The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Already happening.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think all of us who supported Sam Spade from the leftist assaults have now been vindicated.

His Franken thesis, in case you missed it:

What I learned about Al Franken...
« on: December 25, 2008, 01:31:08 pm »   
 
No reason to make this longer than need be, so I'll start from the top.  I'd prefer not to have to do this, but...

As I've mentioned before, most of my relatives are from the South.  However, I do have an aunt who lives in NYC (Queens exactly).  She's not blood-related, but she married my blood-related uncle who was a bit actor who moved to New York, and who unfortunately passed away a number of years because of a freak accident.  She was actually the more financially successful of the two and has not remarried since his death.

Anyway, she was always my favorite aunt when I was a child because she always sent me the best gifts.  And since I've moved to NYC, I always try to see her every so often, which is often difficult considering her schedule and mine.

One of those times was a couple of weeks before the election this year when I had lunch with her.  Naturally, the conversation turned to politics and Obama-McCain.  Eventually, I mentioned Al Franken and she said "Don't get me started there.  What an outright disgusting sicko perv!"  I asked why...  She said, "Well, I guess you're old enough now to know these types of things..." As follows...

One day, sometime in 1976 or 1977 (she doesn't remember the year), but it was in October, she was riding the subway back into Manhattan in the early evening to finish some stuff at work.  The train was fairly empty.  A guy sat down in the seat next to her and started talking to her.  She responded.  Well, this person was Al Franken.

After a couple of minutes, he started to try and pick her up, using some lines which she told me were "lame".  I should mention that she hadn't met my uncle yet - they didn't meet until 1980 or get married until 1982.  She didn't say whether was actually single at the time.  I didn't ask.  Anyway, she thought he looked like a weirdo, not to mention that his eyes looked a bit glazed over, and she said "No thanks."  He kept pressing and she said no.

I'm not going to go into details as to what happened next after this insistence, but let's say that the groping and grabbing done by Franken done towards certain private regions of my aunt would probably constitute sexual harassment today, if not more.  It didn't constitute much back in those days.  Anyway, as he did this for a few seconds, my aunt pushed him off, said "Get away you f-ing creep," which he did and ran quickly off the next stop.  She never saw him again (well, except on television).
The only person on the forum who I've already told this was MW08, because he asked insistently on the forum, but I know I told him only the essentials (not the back story and a few of the details). 

This is all I'm going to say about it.  And I don't want commentary, so the thread gets locked.

I see no reason to think about supporting a political party who has a creep like this in their midst, and allow him to be anywhere near government.  Also, I feel like getting involved in politics in some way to see if, in some way, I can prevent people like this from getting into positions of power in the future.  That's the reason why this will lead to less time on the forum.  We'll see whether I can sustain either of those things (successfulness on the perv front is probably an illusion), but I certainly feel it to an extent.

Of course, maybe all political parties do have a certain amount of creeps, and that's probably true, but when it affects a close family member, you tend to feel a bit more involved.  I can't help but feeling a good bit angry whenever Al Franken is mentioned now.  Maybe that'll pass, it probably won't.

I believe I've said my piece, however short it may be.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Politics.

Democrats won in 2008 and 2012, and while if only whites voted in 2008 Obama might still have slipped by, it was clear in 2012 that Obama would have suffered a crushing defeat had it not been for minority voters.

So first of all, democrats began to think that white voters didn't matter anymore, and secondly, they began catering to anything and everything that was pro-diversity, pro-minority. Defending Islam blindly, black lives matters, no respect for borders or security or any kind of immigration "reform".

It bit them in the butt, and now they have zero power. They have been bleeding white voters since the 1960s and it is only getting worse.

They realize this, and have begun to resent white voters.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

All evidence is that Trump will take care of the Dreamers.  All of them.  The price for this is a cut in the total level of immigration and an end to chain migration.

I've been hearing about the Poor Dreamers forever now.  I admit that I'm sympathetic to their plight.  Most of them are not illegally here by choice and know nothing but America.  I get that.

So where are the Democrats?  Why are THEY playing chicken with the Dreamers?  Cutting levels of future immigration and ending chain migration does NOTHING to negatively impact folks already here now.  This deal could be done; why not get to it? 

The only reason to reject such a deal is the Democrats' desire to manipulate immigration to make the demography of America more favorable to them.  Let's get real; that's what this battle is about.  That more immigration would mean more Democratic voters isn't a reason to cut immigration levels, but that less immigration means the opposite isn't a reason to increase immigration levels, either. 

I do not believe that high levels of immigration are in the best interests of the American citizenry at this time.  We have large numbers of Americans who are low-skilled and structurally unemployed; they ought to get first crack at unskilled jobs.  It is an issue of taking care of our own.   We don't owe foreigners anything.  We owe our people policies that are in the best interest of America.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Many of Snowy's postings belong in the SS GPG.  Bravo!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Perhaps if we work hard enough at "inclusiveness", we will bleach out of our society all evidence of intimacy and spontainiety.  This article ought to validate all those folks who were criticized for making "too big a thing" of the issue of "political correctness".  This very issue is a caricature of political correctness; liberal elites in education attempting to regulate not just the behavior of children (an OK goal in most cases), but the thoughts and feelings kids have and the process by which they learn intimacy with others.

It would be a great thing if our society progressed to a point where kids friendship circles got to the point where it reflected the "rainbow coalition", with folks having a set of friends across the demographic spectrum.  But FORCING this at the expense of the intimate relationship of a best friend, a child's first intimate experience outside the family unit, taken to its ultimate level, will bring about kids growing up with wider associations, but shallower relationships.  Think about that for a moment and ask yourself if this is going to help kids to grow up to be the kind of marital partners and parents that can be sufficiently intimate with their own kids.

I have been the kid who was not included, or who was a fringe hanger on.  I wasn't real cool growing up.  I had some girlfriends, but I wasn't real popular with girls, and I was real awkward and clumsy around them, putting my foot in my mouth, etc.  But I did have best friends, and this was the saving grace for myself, and for any number of kids in school.  There are kids who have no friends, and that is sad.  But "forced inclusiveness" isn't the real answer to it; it's just an attempt to show that "the school" is "doing something".  

I would also suggest that this is part of a movement to drain society of intimacy by people who are scared of it.  I certainly don't approve of sexual battery or assault, but a certain amount of sexual harrassment, and even a certain amount of domestic violence, is a function of folks trying to be intimate and failing miserably at it.  Yes, people have the right to be safe in their homes and in their persons, period.  But is the solution to these problems to rob society of all intimacy so no one gets hurt?  

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So much for Trump being a "Russian Mole" LOL. If Democrats were smart they'd stop the dumb Russia Conspiracy, because all it's doing is making their party look like sore losers and providing fuel for Neocons in the White House to start a war with Russia (or its allies Syria and Iran).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Until anyone has a good, thoughtful, legitimate ing reason to be against justice for people of colour, fairness for women, acceptance of queerfolk, and kindness to people with different religious beliefs, this whole damn thing is a sick joke. Truly.

I mean, "anti-progressive?" WTF is that? You feel insecure that you're asked to have an iota of consideration for people who are different? You're uncomfortable accepting that some people are born into circumstances that force them to confront bigger barriers than you, just because you're afraid of the possibility that maybe you didn't "earn" everything you have with "hard work" alone?

JFC

Condescending individuals like you, young, inexperienced, and having paid no dues to life, don't get it.  What has been discounted, disrespected, and disregarded is WORK and WORKING Americans.  Folks like you, who haven't worked much, haven't sacrificed for others (I mean REAL sacrifice, not just an afternoon as a counter-demonstrator.), and haven't pulled their weight.

I'll tell you what my morning was like.  After working 40 hours on my regular job that requires a college degree, on which I haven't gotten much in the way of raises over the last decade (except for when I was promoted), I took my 61 year old butt to a local restaurant, where I have a part time job cleaning the place up, and getting it ready for opening, cleaning floors and bathrooms.  As an extra duty, I cleaned nasty, greasy garbage cans and pipes on a hard tile floor despite some aches and pains that are, likely, undiagnosed osteoarthritis.  I do this so my 12 year old son can have some extras (namely,, particiation in speed roller skating).  

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I'll own my mistakes and choices, but if you want to talk about confronting bigger barriers, how about my 12 year old son, who is my adopted step-grandson.  My wife and I adopted him due to the out-of-control substance abuse of my oldest son and his birth mother.  He's been diagnosed with ADHD, and I'm not going to vouch for the pre-natal care he received,  I'm not asking for folks to applaud my wife and myself, but I want you to consider how much difficulty he's had at school, and how much ignorance I've put up with by folks from all sorts of sources who seem to believe that if I only spanked him more, he'd learn and pay attention.  

Now I realize that other folks have endured prejudices and barriers, but I also realize that the rate at which Americans commit crimes is not uniform across all demographics.  Yes the wrongs of discrimination need to end, but the disadvantages of many who claim "discrimination" are, in fact, the disadvantages that come from poor life choices, including the decision to commit crimes.  I'm not for discrimination (especially discrimination in employment) and while I don't sign off on sexual sin, I'm not for Scarlet Letters or Government Jackboots kicking down doors for activities between consenting adults.  But you'll forgive me if I express the concept that the FIRST consideration of any government ought to be the concerns of the folks who do the work of society and pay the taxes.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Obama years were not some sort of American Nightmare.  I voted for Obama in 2012 and I generally thought he was OK as President.  But the Obama years were years where those who didn't pay taxes, broke laws, and did little to contribute to the work of society had their grievances given top priority.  Rioters were referred to as demonstrators, illegal immigrants were presented at a political convention as "countrymen" and folks who actively resisted lawful arrests were made martyrs, while folks who cheered this on viewed coal miners as the real enemy, for their "attack" on "the environment" and cheered the loss of mining jobs.  And, yes, the media and many institutions overrun by liberal bias have more sympathy for select groups of "victims" than for folks who have followed the rules and find themselves out of jobs.  There was an "Enough is enough!" consensus on the issue of penalizing folks who took responsibility for their own lives and followed the rules and laws of society.

Decades of working, of supporting a family, of taking responsibility for both my life and the lives of my wife and children (especially minor children) has given me a worldview that only doing that can bring.  When you're adult enough to take on such responsibilities, and demonstrate enough grit to persevere in fulfilling them when the going gets tough, you'll have something with depth and weight to say.  Right now, you're merely pompous and inexperienced, and probably not up to what millions of folks do every day.  In my youth, I was a snotty know-it-all like you are now.  I now understand why folks blew me off.  Perhaps the maturing process will afford you the same experience.

And, perhaps, this is silly of me.  But your signature of Hillary and her mother (I think that's her.) laughing on a park bench.  It's easy for me to visualize her either laughing at the plight of ordinary, hardworking, culturally conservative law-abiding Americans when she's not lecturing them as Deplorable.  People like me OUGHT to be voting Democratic.  It's the attitudes of Democrats toward people such as myself that make it tough.  Trump, with all his imperfections, is willing to give at least lip service to honoring those who work and play by rules, as opposed to those who don't.  Yes, I get it' they're not actually doing that in the photo, but the imagery is easy to conjure up, and Hillary brought that on herself.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is why celibate clergy is a bad idea - they are so out of touch. (except, perhaps, with young boys) Everyone knows married couples don't have sex, and remarried couples are no different.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You know, this applies in many scenarios, but in this scenario especially: there were very clear signs that this guy had issues. He posted on social media his desire to harm people. He was expelled from the school for disciplinary issues. Those who knew him spoke of him as a loner, and a weird kid. Focusing on guns takes away from the real issue that we had something very preventable if others had actually stepped in to help this guy, be it teachers, parents/guardians, friends, etc. We should be focusing on who is failing these people, and how. The gun clearly isn't the problem.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Every freedom comes with a cost. Allowing people to drink will lead to more alcoholism and alcohol-related deaths. Allowing people to drive will lead to more fatal car accidents. Allowing people to have guns will lead to more gun deaths. This is just a fact. The question is, what is your appetite for bearing the cost of freedom?

Deep down, most people don't really care about "regular" gun murders or suicides, they only care about mass shootings, especially school shootings, because of how emotionally traumatic and public those events are. Now, no politician would openly admit that people are generally so cold and aloof that they only care about murders in their country if they can see them, but I will say it like I see it.

Solving the "problem" of gun violence is irrelevant, because it is invisible to the vast majority of people. So I'm convinced that the best solution, cynical as it may be, is to mitigate against mass shootings through legislating access control, better-designed public buildings and spaces, more robust background checks (including enforcing laws on the books), etc. and gun control will die as an issue.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I refuse to call the officer names or blame him. I do, however, think it is an excellent example of why a "good guy with a gun" is not the answer. The shooter went to this school. He knew where the officers were. He would know where armed teachers were, too, and would get the jump on them.

No excuses, he deserves plenty of the burden here...he isn't simply a "good guy with a gun" he's a trained officer. If he's folding under the pressure of kids being slaughtered he should have never signed up for the job, this is honestly criminal negligence.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Pittsburgh is probably the most beautiful city I've ever been to in this country, so Pennsylvania is the obvious choice.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I basically agree with the thrust of this thread. Everyone here has had their whole lives to be acquainted with the doctrine of justification by faith alone; this is in no way novel or unusual. One can debate the merits of the notion that all who do not accept Jesus as God are damned (and in fact we have a board for discussion of such issues), but it often we see that rather than engaging with a poster's points, another poster accuses them for being a bad person for holding that belief. That doesn't contribute to meaningful discussion in any way, and it makes this forum a less interesting place to post and read.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

i am a starving child in africa and this is the last post i saw before succumbing to the sweet embrace of death. goodbye