College Hoops, Disrespection, and More
https://goatpen.net/forums/
Was the context I used.bluetick wrote:Quite Fucking True.
Except JD is a preacher, so maybe it's Quoted For Truth or something tamer like that.
fyp= fixed your post
where you been, Notorious?
I have, indeed, been impolite in my language choice at times, motherfucker.Professor Tiger wrote:JD may be a preacher, but he's been known to use the f word. Just like IB, the Christian marriage counselor.
Victor Davis Hanson made that point in his article. I linked it to this very site. So.... yeah.Dr. Strangelove wrote:Has it been mentioned yet that tea party champ and colossal imbecile Allen West was kicked out on his rear?
R's don't have a problem with hispanics. R's have a problem with criminals. They don't want criminals (ie: illegal aliens) cutting in line to move to this country. You don't fix that with criminals. They don't get to cut in line because their 3rd world country of origin just happens to be the closest one to the United States.Professor Tiger wrote:P.S. The R's had better fix their problem with Hispanics RIGHT NOW. If Hispanics wind up becoming another automatic 90%+ voting block for the Dem's, like the blacks already are, then the R's might as well disband as a national party.
That is NOT what Republicans were saying.Professor Tiger wrote:Of all the posts I've read since the election, this is the one I agree with the most.The Notorious V.O.L. wrote:I rarely post here, but I want to give my take on this election melodrama and the subsequent gnashing of the teeth of conservatives.
It's really easy to see what happened here: Pro-Lifers get on their soapbox = Pro Choicers go vote Dem.
Conservatives are outright hostile to black and Latinos = People of color go vote Dem.
Conservatives get on their soapbox about gay marriage = the fags go vote Dem.
Conservatives tout their Christian Values = people who are indifferent to religion go vote Dem.
This is the election in a nutshell. IT DOESN'T MATTER that the economy is shitty. People are not going to join forces with a party who is OUTRIGHT HOSTILE towards them. This is basic human nature.
The sad thing is that I know a lot of conservative people; they are the NICEST, most caring, upstanding people on a personal level. But since they are so rabid in their beliefs, it drives other Americans away. And as long as this climate exists, this division is going to continue, no matter who they run as candidates.
Just think about what they are saying when they say, "Let's Take America Back"....
My conclusion from this election is that relentless, vitriolic, white-hot rage against Obama is not a winning campaign strategy. And the rage seems more aimed at Obama the man rather than his policies. The common R argument I heard came across as, "Vote for Romney because Obama is a Moozlum atheist foreign-born communist!" I did not hear much like, "Vote for Romney because he will do these things to improve the lives of average people..."
I opposed Obama on his deficits, the anti-religious freedom aspects of Obamacare, and Benghazi. But I never hated the air he breathes like most conservatives do. I suggest that conservatives learn to present their arguments positively and not as a hostile reaction to somebody else. I especially suggest they articulate conservatism as a solution to average peoples' problems.
Here's an example, for starters: I've read the reactions of conservative punditry today. The consensus seems to be that all Obama voters are looking for "stuff" provided by the government for free. The implication is that all Obama voters are welfare queens being paid not to work. But there are millions and millions of people who are unemployed right now. The vast majority of them are seriously looking for work. The vast majority of them desperately want to work, but until then, must depend on unemployment insurance and food stamps, which probably totals around $1,500 per month. Along come the R''s who tell them they are lazy worthless bums, and if they were worth anything, they'd have a job and wouldn't be leaching off the "productive people." And if the R's had their way, they'd take that $1,500 away, and give it to the "productive people." Now why on earth would people in that harsh situation ever consider voting Republican?
R's do not love rich people. R's love self-reliant people. If you make $32,000/year as a music teacher, and you support 4 children and a stay-at-home-spouse that you've been married to for 14 years who cooks tuna-casarole or hamburger-helper each night in your 50 year old, 1100 square foot, 3-bedroom, 1 bath home, the R's love you. That is real America, self reliance.Professor Tiger wrote:Other people addicted to government "stuff," that the R's proudly disdain, include social security recipients, wounded war veterans, etc. The R's need to shorten their list of people they hate, and lengthen their list of people they love beyond rich people.
I'm writing a book. I don't care if I ever make a penny off of it. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it cost me a little money. I would just like some people to read it. And then tell ten friends. And they read it. And each tells ten other friends. And so on. Then, maybe I can make a difference.10ac wrote:IB, if you just give it up, as I have in both football and politics,and realize that it's over,and that Things are only going to get worse, a huge weight will be lifted off you. I'm no longer tied down on Saturdays and screw the news. I watched exactly 0 election coverage. The dregs have won.
I pray for you.hedge wrote:BTW, I love barbarism, anarchy and atheism and I would love to see you die a slow, painful death. I mean really see it as in watch it while it was happening, while I was shooting up smack and pissing in your mouth...
You know VOL, I don't care that Eva Longoria supported the President. Nobody gave her a hard time for that. But Melissa Joan Hart and Stacey Dash were eviserated on Twitter for supporting Romney. Why? Is that what liberals are supposed to do with people? Does that make you proud?The Notorious V.O.L. wrote:LOL.
I'm out.
Rush Limbaugh wrote:I went to bed last thinking we lost the country.... Conservatism in my humble opinion did not lose last night. It's just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus.
Don't know. Left New York behind in 1989 never to think about again.Big Orange Junky wrote:I knew they had their own rules and started work hour restrictions before it was an ACGME requirement thanks to the Zion (sp) case. I had no idea they went to the 16 hour day so long ago. Was that a state requirement then or was that just a program requirement? If I understand your post correctly it appears it was a state requirement.Owlman wrote:1989 New York State, started June 1989, just after my chief resident year
Do you know if they kept that or did they fall into line and drop the 16 hour shift when the ACGME introduced the official 80 hour week restrictions? I ask because all of the surgery program directors had a cow when the 16 hour rule was introduced and passed and I would have thought they would have expected it if New York state still had that requirement.
Let's see. The former would be closer to Romney (except he really hasn't had a bad life at all), the latter is much closer to Obama."In this book, I will do a good job developing two characters: one who lives a privileged early life and has things pretty easy but (in the end) struggles and loses the last 30 or 40 years of his life simply because he has no ability to cope with even the smallest difficulty. The other character, one who struggles early on and is tested by God the way he tested Job, and through all of that he takes personal responsibility and succeeds inspite of all of the obsticles"