who wrote the list has no knowledge or understanding of the items on the list? While I can't directly refute this comment of yours without actually speaking to the writer about this to probe his knowledge and understanding, I am certain that your comments offer nothing of substance that would contribute to the writer's understanding and knowledge about the privileges he listed.

            Again, you tell me that rational thought is something from which I would benefit. Yet you have displayed little in the way of rational thought. I have said nothing that is irrational. Though my responses have been long in many instances, they have been coherent, internally consistent, buttressed by evidence or citations where needed. They have shown all the signs of a rational argument. Your's have most often not done so.

            But this back and forth over which of us is rational is fruitless so I will not belabor the point any longer. I'll simply accept that you think me irrational and you will need to accept that I think you irrational. I choose to leave it at that.

  5. "That’s because I choose to live in a safe neighborhood. I’ve lived in unsafe neighborhoods before, I opted to buy a house in a town where I can leave my doors unlocked all the time. You ought to try it. Get a job."

    Again, you don't understand how the real world works. You think everyone who lives in an unsafe neighborhood does so because they don't have a job? You think everyone who lives in an unsafe, crime infested neighborhood can afford a more expensive house in a more manicured neighborhood. You have a deep misunderstanding of how the real world actually works.

    It is true that life is not fair. But you say this as though this is the best we can do. You say this as though we have some moral or ethical obligation to ensure that it does not get any fairer than it is. Furthermore, you seem to think that this unfair nature of life is unalterable, that we can not and should not do anything to actually make it fairer. I submit that justice is all about fairness. You appear to think that since injustice is here, and that is the way it is, we should do nothing about it.

    1. We should do things to make it fairer, but people have to EARN it, not just be handed it on a silver platter. People need to move out of crime-infested neighborhood through their own hard work. Everyone ought to live in a safe neighborhood, everyone ought to live in a neighborhood where the schools are good. That's a choice, but it takes a lot of hard work and good choices behind it to make it work. It's the people who are stuck in the ghettos, the ones who don't have good jobs, good educations, good work ethics, etc. who are suffering and have to worry about someone breaking into their house in the middle of the night. The system is fair. Every individual, through their own hard work, can improve their lives. The ones who do not work hard do not deserve their lives to be better. You seem to think that it magically ought to happen for everyone whether they work for it or not. No. If that's the case, there's no impetus to get off your ass and work hard. You don't want fairness, you want to hand people things that they haven't earned.

      1. "We should do things to make it fairer, but people have to EARN it, not just be handed it on a silver platter.

        What things then should be done to make it fairer? Up to this point you seemed to have been arguing that we have no obligation to make it fairer. Now you are saying we do but that people have to earn the right or privilege to be treated fairly? How does one earn this consideration? What does a person have to do before you are willing to help make things fairer?

      2. "People need to move out of crime-infested neighborhood through their own hard work."

        Now there is a solution that is sure not to solve the problem. You have such simplistic answers. Yep. Just move. It is so easy and inexpensive to do.

      3. "Everyone ought to live in a safe neighborhood, everyone ought to live in a neighborhood where the schools are good."

        I agree. But your solution as to how to achieve this isn't likely to work. Telling them to move to a different neighborhood where there is no crime and schools are good does not solve the problem, nor is it a solution for the person stuck in a low-paying job, unable to save enough to pay the greater cost of a house in a safe neighborhood.

      4. "It's the people who are stuck in the ghettos, the ones who don't have good jobs, good educations, good work ethics, etc. who are suffering and have to worry about someone breaking into their house in the middle of the night."

        Agreed. But your demand that they move elsewhere is not the solution. These people by the very fact they do not have good jobs and a good education are far less likely to be able to improve their circumstances than you or I. You assume that because they are in these neighborhoods they do not have a good work ethic. This may well be true of some of them. But I have little doubt it is true of all of them, or even of most of them. I submit that with a some help they will be able to achieve the goal of moving to a better neighborhood. Without this help a move is imply not a practical or reality-based solution. Even if some managed to escape this type of neighborhood, we are still left with the problem of ridding the neighborhood of crime. We all pay the cost of impoverished neighborhoods, not just those who live in them.

      5. "The system is fair. Every individual, through their own hard work, can improve their lives."

        This is the fairy tale you keep telling yourself and the rest of us. It is the fairy tale I keep telling you that simply is not true. You are unbelievably naive. No, the system is not fair. Fair would be if a person has access to the resources necessary to improve their circumstances enough to lift themselves out of their impoverished condition. The playing field of opportunity is not level. What is needed for you or I to improve our circumstances is substantially less than what is needed for a person living in poverty to make an equivalent improvement in their life. When I say equivalent, I do not mean to rise to the same level as you or I. A hypothetical example: Say you and I have X available resources and we use these to improve our circumstances by a factor of 2. A person caught in poverty would need 2x or more resources to achieve an equivalent factor of 2 improvement in their circumstances. The trouble is that given their impoverished circumstances they do not have available to them this level of resources without some assistance. They likely don't even have the simple X level available to them. So they are stuck, unable to make the improvements.

      6. "The ones who do not work hard do not deserve their lives to be better. "

        Plenty of people who work hard but just end up treading water. Again, you have concocted a fairy tale version of reality in your head. We are not talking simply about people improving their lives. How easily it is for a person to do this depends on the circumstances or conditions from which you begin the effort. For you and I it is much easier to improve our lives than it is for someone who is caught in abject poverty. You and I have far greater resources available to us to employ in making the improvements. For some their condition is so deep in the hole and their access to resources to climb out so severely restricted, that without the help I am speaking of they simply can not make the improvements to their life that you so naively think they can. Having never experienced the kind of deprivation of which I am speaking, you are both clueless and willfully blind as to what is needed to be lifted out of such conditions.

      7. "You seem to think that it magically ought to happen for everyone whether they work for it or not."

        No, I don't believe in magic. What I keep saying is that some people need a helping hand. It is you who thinks that the magic cure is for everyone to just work hard, get a good-paying job, and move, as if these things are as easy to do as slipping on your pants in the morning. An appropriate analogy here is that putting on your pants is easy to do provided you have no physical impairments that impede your ability to do this. Some people's impoverished social and economic conditions are the equivalent of a physical disability in this analogy. For some that disability is such that they require assistance. Furthermore, even if every person in an impoverished conditions did work hard, some, perhaps most, would experience little economic and/or social mobility because, among others things, there aren't enough of what you call good jobs to accommodate their upward movement.

      8. "No. If that's the case, there's no impetus to get off your ass and work hard."

        This is another one of those mythical fairy tales which you have deluded yourself into believing. Do you think humans naturally lazy? You believe that people in general have no internal desire to improve their circumstances? If you had taken advantage of some government program when you were younger and working to improve your circumstances, would you have suddenly come to the conclusion that there was no need for you to try any longer and become one of the lazy bums you think all poor people are because the government has provided or is providing them some assistance? I am talking about helping people as much as needed to help them make improvements. I am not speaking of providing them the total kind of assistance required by an infant. I don't believe in the fictional notion of the Nanny State. This is a mythical version of progressive liberal policies invented by conservatives to self-justify doing nothing instead of something.

      9. "You don't want fairness, you want to hand people things that they haven't earned."

        How idiotically arrogant of you to tell me what I do and do not want. I do want fairness. Trouble is you have a myopic, naive idea of what constitutes fairness and how to achieve it. What exactly is it that you think I want to hand to people they haven't earned? And I repeat, how does one earn the right to be treated fairly? I think being treated with fairness and dignity is a right and not one you are required to earn. If people do have to earn rights, then tell me what you have done to earn any of your rights, including the right to be treated fairly or with dignity?

  6. "12. In the case of medical emergency, you won’t have to decide against visiting a doctor or the hospital due to
    economic reasons.

    "That’s why you have a good job."

    Yeah, right, everyone has a good job. Just how deep does your delusion go about how the real world works?

    I have a brother who is a machinist. He works for a very small firm. So small that they are unable to provide health insurance. The wage he earns at this job is just enough to pay his mortgage, to feed himself and his daughter, to pay his other bills and take care of his essential needs. He hasn't enough to buy health insurance. So he doesn't go to see the doctor for his ailments unless they are life-threatening. But your comment assumes that he and millions of others like him have good jobs and therefore ought to be able to pay for medical treatments. Now I suspect you are going to come back with one of your assinine solutions, like he should get a better paying job. This would be easy for you to say. Not nearly as easy to do. But even if he could, the person who would fill his position would be in the same situation, a relatively low-wage job. Your problem is that you don't understand that there is a mismatch between the number of people actually employed and the number of good-paying jobs. The latter is much less in number than the former.

    1. Everyone should have a good job, that ought to be the expectation and since, under Obamacare, everyone is required to have medical insurance, whether they have a job or not, this thing goes right out the window.

      Try again.

      But let’s use a personal example here. People need to earn their milestones. My wife and I were engaged for almost 5 years before we got married. Why? Because we weren’t in a financial position to do it before that. And after we got married, we waited almost 4 years to have our first child. Why? Not financially ready. We made damn sure we were ready to do it before we did it. It’s not just something you can automatically do because you turn 18, it’s something you have to EARN.

      There is no EARNING in your world. It’s just DOING.

      1. Before we go any further we need to define what is meant by "good job." I am going to assume that by good-job you are referring to the pay and not the other variables that could be used to describe a job as good. With this in mind, what wage-level or level of yearly earnings constitutes in your mind a good job?

        Good implies something better than okay. The median household income in the U.S. in 2012 was $51,072. (Source: I will not use mean household income, though it would likely be approximately $20,000 higher, because it is skewed by a relatively small number of households with very large to mega incomes. It is important to note that the median income figure does not include the monetary value of other parts of a total compensation package such as health care, etc. that an employer may offer. I am going to assume for purposes of continued comment that a good job is one that pays a minimum of $60,000 annually for a single person and an additional $10,000 per year for each additional member of a family. Thus by my standard a family of four – two parents and two children – with an income of at least $90,000 is one in which the primary wage earner can be considered as having a good job. I start at $60,000 because the term good implies something better than okay. I admit that tacking on $9,000 may seem arbitrary, but we have to start somewhere and I think this is a fair position from which to have a continuing conversation where we are understanding one another. I'll entertain any alternative suggestion.

        Now to continue. I agree that everyone should have a good job. But between what everyone should have and what everyone does have and what is actually available is a huge chasm. Using my suggested figures above, just how many jobs are there where one can earn $61,000 or more per year? Well that number is certainly much less than the total number of people who are in the workforce, not to mention what that number would be when we add in the unemployed and those who are not seeking work but are capable of working. You apparently think that there is what you consider a good job out there for every person capable of working. That is utter bullshit. The fact that unemployment exists at all wrecks that idiotic assumption. There are in fact not enough good jobs to go around. You live in some fantasy world concocted in that mind of yours if you think otherwise. This is yet another example of you being the one who is not in touch with reality.

      2. "…and since, under Obamacare, everyone is required to have medical insurance, whether they have a job or not, this thing goes right out the window."

        You are going to need to explain this because I don't know for sure what it is you are saying goes out the window because of the Affordable Care Act. Are you saying that the ACA will result in a loss of good-paying jobs? By the way, though the law requires everyone to have health insurance, it effectively will not produce this result since the penalty for not having health insurance is a tax assessment, and not even a very costly one for at least the first few years. There are people who will choose to pay the tax assessment rather than purchase health insurance. One reason some will do this will be because they have one of those undefined good jobs you said everyone should have. Thus they do not earn enough to be able to afford to buy health insurance. I know of several people for whom this is true. And these are not people working at minimum wage jobs.

        "There is no EARNING in your world. It's just DOING."

        I never said people should not work to earn things. If I and other liberals actually believed the bullshit you are saying here that that we do, then I and all these other liberals would be person's who would not have spent a lifetime earning what we have and then demanding that we be given everything. Like yourself, I have worked my entire life. Thus this idiotic stereotype you have of liberals is an utterly moronic invention. You want this to be true of liberals so it makes it easier for you attack a position that does not task your intellect too much to attack. Rather than actually understand the more nuanced position of liberals you invent these cardboard caricatures.

        The truth of what I say is that you continue to hold yourself up as some virtuous archetype. You operate under the shallow assumption that what you have achieved everyone can and should. You choose to be blind to the fact that life is not the cardboard cut-out version that you present. You judge every person's personal history and circumstances by your personal history and circumstances. This is an incredibly myopic view of how life works. It is an incredibly out-of-touch with reality view of how life actually works. It displays an astonishingly shallow depth of intellectual insight.

        You have the right to judge people as you see fit. What you don't have the right is to expect that your judgements about people will go uncontested and uncriticized. Though your sense of indignation and moral judgement of others is not wrapped up in religious beliefs, there is very little to distinguish you from those fundamentalist religious believers who display the same kind of moral outrage. Unlike you, I don't rush to judgement about other people. I first try to actually understand their circumstances. You are wrong to assume that a person is 100% responsible for the things that happen to them, other than disease. Such a level of judgement of people is indistinguishable from the kind of moral condemnation expressed by the likes of Pat Robertson, John Hagee, etc. against gays, atheists, sinners, etc. Only difference is the target. You go after poor people, black people, and anyone who does not share your conservative political views.

  7. "I can almost guarantee that the writer of this article is trying to live, perhaps with a family, on a minimum wage job"

    No you can't. You want this to be true so that you can verbally beat them up. But you have no clue what the economic or employment status is of this person. I'd bet that this person does have a job, perhaps even a good-paying job. Poor people and people living on a minimum wage, as a general rule, don't have a computer with internet access. If they are living on a minimum wage such non-essential items most likely don't fit into their budget. I submit that the fact this person is posting on the internet is more indicative of someone who has the discretionary funds to afford a computer and internet. This is much more likely to be true of someone who is not providing for themselves and/or a family on the meager amount of a minimum wage job.

  8. "18. As a kid, you were able to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities (field trips, clubs, etc.) with school friends.

    "Yup, my parents had jobs. Why don’t yours?"

    You think every child who can't afford to participate in extracurricular activities comes from a home where the parents aren't working? The depth and breadth of your ignorance is staggering in its scale. Lots of working poor people in this country. And why is everything about you. You are always telling us how you did it and then arrogantly assuming that because that's how it was in your life, that's how it ought to be in everyone else's life.

    1. Since the point of the article is racial preference and I don't think that on the field trip permission slip is says "black kids can't come", the only difference is economics. What, you don't think there are white parents who can't afford to send their kids to things? So where is this something white kids can do and black kids cannot? There are working poor of all races and that blows away the original article that I was responding to. You just have this burr up your ass that you have to complain.

      1. The point of the article is not racial preference. Race is nowhere mentioned in the article. The title of the article is 30+ Examples of Middle-to-Upper Class Privilege. Throughout the article the writer refers to social class. Where he does not he is speaking of economic class or disparities. You want the article to be about race because there is little you enjoy ranting about more than your idiotically unfounded believe that most blacks are lazy and expect nothing but handouts.

        Speaking of handouts, the article itself was not demanding handouts of any kind for anyone. It was not presented as a case to justify a claim for handouts of any kind to anyone. The writer clearly stated the intent of the list in the introductory paragraphs. It was a list of "benefits that may be granted to you based on your group membership — benefits not granted to folks in the lower class. The goal of the list is to help folks who have access to these privileges be more cognizant of their privilege, encouraging better understanding of class-based difference in our society." If you reject the claim that there are social-based or economic-based classes in this country, then present an argument on that subject. But instead you intentionally misread the author's intent and make it about race.

        The field trip permission slip comment is lame. It is not a rebuttal to what I said. In fact nothing you wrote in this paragraph is actually a rebuttal to my criticism. Furthermore, I never made mention of race in any of my replies. You have a reading comprehension problem. Every comment I made would and does just as easily apply to whites who are not members of the middle or upper social and/or economic classes. Of course there are "white parents who can't afford to send their kids to things." Nothing in my comments or the original piece implied otherwise. You are so incensed and enraged by any allegations of racism that you perceive this allegation lurking around every corner. You perceive it even when, like a ghost or bogeyman, it is not there. But you want it to be there so you can rant against it like yelling at phantoms in the night. You want to believe that racial prejudice does not exist. You may not be a racist, but you sure are damn close to the line. I never said, nor did the author of the original piece, say that there is or is not "something that white kids can do and black kids cannot." Again, you are seeing claims of racism where none have been made.

        I am well aware there are working poor of all races. But this point does not blow away the original article because the original article does not say anything about race. If there is a burr of any kind it is up your anal orifice.

        About that complaining comment, Bitchspot, thank for the wonderfully humorous example of the kettle and the pot. You think that what you have been doing is something other than you complaining? You think that what you have offered here is an argument of substance? What a laughably moronic comment coming from a person who calls his blog site Bitchspot. The more of your writings I read the more convinced I become of the truth of two things: (1) the enormous difference in the speed of travel between light and sound is an apt metaphor for explaining why you appear bright until you open your mouth, and (2) you put the dim in dimwit.

    2. My lord you are windy. If you want an audience, get a copy of The Elements of Style and live the lessons therein.

        1. @destroydogma,

          You talk too much.
          Nobody is going to read your tomes.

          The truth doesn't take many words to tell.

          1. I suppose you think "The truth doesn't take many words to tell" is a pearl of wisdom? What you think is truth and what the rest of the echo chamber here offers up as truth is laughable. This comment is "as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker. Calling you stupid for this inane comment would be an insult to stupid people.

            "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." — Oscar Wilde

            A great deal of simple thought masquerading as truth here. Your pseudo-pearl of wisdom is a fine example of this.

          2. Honey, you don't have to drone on, and on ,and on just to tell me off. You simply could have said "Go Fuck Yourself!"

            That's what I would do.

            GO FUCK YOURSELF!

          3. You never can quite manage civil discussion or debate anyplace you go.

            Thankfully you can't delete the threads like you did on LRC, can you?

          4. Roger everyone knows you are posting and reposting your pulling them after you have been marked down, as a smoke screen for pulling other peoples comments like you have done to me, Wee, and Coggy, and everyone else you target with your stupid games over at LRC and other sites that you have bragged about in the past Like Belfast. You are a known offender. If I was Cepheus I would wipe out your entire comment history on this site. As a lesson to people like you that good people will not stand by while you stalk and harass others.

          5. If you mean you want everyone to 'know' (think it), then you're finally being honest as much as you can manage.

            I dont' pull my own comments, and if negative thumbs bothered me I would just stick to places you aren't allowed, and that's plenty.

            And all of them target my comments, even if I played the same game you would deserve it.

            But there are serious people there and I wouldn't pull their comments out of childish spite to toy with your limited mind.

            And yes, your alinsky mind set would stop debate and erase any comments since that's all you know, you can't actually take on a debate since it's beyond you, so you want to shut it down.

          6. Roger, you are full of shlt.

            What about all of your "back channel" communications at Navy's site?

            You remember?
            The ones including you and HPDuuuuh and Dooche, and Petro and Leaux and Dcase and all the rest of the clown posse?

            I'd love to have saved those emails………

          7. Yes Rog we know you don't care if you look like a total retard you make that quite clear with every comment. And your still a coward who is afraid to face Dr.RoyHinkley over at Most stalker are cowards. And we all know the only reason you came back to LRC is to stalk Coggy.

          8. sbj1964,
            He sure turned LRC into a clusterphuck.
            Single-handedly destroyed it.

            He can't blame that on Alinsky.

            You are right, he only went there to stalk Coggy, just like he came here to stalk Wee.

          9. You sure do make a lot of guesses.

            And I'm not the one that ruined the site, it was the trolls such as yourself that pulled all the comments. And of course you'll deny it, but you don't have any credibility as a coward that hides in the shadows..

          10. Here's Roger, once again pretending to be the one that makes the rules for someone else's blog. So cute. So desperate.

          11. Yes, I could have. But such insults only display a stunted mind that has but a limited command of the English language.

          1. Why bother. I have serious doubts you are capable of recognizing an intelligent statement, whether succinct or windy.

          2. So by your own admission you will not strive to say something intelligent. At least you're honest about it. You and Roger are perfect debate partners. If you would engage each other, the rest of the Internet could be free of both of you. Everybody wins.

          3. He made an intelligent statement, you didn't recognize that.

            Wow, he put you in your place and you didn't even realize it.

          4. Funny.
            They are thinking about your offer.

            Looking at it from all the angles.
            Wondering who has the best recipe for Bananas Foster.

          5. I've kind of given up talking to both of them, it's just not worth it, they have nothing intelligent to say, it's just more words being typed on my blog that aren't worth engaging.

          6. I am amazed how effectively you've managed to capture the imaginations of such polar opposite lugnuts. While I feel for you, I'd love it if the two of them were forever trapped in your honeypot.

          7. Like I always say, I inhabit a bizarre middleground. As a conservative atheist, I piss off both the liberals and the religious, which tend to be polar opposites. Most atheists are liberal, most conservatives are religious. I think both sides are just wrong. It makes me a target. Luckily, I don't mind.

          8. Cephus, we have never discussed this, but I am a believer. It is no big deal, I simply am. I don't wear it on my sleeve, or shove it down peoples throats. Fundamentalist wackos like Roger and Sarah Palin make me uncomfortable.

            On the other hand, I love your website. You are one of the more intelligent people I have run across on the Internet. You are articulate, well read, and you write exceptionally well.

            I do not know what you do for your real job, but there are "professional" websites that are trying to be run as a business, that aren't half as good as yours.

            You and I are classic examples of people believing differently can still get along. You have a great sense of humor and wit.

            You have earned my respect.

          9. That doesn't bother me a bit, most of my friends started out Christians, although to be honest, I don't think any of them are more than vague believers anymore, most of them are now atheists, primarily due to my influence. Don't worry, I'll fix that pesky little belief problem of yours eventually. 🙂

          10. I have no idea how one "breaks" a website. Other than a DOS attack or something similar, how does one do it, other than the people running the site not being on top of things?

          11. People such as guest and Alinksy followed me to a site where I post been making comments for several years. They have report button set up that pulls the comment pending moderation.

            So, they started pulling comments. Mine, those I disagreed with… over 350 comments two weeks in a row went away.

            It's for an NPR college station and they don't have the resources or people to watch the site like you do here.

          12. On the contrary, I have written many intelligent, coherent replies in this thread and many others. The fact that you dismiss them all as unintelligent is the basis for my comment that you are incapable of recognizing intelligent commentary.

          13. I have posted numerous intelligent comments here. All of my comments have been on topic and have addressed specific parts of the original commentary posted by Cephus. I have not, as is the practice here, simply dismissed the comments posted here as flawed or incorrect by simply asserting such. I have, on numerous occasions accompanied my comments with evidence, links to writings by experts, and explained my criticism with sufficient clarity that even a moron could understand them.

            So when are you going to contribute an intelligent argument refuting my various criticisms and/or supporting the assertions made by Cepheus or any of the others who have posted replies?

  9. @destryod,
    We aren't going to have to wade through thirty plus of your comments here, are we? One or two are enough.

      1. Call them what you want. They are each and everyone of them legitimate criticisms of the idiotic generalizations and assumptions you make in your comments. What is ridiculous is your delusion that you have anything of substance to offer to the discussion of these issues. For you it boils down to what you have deluded yourself into believing is the one thing that will fix all of the economic, political and social problems that confront this nation and its people: personal responsibility. And you think this because what Cephus has done for himself every other person should and must do for themselves. Well, this is idiocy of the highest order. You are not a nuanced thinker. You are narrow-minded, incapable it would seem of addressing issues in their complexity, as they exist. Rather for you it boils down to either you are personally responsible and the good things in life will come to you. And if you are not then you are a lazy asshole who deserves every bad thing that happens to you. There are no possibilities in between these. This view is the one that is out of touch with reality. It is you who does not have an understanding of reality, of the world as it really works.

        1. I offered myself as an example because you whining liberals seem to think that these things can't be done so it's unfair to expect them to be done. Clearly, they can be done because I, myself, have done them. Now if you mean that there are lots of lazy people out there who don't want to do them, fine. Fuck those people. You're only interested in lowering everything to the lowest common denominator when we need to be bringing people up to a reasonable standard. The fact remains that in general terms, people who have bad things happen to them generally are responsible for them. Okay, sure, someone who gets cancer or gets hit by a car or something, they're not responsible, but the people who get no education, who make bad decisions, who go to jail, all of those things are 100% the responsibility of the person who did them. It's one thing to start out in a hole and try to climb out. It's another to start out in a hole, with a shovel, and keep digging and then complaining that you're not getting anywhere. And liberals are handing out shovels.

          1. If liberals are handing out shovels it is to clear away the bullshit you and other's like yourself keeping dumping all over the place.

          2. "I offered myself as an example because you whining liberals seem to think that these things can't be done so it's unfair to expect them to be done."

            It only seems that way to you because that is want you want to believe we think. Again, you show you are incapable of thinking things through before you write or say them. If we liberals thought these things could not be done then liberals would themselves have not done any of them for themselves. But the overwhelming majority of liberals who advocate for the very programs and policies to which you object have in fact done for themselves what you say we think can't be done. What we acknowledge, unlike you, is not that these things can't be done but that some people find themselves in circumstances where the resources necessary to achieve these things are not available to them and will likely remain unavailable to them. Our solutions to this are assist people so that they can eventually lift themselves. Your solution to this is to latch onto the false assume that all people are completely at fault for the circumstances in which they find themselves and therefore you don't give a shit about what happens to them. All that matters to you is your personal comfort and the comfort of those in your immediate personal circle of concern. In a previous post sometime ago you said you were interested in improving the species and society collectively. You also said that you weren't concerned for the individual, but rather for the welfare of society as a whole. In your view it is okay to sacrifice individuals for the sake of society. Your assumption is false and the course of action you choose based on that assumption reveals you as a person lacking in concern, sympathy, or compassion for persons who do not fall within your personal circle or bubble. Judged against the system of ethics, values, principals and morals that compose my worldview, you are simply a brutish, horrible person.

          3. But that's the thing, you're looking for victims. You're looking for people to protect and defend, You're looking for people who could not survive without the largesse of the Democratic Party. You're just looking for excuses why people shouldn't be able to do things without your help. You just want to feel good for helping people, but in helping them, you keep them down so you can continue to help them. I don't see anything the liberals are doing to actually help people out of poverty, they just keep making excuses for why the poverty is a necessary and irreversible evil. Things are not changing under liberal rule, things are getting worse.

            But do try again. You amuse me.

          4. I know you think you have accused me of something akin to a sin in your eyes when you say I am looking for victims. Well you have not, since yes, of course, I am looking for victims. Because they actually exist. You are working under the delusion that there are no victims; that there are no individuals or groups in need of defending or of protection. I assume that your intent in making this statement was to accuse me and other liberals of inventing victims. Since they actually exist this is a flat-out lie. You again stooped to intentionally misrepresenting and mischaracterizing liberals so that you can avoid having to actually engage our arguments. Your remarks only reveal, again, that you are not operating in the real world, but rather one you have concocted in your mind. There are people who are victims of racism, sexism, poverty, and the like. You are a fool to think there are not.

            I and my fellow liberals are oppressors? We want to help people only so we can keep them down and from helping themselves? Yet another one of those card-board cut-out caricatures you have invented; another strawman. We want to help people enough so that they can help themselves at some point. You keep making the inane argument that people don't need any help at all. Again, another example of an assertion representing a view that does not comport with the real world.

            Things are getting worse under liberal leadership? First of all, liberals aren't actually fully in a leadership or ruling position. The Republicans control the House and Republicans in both the House and the Senate have been incredibly obstructionist in their political behavior. If anyone is to blame for things getting worse it is Republicans and Tea Party legislators. Both are much closer to your political philosophy than they are to mine. I know you distance yourself to some extent from the Republican Party by charging them with being neo-cons. And so they are. But you and they have far more in common than they and I. I am convinced that if liberal, progressive policies could be enacted without interference from Republicans, things would actually change for the better. I know of course you don't agree. But blaming liberals for what ails us currently is at the very least an act of deceit and dishonesty on your part. You should read John Dean's book, Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. He makes a very persuasive case for the charge that our Government is broken, dysfunctional, and that it is the Republicans, going back for at least the past 30 years, who are to blame. You vote for Republicans. So you are also partly to blame for the current situation, not I nor any of my fellow liberals.
            That you don't see liberals doing anything to actually "help people out of poverty" only reveals that you aren't looking. What exactly would you suggest as a solution to poverty?

            Liberals over the decades have offered a number of programs to expand the social safety net, programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and tax credits for the working, etc. These programs have kept tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. I suggest we need more such programs. We also need programs aimed at ending the redistribution of wealth that is taking place in this nation. I am speaking of the redistribution that is moving in the upward direction. We need to greatly reduce both income inequality and the inequality of wealth distribution in this nation. These two factors alone are a large cause of the social and economic dysfunction, not to mention the political dysfunction, now plaguing this country.

            I have never heard a single liberal say that poverty is a "necessary and irreversible evil." This is a flat-out lie. Produce examples of liberals saying such a thing! This is again an example of you characterizing liberals to fit your prejudices rather than accurately describing their positions and views.

            I am not looking for excuses for anybody. You are inventing excuses to justify your willful blindness to the reality.

            No, it is not about doing things to feel good. It is about helping people who need help and enjoying one of the consequences of that which is feeling good. Are you suggesting that I should suppress any good feelings that come from helping people? This is what you do on the occasions that you help out one of your friends or someone you know. I am motivated by empathy for other humans. You are simply self-absorbed. You criticize me and other liberals for exhibiting empathy as if it is a vice, rather than a virtue. If you haven't the ability to empathize with others and act on that empathy, then I submit you are a less virtuous person because of it.

          5. Typical of a person who is incapable of offering a substantive argument or rebuttal. I noticed long ago that you seldom engage most of what I say. You occasionally pick one part of a comment and respond to that, often ignoring the bulk of what was said, including the main point. I am forced to conclude it is because you know you are wrong and have nothing to offer. So instead of acknowledging your errors you remain silent.

          6. If you want to be taken seriously, respect your audience by being concise. Your prattle goes 'round and 'round. It's hard to blame anyone for not responding to most of it.

          7. Because most of what you say is dull and boring, No one is going to sit hear and read all that nonesense

          8. Let's see here.
            Most of what you say is dull and boring and full of insults. No one is going to sit here and enjoy all your nonsense, IMO.

          9. Now you're projecting and you are not wanted here like on SL,

            If what I say is dull and boring why have you stalked and harassed all my comments for over 4 years

          10. Nope just pointing out the obvious.

            And how did you respond? More insults.
            And TNM, your saying the word 'stalking' as if I'm stalking doesn't make my responding on an open forum to point out why I think your positions are flawed is the legal definition of stalking.

            Deal with it. If this forum is too stressful for you, it's voluntary and you don't have to be here.

          11. Because all you are worth is insults. You say my comments are dull and boring but you have replied to almost everyone for 4 years so you are a liar.

            You stalk me from site to site and harass me then sue me because I hurt your feelings even though you have threatened me with physical harm and put me and my family in danger.

            It's not stressful you are just a creepy stalker and ID needs to delete your account

          12. There you go again.
            You insult Destroy and think you deserve a pass.

            I pointed out you're the one insulting and you just can't man up and actually see the obvious.

            And you might be the thing you keep labeling everyone else.

          13. "Now if you mean that there are lots of lazy people out there who don't want to do them, fine."

            This is not what I mean. I'm sure there are lazy people out there. But they are not the ones about whom I am speaking when I make the comments I have made. I am saying there are people, a fairly sizable number of them, who are not in their circumstances because they lazy, but rather because of external factors and forces which they have little if any control of; because of the unavailability of resources necessary to lift them out of their circumstances because of the way our social, economic and political system is structured; because of the educational, social and economic inequality of opportunity that actually exists in our society. That you reject the existence of these inequalities because you nor anyone you know personally has ever experienced them reflects only the fact that you are the one who does not understand reality, does not understand how the real world works.

          14. Then point out those factors, in detail, that put them into their position. I'm willing to bet that those factors are, or have been, within their control. You're out seeking victimhood, I'm pointing out that there's a point, and it comes pretty early on, that victimhood is no longer a valid excuse.

            But go ahead, educate us, tell us all the horrible things that are totally beyond the control of these poor, poor victims.

          15. I'll give you a list of the causes of poverty, as but one example.

            Declining union influence
            Economic structures
            Lack of education
            Fathers leaving the family
            Teenage pregnancy
            Domestic abuse
            Employment abuse
            Immigrant status
            Minority status
            Physical and mental disability
            Loss of job
            Low wage rates
            High medical bills
            Poverty Imperative
            Lack of or inability to afford adequate health insurance
            Lack of awareness of government policy
            Industrial change
            Social Factors
            High taxation
            High growth rate of population
            Lack of job opportunities in secondary sector
            Lack of land resources
            Lack of industrialisation
            Over dependence on agriculture
            Inflationary pressure
            Drug abuse
            Income inequalities

            Now, there are of course some causes on this list over which a person has some control to varying degrees. But there are also causes on this list over which a person has no control, yet may well be a cause of or contributing factor to their poverty. Take job loss as an example. Someone may find themselves out of a job because of downsizing, reorganization of the firm, relocation of the company facility. Certainly the person had no control over this. Circumstances could conspire in such a way that the job loss plummets a person into a spiral that leads to poverty. Or high medical bills. A person has an unexpected, unforeseen, unforeseeable major medical crisis that pushes them over the cliff into poverty. Or a natural disaster, beyond their control, strikes them and is so economically devastating that they spiral into poverty.

            Now that I have complied with your demand I am now demanding that you comply with every request I have made for you to provide evidence for the many assertions and claims you have made in this thread and other postings. For more than a month now, in numerous posts, I have taken you to task on numerous occasions for not providing evidence for claims and assertions you make. You have ignored every one of them.

            When you do reply you simply issue more obfuscations, irrelevancies and no actual evidence. So from now on I am going to follow the rule articulated by Christopher Hitchens: That which is offered without evidence can and should be dismissed without evidence. I will continue to follow this rule until you have complied with every request I have made in the past for evidence, and until you develop the habit of providing evidence either in your original posts or upon request to do so when you fail to provide it in your original posts and comments.,

          16. Even if I admit that your list is a given, how does an all powerful state solve that?

            Can you list examples where that utopia was created by destroying the current free market system involving private ownership?

          17. Most all on his laundry list is the direct result of leftist/libtard policies even "declining union influence"…
            Beivity is the soul of wit….and an important quality of a readable comment..
            Reminds me of a liberal GaltFan….whose Ann Rand ramblings were ledgendary…

          18. Yes, floods and minorities are the product of libtards. What a cartoon character you are. Change your avatar….you are insulting Clint.

          19. Too bad you can't read, pinhead…I did say "most all"…

            Here's a quarter…buy a clue…

          20. "Most all….." Is English your second language? You know those two words make no sense in conjunction, right? Keep your quarter, you probably got it from my taxes anyway.

          21. @trustfunded,

            Do you know HiPainsDrizzler, aka HPDuuuuh?

            He is Rog's best butt buddy.

            His regular Brain Trust.

            Now that you have made his acquaintance, you are in for a world of education……..

          22. Just wait.
            If you do not know this creep, you are in for a surprise. He has dozens and dozens of alter-egos and aliases that he uses. Back at Breitbart, there were entire threads, where he talked to himself with numerous characters.

            A definite Class One Psychotic.
            A self professed drunk, and a known misogynist.

          23. I really don't get people like that, people who use sock puppets and talk to themselves. Do they think anyone is going to be impressed?

          24. I don't know.
            It escapes me.

            It takes Kibuki Theater to the level of Theater of the Absurd.

            You said this to me last night:

            21 hours ago @ Bitch Spot – More Stupidity of Soci… · 0 replies · +2 points
            "I won't get tired enough of it to boot him out. There's never been anything good about what he's been saying, he's a piss-poor debater with no evidence and loads of logical fallacies in his arsenal. Still, he can keep posting if he wants, at least until he gets obnoxious, which he did with his imaginary lawsuit nonsense."

            I could not respond, because there was no space in the thread. In any event, since he is bring in his pals now, this will get interesting. It will be all 100% off topic, all Roger, all the time.

            Just remember, I appreciate your hard work, and your patience.

          25. I don't bring palls, not in the way you as a posse travel in packs.

            I have over a hundred that follow my comments, and can do as they please. If you disagree with him, just explain why and debate him like you pretend to do with everyone else.

          26. "Most all" is just short for "almost all" …if you had any sense, you know that..

          27. Oh sorry, my hillbilly speak is a bit rusty. I'm not sure what "if you had any sense, you know that" means. Does it make more sense in a barnyard? Thanks for the broken English lessons, HiPlainsDrunkard.

          28. "You're only interested in lowering everything to the lowest common denominator when we need to be bringing people up to a reasonable standard."

            On the contrary, my goal as a progressive liberal and as a humanist is to lift people up, to improve the human condition, and to improve the quality of life of individuals, particularly those less fortunate than myself, those caught in the cycle of poverty, those who are victims of prejudice and bigotry, etc. I am convinced that we are much more likely to do this through liberal and progressive policies and programs than using your approach. But rather than acknowledge that the difference between us is in the approach to be taken, you much prefer to employ demonizing rhetoric and card-board caricatures of liberals, portraying us as determined to bring down civilization and all that you hold sacred. You prefer to portray liberals as less than human; as inferior to yourself and directed by malevolent motives acting on a nefarious agenda. It is you who is the irrational thinker. It is you who is colossally shallow and narrow-minded in your thinking. It is you who does not deal with reality as it is but rather portrays it as you want it to be so that you can then accuse others of living in a fantasy world.

          29. But you don't want anyone to earn it, you just want to hand it to them on a silver platter. They don't deserve it if they don't earn it. You're great at throwing around liberal buzz words, not so great in proposing actual solutions and maybe you don't really want to solve the problems, you just want to feel good while playing social games, I don't know. The old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" applies here, but worse, you liberals don't even expect the horse to go to the water, you bring the water to the horse because clearly, the horse is downtrodden and a victim.

            And then you call me names because I point out the stupidity in your political and social position. Yeah, sure.

          30. What solutions to problems have you offered other than the personal responsibility bromide you keep offering up. I have repeatedly explained how this pseudo-solution is in fact not the answer to problems on the societal-sized scales which most of them, such as poverty, exist.

            I want to solve these problems but we need solutions that will actually work. Yours won't. Yours are solutions that work here and there for this individual or that individual. But they do not tackle the problem on anything approaching the scale of the problem, nor do they address the underlying variables that perpetuate the problems.

            You think you have pointed out stupidity in my political and social positions. This is but one of the many delusions you have about your abilities as a thinker. What is stupid is your continued advocation of the notion that all that ails us can be solved by everyone becoming personally responsible, as if all of those who need assistance exercise no personal responsibility.

          31. Personal responsibility does work, when it's allowed to.

            Can you show that socialist responsibility taken from individuals works better?

          32. "…but the people who get no education, who make bad decisions, who go to jail, all of those things are 100% the responsibility of the person who did them."

            I don't doubt that there are some people are entirely at fault for getting "no education." But you are not dealing with reality if you think this is true of every individual who fails to get an education. You are under the delusion that there is equal educational and economic opportunity in this country. This is one whopping myth. There are enormous inequalities in educational opportunity, some so large that those trapped by them can not free themselves from them. It is societies duty, its ethical and moral obligation to demolish these inequalities of opportunity and assist people in acquiring access to the resources necessary to be freed from these inequalities.

            As I point out elsewhere in this thread, there are inequalities in our justice system. Thus there are people who go to jail and are entirely blameless for being there. The fact that you can say that all people in jail are 100% at fault for being there shows a staggering level of ignorance about the real world.

            As for your claim that all people who make bad decisions are 100% to blame for the consequences of those bad decisions, this too is false. Sometimes people make what I think you are calling bad decisions because of false or deceitful advice given to them. Lots of con artists and persons out there who will take advantage of you. No one, regardless of how smart they may be, is 100% protected against those who will prey upon them.

            As for people in a hole, you again demonstrate the shallow thinking that characterizes your view of the reality. There are people who start out in a hole, try to climb out but are unable to because the hole is so deep and the walls, metaphorically speaking, so smooth, that there are no holds by which they can lift themselves. These people need to have a rope thrown to them. I too haven't much sympathy for a person who is in a hole and is using a shovel to get out of it. Problem is that you think that everyone in a hole who doesn't get out is there with a shovel digging it deeper. You paint a portrait of only two possibilities. This is not the thinking of a person who in fact deals with reality. Because there are almost always more than two possibilities, more than two options.

            You see a person in a hole and the sum total of your reaction is to either pass on by or yell down to them, "Get yourself out of there you fucking lazy-assed bum." I see a person in a hole and first ask them how they got there. You make the assumption there is no need to determine this because it is unquestionably their own fault that they are there. I examine the characteristics of the hole. Is it even possible for the person to get out on their own? The hole may be so deep or the walls of the hole so completely lacking in handholds that they are not able to get themselves out. You don't give a crap about the nature of the hole. It is totally irrelevant to you because you make the assumption that all holes are alike and if a person can't get out of it it is their own fault. I extend to them a helping hand, especially if it is apparent they can not get out without assistance. But not you. You don't give a shit. To you all people in a hole are alike, unworthy of assistance. I want to live in a society where we care enough to help people out of holes. In fact, I want to live in a society where we use the shovels to fill in the holes. You prefer to live in a world where holes exist, you accept the world as it is with all its holes, conclude we can't do anything about the holes, and when people fall into the holes, tough shit. They should climb out or die.

      2. What is ridiculous is how you fail to actually respond to my comments and instead invent things in your head that you wish I had said and then proceed to attack these strawmen. For example, I did not say that there are no white parents who can't afford to send their kids to things. But you sure wish I had said what you accused me of saying. Then you would not have to actually respond to what I actually said. So you treated your wish as though it were reality and away you went strolling off into la la land. The reason I did not say what you think I said is (1) because it would not be true and, (2) it is totally irrelevant to the discussion since – and get this through that thick and dense skull and into that cobwebbed brain of yours – the original post was not about race or white privilege. Read the goddam original article again without reading your prejudices into it.

    1. You will wade through as many as you choose to read. I can't control that. But this will have no influence on how many of Cephus' inane comments I shall criticize. There almost certainly is more to come, since so much of what he wrote is deserving of criticism. One or two are not enough when there are far more than one or two things in need of criticism and/or rebuttal.

      1. Get a clue, pinhead…take a worthy suggestion made previously…

        "If you want to be taken seriously, respect your audience by being concise. Your prattle goes 'round and 'round. It's hard to blame anyone for not responding to most of it."

        Your narcissism knows no bounds…

        1. Buttwipe, get up to speed.
          You aren't even on the right thread.
          There is a new thread devoted entirely to you.

          1. I don't have a posse, your comments probably get pulled because you troll.

            You use to pull all mine on Story Leak and Belfast and you got banned from Belfast for doing that

          2. Pretty sure I have not been spending much time on here and you are still arguing with the same people every day. They follow you not me

          3. You know, one of your guest troll friends just said that I thought the internet revolved around me.

            You just said it does.

          4. 1. The way you act
            2. The way you moderate by the report button
            3. Calling yourself a hero
            4. Thinking you get decide who the trolls are (when you are the biggest one)
            5. Telling "Guest" they should have to make ID accounts

          5. Why would I even want to get an ID account?
            I had one, and deleted it.

            He will stalk me from site to site and harass me.

            I see where he was asking Winchester97 about his "size" on Story leak this morning. that is just icky and perverted.

            Truthfully, Roger creeps me out.

          6. And the both of you can't show that you ever do what these sites are for.

            Discussion and debate.

            All insults all the time is so 3rd grade.

          7. Cephus runs this site and called you our as a pussy and a troll. You care to tell him how he should run his site? My god, your pussy must itch.

          8. And all that points to you and the posse being the one doing the stalking.

            You think you get to decide If I should delete my account, you sure do fit all the things you don't like about everyone else.

          9. I don't stalk you and I wish you would not even reply to any of comments ever and I would never reply to you. But you're creep and obsessed with me

          10. Would you please stop acting like a man and admit you are a vagina? We all see it.

          11. Nope. I meant exactly what I said.
            You haven't been trying to get away from me, you've been trying to harass me and drive me off the forum, and it just hasn't worked very well for you.

            Are you going to pretend you can give me another time limit to stop comments and pull my profile again?

          12. That was like 4 years ago and I have been going from site to site to get away from and you continue to stalk me to those sites and harass every comment I make even making physical threats to me. I have even told you multiple times to cease any communication with me and you have refused. 4 years of constant harassment from you and then you decide to sue me. That's creepy and I sure most will agree me

          13. I continue to disagree with you.

            I'm not the one describing your home and the neighorhood. Try again,

            And now you're going after Destroy because it's just what you do.

          14. My suggestion would be to ask Google to remove your house from their web site. Until then it's allpublic information. I had mine removed.

            You alo left out the part that you admitted to stalking me so I looked your address on Google. Dosen't feel so good does it? However I have asked you several times throughout the years to quit harassing me and you have refused to do and threatened me with violence

          15. Retard, it is not called a motion to squash.

            It is a Motion to Quash.

            Good Lord you are stupid.

          16. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!

            Someone should send a thank you note to his legal team. They are taking that fool for everything he has.

          17. Why?
            You have to understand I can't trust anything you say since you have threatened me. You wanna tell me why you can email me. If not whatever

          18. True to form, you are behaving as you normally do, and shitting where you are a guest.

            Remind me to never invite you to my house.

          19. I am doing great, and a coward is someone who sues people for getting their feelings hurt online

          20. I disagree with them, but I'd never declare johad on them. No round them up and lock them in a church to burn them statements from me, is there?

          21. Cephus, with all due respect, do you remember a couple of weeks ago, when I told you that you would get tired of all of this, and you said no you wouldn't?

          22. I won't get tired enough of it to boot him out. There's never been anything good about what he's been saying, he's a piss-poor debater with no evidence and loads of logical fallacies in his arsenal. Still, he can keep posting if he wants, at least until he gets obnoxious, which he did with his imaginary lawsuit nonsense.

          23. Thank someone!

            I was going to say Thank God, but realized nobody here believes in Him…….

          24. Well it'snot and I am sure the admin on this site could look at the IP addys and confirm that

          25. And you could have the posse over from story leak, what's wrong can't you just post on your own without them coming to your rescue all the time?

          26. I do post on my own. Maybe you should not have made so many enemies throughout the years

          27. So many liberal trolls that hate our western values,

            If they didn't notice me, then I'd consider my tactics and wonder why they didn't think I needed to be addressed.

          28. Then call the authorities and they will take care of it. It is a felony to make any threats of violence online or anywhere else. I'm really getting sick of this childish bickering though. Debate ideas, not people.

          29. Heh, he tried to report a good dozen or so posts here, I sent him an e-mail back telling him he was wasting his time, I was just deleting them unread. What a tool.

      1. Pretty much. Then they whine about how awful it is that their ideas get trounced. Nothing the liberals have said here in recent days has impressed me a bit. It's all a bunch of emotional, irrational twaddle.

        1. Likewise, I've not been impressed by any of your comments. You haven't trounced a single argument. You just fool yourself into thinking you have. You have failed to follow Richard Fenyman's advice. But then I have really never expected anything different. You share so many cognitive attributes with the religious fundaloons: self-justification, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, argument from ignorance, on and on. You also employ so many of the same strategies and tactics: misdirection, strawman arguments and replies, arguments from ignorance, failure to actually argue from the evidence (let alone actually provide any evidence), just to name a few. Dismissing my arguments, for example, as just exhibitions of emotionalism is an example of one such tactic. My comments have contained substance, examples, references and links to citations and sources. What you repeatedly offer is a chain of assertions that masquerade as argumentation but have all the symptoms and attributes of pseudo-logic, pseudo-arguments, and pseudo-critical thinking.

      2. I have yet to read a single comment from you that has merit. You dismiss my comments as having no merit not because you have actually offered a substantive rebuttal showing how they have no merit, but rather because of your ideological blinders. You are actually incapable of presenting an argument. If this is not so then actually make one.

          1. Like that one? Opinion, states however confidently is just that,a your personal opinion.

            I don't agree with Destroy on issues, but at least I don't feel so insecure that I have to go on the attack.

          2. Clock the thread using your quotes? At least you seem to recognize your comments for what they are……toilet pluggers.

          3. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to care, does a liberal still get offended and blame the conservatives?

          4. Thank you for illustrating my point. Your reply here is the sum total of what constitutes an argument in your mind. Double-down and repeat what you previously said. If my arguments and comments have no merit then point out the errors. Thus far you have offered nothing but childish responses.

          5. If you can't figure out your own errors why would you admit it when I point them out?

            Furthermore why would I waste my time reading long dull rants with no merits

          6. Then don't. But you can't leave it at that, you have to go on the attack personally, as you have done the entire time you've been posting on this forum.

            At least IMO.

          7. Yeah they do and they are liberal slanted and since you hate liberals why do you defend them

          8. No, you do. You have just shifted and gone of the attack in regards to Destroy.

            It's not a liberal thing, it's 'your' thing.

          9. So, you have nothing.
            You just insulted me and admit you can't show I hate anyone.

            I disagree, and by trying to use a quote out of context you just keep digging in deeper. I just said I didn't want liberals in graveyards, how can you twist that into something about hate?

          10. You are "all for liberals in the graveyard" is pretty hateful IMO. Don't get upset when you are called out on your hateful comments.

            So I insulted you by using your own quote after you told me to quote you?

          11. Where does it say that being in a graveyard is a bad thing?

            And the rest of the quote shows that wasn't what I was even pushing for.

            You're failing badly here.

          12. Of course it wasn't.
            You can 'say' it all you want, the statement doesn't infer anything that you keep implying it does.

          13. I tried to tell you Roger would make your blog the ALL ROGER ALL TH E TIME BLOG. This is what he does just ask Scott M. What he did over at his site. He ended up shutting it down for over a year the first time, and then Roger did it again

          14. @sbj
            Do you remember what the name of Scots sire was?
            I just looked and can't find it.

            Did he take it down after the last flurry of nonsense?

          15. Thats it! Thanks.

            Did he take his site down?

            There was a big flurry of activity this spring, and I hadn't checked back lately. I looked the other day and it was gone.

          16. Unforgivably another site destroyed by Roger's TROLLING. Hopefully that won't happen here. Cephus seems amused with Roger now, but he will eventually want his site back.

          17. @sbj1964,

            After we talked today, I did some digging and found it. This is all that is left of it.

            That Scott seemed like a real decent, earnest kid. It is a shame what Roger and HPDuuuh did to it. They descend on a site like a swarm, a plague of locusts. I know the history. They followed Wee there, just like they did here.

            I cautioned Cephus about him a month ago, and again last week. I can tell his patience is wearing thin. I like it here. There are some very thought provoking articles.

            Speaking of destruction, I know you are seeing what Roger has done at LRC. Talk about over the top, off the wall crazy! Roger is flinging monkey shlt against the walls faster than a monkey with eight hands.

          18. I get a kick out of abject stupidity, that's why I let theists stick around, even trolls, so long as they don't go too far over the line. Unfortunately, there are far too many people around here who delight in feeding the trolls and that's what really tends to cause problems. Letting Roger dance around like an idiot would be funny enough on it's own without a war raging.

          19. Whether I would or would not admit to any errors you point out is irrelevant. This does not absolve you of the responsibility to substantiate your assertion by pointing out the errors. Failure to do so is a concession on your part that there are no errors or flaws in my statements. If you can successfully point out such errors or flaws, then I will acknowledge them. I should think you would salivate at the opportunity to call me a liar if I were to fail to acknowledge such errors. But I don't think you are up to the challenge.

  10. I particularly liked this rant. Honestly the writer does not seem to understand some very basic things like "dont pay 100 $ for a t-shirt when you can get an equally good one for 5 $."

  11. "Besides, who told you that life was going to be fair? That’s a liberal fairy tale."

    No, that is a lie that you conservatives have made up about what liberals think and then try to convince others that it is what liberals think. I challenge you to produce a quote from even a single liberal who has said that life is inherently fair. What liberals do say is that there certainly is nothing wrong with attempting to diminish the unfairness as much as possible. Just because life is not inherently fair does not mean that we can not and should not work to make it as fair as we can. In fact, I believe that minimizing the unfair disparities will make for a more stable, just, and functional society. You seem to be arguing that unfairness should be our objective?

    1. They may not say it in so many words, but their constant spouting about fairness, inequality, and lack of diversity, speaks volumes.
      See I didn't need 500 words to make my point…

          1. I'm not Jamal you lying POS. And have you ever seen HPD say he wasn't Jamal?

            I\ve asked him to come out and say he isn't, he always refuses.

            You are racist.

  12. A History Lesson

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1. Liberals; and
    2. Conservatives.

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed

  13. Well Roger has managed to do it to yet another Atheist Blog. Just like he did over at Scott's site he has turned Cephus's site into the All ROGER all the time blog. His mission is complete bringing down, and usurping yet another Atheist site. Gee I wonder what will be the next topic that will be posted? My guess will end up about Roger. This is what R-Oger dose.

    1. Nah, he's not hurting the site at all. If anything, he's providing a little unintended levity. Treat him like the laughing stock troll that he is and let him dance around like a dog in a ballerina skirt. He's good for entertainment, nothing more.

    2. @sbj1964

      I don't think he hurt it one bit.
      He just came here, and exposed himself for all the world to see.

      Everyone knows for certain that he is clearly clinically insane.

      He did manage to drive everyone away from LRC, and deleted several hundred posts. Remember his Mothers Day Marathon last weekend? He was just getting warmed up for this weekend. He will be able to sit there for three days, with his shorts around his ankles, and type several thousand posts.

      1. Coming from you, that's levity at it's saddest.

        The coward troll that is too spineless to come out into the open has to pretend to be credible.
        And I'm not the troll who deleted hundreds of comments. Hmmmm, what coward could it be?

        1. Not me Honey.
          I could give two shlts less about what you and Coggy do, or don't do at LRC.

          You just can't get along with anyone, anywhere, can you?

          At LRC it is you and Coggy.
          At StoryLeak it is you and Alinsky, and now Winchester97.
          Here, it is you and Wee,
          Back at Breiabart, it was you and I foget who, because it has been too long.

          The point is Honey, you are a disruptive little prick.

          1. And the point is you can't join in with any credibility because as a coward you don't have a profile.

            Does that make you lonely and sad?

      2. If he wants to type posts, let him. I'm not going to turn people away, just because they're stupid. He can post all the comments he wants and he can't delete anything. If anyone cares to walk away from the blog because Roger is being a douchebag, that's on them. Personally, I try to ignore the patently stupid. It's clear that Roger needs a life and he's just feeding on the notoriety that being an online troll gives him. If everyone would just stop responding to him, ignore his comments, never mention anything he has to say, he'd go away because he wouldn't be getting the attention that he thrives on.

        In other words, everyone ought to stop feeding the troll.

        1. In other words, everyone ought to stop feeding the troll.

          Ya know, that is good advice.

          As of this moment, lets <b<ALL stop doing it.
          I know it will be hard, but from this day forward, I will ignore him and not respond to his puerile remarks.

    3. @sbj1964,
      I did not know that you were included in the world famous lawsuit.

      31 minutes ago @ Left, Right & Cent… – Jill Abramson Fired, K… · 5 replies · 0 points
      He isn't my partner, I'm engaging in litigation over his conduct and comments.

      That's why their so frantic. Alinsky and Wee are the two core people and it spreads out from there, SBJ1964 is involved and so is nmjcc to some extent.
      The very same crowd that supported you all those years ago is still together. I suspected after months of silence when you were reactivated it wouldn't be long until you began to work towards their side and started trying to help them along with the personal attacks.

      The only one that dropped out was patriot here and he admitted several of your thinking were working together. This isn't anything new, it's just taken to the next level.

      6 minutes ago @ – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
      I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out

          1. Roger go take a nap; you have had a big day of trolling 3 sites where nobody likes you. You are the very definition of the word TROLL. And yes we all know your not in this to make friends your good at that. You come here to troll atheist, you go to LRC to troll coggy, Story leak to troll WeeTodd. You like calling others troll, but it is you who are the troll. Your last 100 comments -145 points. That kind of shit only happens TROLLS! Even your former Mentor who you worshiped like a god. Looking for sanity thinks you are a troll.

          2. @sbj,

            A big day of trolling?
            He had three big days. A Holiday Weekend. He posted hundreds of posts on LRC, and they all got "mysteriously" deleted.

            Folks do not like him.

            I didn't know that Looking-for-his-sanity gave up on him, but I read the exchange in his archives where CowboyLogic told him off. Somebody posted it on that other kids website that they ruined this spring. That probably put Roger into advanced depression. It was harsh.

          3. I'm sure Roger is embarrassed by the low quality of his enemies …you, sbj.IQ64 are not exactly Comanche warrior Quannah Parker, son of 10 bears…beast on the Plains circa 1860's..
            You are a sad hologram of an enemy…

            None of you fools ever lay a glove on him.. Yet he is always polite and on message…
            You misinformed lightweights, babbling on about shyte they know nothing about, cracks me up..

            No one can destroy a site except lazy administrators that allow rude, off topic comments, actual trolls who abuse the Guest feature, and libtards to spew leftist nonsense…

          4. ………are not exactly Comanche warrior Quannah Parker, son of 10 bears…beast on the Plains circa 1860's..

            Well Warren, allow me to retort!

            You, HPDuuuuh are not exactly CowboyLogic.

          5. Thankfully. He may have been a patriot, but his personality was one I didn't enjoy much.

            I still would have fought proudly beside him in any trench or skirmish.

          6. "No one can destroy a site except lazy administrators that allow rude, off topic comments, actual trolls who abuse the Guest feature, and libtards to spew leftist nonsense…

            You just about covered everything from over at Navy's site.
            You know, you remember. The one you wrecked.

            I was reading the comment stream there earlier today, where you were lamenting that everyone had left, especially the women. Apparently, the word is out, and they caught on to your little misogynist game.

            It looks like nobody is left but the old Dooche, posting his knowledge and wit.


          7. It's nice there…no jackballs mucking up the works…..
            Come on over and post an intelligent comment…right…

          8. That isn't true.

            You just have to be polite and actually discuss and debate.

            I can't see where you have either skill, but thats' my opinion. Evidently it's Navy's too.

          9. You can only post there if you parrot navy's view. It a site of misfits and outcast who can't handle debate

          10. Nope.
            And you just posted a comment that wouldn't have been acceptable on his site, you added nothing, lowered the discussion and blamed everyone else but yourself.

          11. you just posted a comment that wouldn't have been acceptable on his site, you added nothing, lowered the discussion and blamed everyone else but yourself

          12. Well look who it is proudly boasting "I don't allow spin to go unchallenged", and yet you STILL won't admit you made a mistake, you spent easily 100+ comments SPINNING. Even the other commenter who said he thought he heard the same thing you thought you heard has looked at the link I and I think TrustWorthy provided you and has recanted. Care to utter the words now? Here, just repeat them slowly as you type in a response to me:
            "I was wrong, I made a mistake, it was NOT the father of the shooter who was wailing and calling his son a victim, it was the father of the VICTIM".
            OK, you can start typing now.

          13. You've always been a light-weight baby, Wee…always crying about something that makes you uncomfortable, when you are the diaper rash, combined with anal chaffing, of the commenting club..

          14. Boy a hole posse of trolls are going to make up new guest names and start spamming and pulling your comments if you keep that up!

          15. Sad bunch, but most all are AlinskyZero, with guest appearance by the lovely sbj_IQ64…
            Slightly below room temp…

          16. Remember about three years ago Wee made the mistake of admitting he ran multiple profiles? This bunch has the aroma of multiple profiles by the same person.

            If they can't shut me up what happens to them? Do they end like this?

            Mojtaba Ahmadi

          17. No, sorry I don't recall….I try not to encourage his type of verbal nonsense..

          18. Show one comment where I cried. You are just upset I put you in your place.

            Basically you are so beneath me and such a creep you are not even worth replying to anymore

          19. There you go again, the exact kind of comment why you don't post at speak out and navy's site any more.

            Have you ever tried to go 24 hours without personal attacks and insults?

          20. I notice you ignored his insults directed at me and called me out for giving him the same response. That makes you a hypocrite

          21. Nope, it means I've read your comments long enough to know you deserved the insults and your rebuttal needed to be exposed for what it was.

          22. All you and HPD do is insult. It's all you two know how to do and then you both cry when you get it back

          23. Of course it does, until you infected this site we had good discussions and then you called in your posse and both of you have tried to lower the discussion even more

          24. Let's see… uh huh.

            Another comment with nothing but insults.

            You just lowered the discussion yet tried to lay the blame someplace else.

    1. Yeah, unfortunately it sometimes gets that way, especially when you have people who'd rather yell at each other instead of stay on topic and debate the content.

    1. The problem with your insults is that my comments are here so that people can make up their own minds.

      So, do you make much money off that site?

      1. You spread disinformation to get men to talk to you. And they all made up their minds, they don't want you around.

        Instead you could be making money and taking real guys out on dates.

        1. You may like that kind of approach.
          And no, don't expect me to discuss personal issue with the person who discusses sex with my dead eyes.

          1. The two of you sure are working in lock step this morning.

            And the rest of the trolls are back at LRC working overtime. Why are you all so agitated?

          2. Really? I just got on here a few minutes ago and I don't post on LRC because you pull comments

          3. Don't care what you believe. You tell lies all the time and everyone knows it. Why is this any different?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)