Florida Bill Would Allow Students To Sue Teachers

[Gert T 0]

I tried switching to a history/education major. It was EVEN WORSE, especially even in the realm of education.

I was wondering what you meant by this specifically, since I am back getting my Master's degree in Education (my BS was not in Education)

 

Thanks.

[Vyce 0]

I was a Republican until about 1998, by the way

This explains a few things about you.

[Guest BDC]

I tried switching to a history/education major.  It was EVEN WORSE, especially even in the realm of education. 

I was wondering what you meant by this specifically, since I am back getting my Master's degree in Education (my BS was not in Education)

 

Thanks.

It was an undergraduate degree in education with history added in to really give you 2 majors, not just one. Basically, you were certified, when you were done, as a history teacher and only a history teacher.

 

The education department was hopelessly inept though. By inept, I mean I had one professor LOSE MY ENROLLEMENT IN HIS CLASS.

[EricMM 0]

My god, Mike, could you please learn to abridge your tripe? I mean, you are seriously clogging up these threads. I always START off reading everything everyone posts, but eventually I just have to stop reading your threads, and the peoples' who are responding to you for two main reasons:

 

One, your points are all incredibly stupid

 

Two, you are terribly long winded and quote like a demon. I seriously won't skip anything if you would just consolidate everything into paragraphs, preferably not LBL, And don't repost to everyone's posts!

 

I don't see what all the hubbub is about African American Studies, Womens Studies, Asian American Studies, Arab American studies (?) and the like. As previously stated, they're similar to White American studies, with a focus on various minorities. They all demand the same level of coursework, on various topics. Succeeding in them proves that you have the ability to write good papers and pass tests.

 

I'm going to let the Environmentalism issue pass because I severely doubt that you've taken *any* environmentalism classes in your day.

 

I'm sorry your friend got blasted by the professor, anyone accused of plagerism SHOULD go to a board and get a hearing. If he was innocent he should have been found innocent. What can I say, to implicate that one event has anything having to do with a trend is just silly. Similarly all your ranting and raving about Ultra Liberal professors and their pervasiveness doesn't really hold water. For every example you have, I have another, at least when it comes to personal ones. And I'm sure you could find a hundred, two hundred cruddy crazy leftist Professors. That doesn't mean that the thousands and thousands left over aren't fair and reasonable.

 

In regards to, "Why are more professors liberal?" I think it comes down to Liberals traditionally being more "free spirited" or perhaps, Conservatives being more "Business oriented." A lot of liberals totally fear working in an office, or being part of any large company. Where some conservatives see progression and opportunity to grow, soem liberals would just see a boring future. I know I do. And one avenue away from the business world is the college campus. Always working with what you loved to learn about and argue about, be it Asian American studies or American history since 1945. I've just always gotten the impression that liberals are more "hippy-ish" than conservatives. GUESS WHAT? Teaching Liberal Arts is a pretty "hippy-ish" thing to do. I'll bet you'd find more liberals applying for those jobs than conservatives.

 

I would LOVE to mail you a copy of some of my Enviro texts, mike. You might be suprised about how much of it is pure science, and how much of it is theoretical ideas. Please, let me know if you've seen one.

[The Czech Republic 0]

How about illegitimacy? Well, in 1960, the illegitimact rate amongst whites was 2% and amongst blacks, it was 23%. In 1999? The white rate was 27% and the black rate was almost 70%. I'm sure the DESIRE for whites and blacks to suddenly start fucking like minks started in the 1960's. I'm sure it's PURE coincidence that the rate skyrocketed JUST as welfare was being elevated.

Okay I know this is off topic, but that's a really big problem to me. Those numbers are way too big. Maybe I've just been indoctrinated too much by my very traditionalist grandmother, but that's just wrong. All children deserve to have a strong family structure to grow up in, and though I'm not by any means saying this is true across the board, but the lack of a father figure doesn't seem to do much good in the lives of kids.

 

I will say, she heard that "Baby Mama" song and was thoroughly baffled.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I was a Republican until about 1998, by the way

This explains a few things about you.

Well gosh, now I'm just darn curious to know what that meant.

[EricMM 0]

There are other things that happened since the 60's that may have caused the explosion of illegitamacy, Mike.

 

I don't ahve the answer. I don't know. But not everything is economics. There's cultural things as well.

 

Hundreds of signifigant things happened since then. I'm not saying, per se, that you're wrong (THIS TIME) but you haven't proven you're right.

 

From what I know, most kids raised out of wedlock have to do with deadbeat/arrested/dead father figures. That and total idiocy regarding birth control from both sides male and female.

 

That has nothing to do with welfare.

[SuperJerk 0]

It could also be the increased social acceptability of sexual promiscuity.

 

Again, nothing to do with welfare.

 

Now, let me share another interesting piece of reasoning that'll surely blow everyone's minds:

Remember that poverty graph I linked to earlier?  Well, it does happen to show something which I doubt many are willing to admit: Poverty rates follow the business cycle.  Therefore, welfare has probably had no real impact on them whatsoever.

Except the poverty rate post-welfare reform during the most recent recession was STILL lower than the poverty rate on welfare reform at any point since the late 1970's. It was a solid 2-3% lower than it was during the last recession WITH welfare as the old system.

 

Nice try.

 

Welfare made poverty worse. Your graph, like it or not, PROVES my point. The most recent recession's poverty rate was significantly lower than the PREVIOUS two recessions (1980-2 and 1991). And that is WITHOUT welfare.

 

What you're also failing to consider is that not all recessions equal in severity, and thus would have differing effects on the exact numbers of the poverty rate.

 

Welfare reform CAN NOT be the cause of the decreased poverty rate in the 1990s because poverty rates started going down in the 1990s BEFORE welfare reform was passed in 1996.

 

How can one thing cause something that happened before it, Mike? I'd really like to know.

 

Look again if you don't believe me: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

I don't know if you noticed this or not, but according to that chart POVERTY IS ON THE RISE AGAIN (starting in 2000). Those years correspond almost EXACTLY with changes in the business cycle.

 

Seriously, recessions increase the poverty rate, and prosperity decreases the poverty rate. Duh.

 

I was a Republican until about 1998, by the way

This explains a few things about you.

Well gosh, now I'm just darn curious to know what that meant.

 

You're not the only one...

Edited March 28, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest MikeSC]

It could also be the increased social acceptability of sexual promiscuity.

 

Again, nothing to do with welfare.

 

Now, let me share another interesting piece of reasoning that'll surely blow everyone's minds:

Remember that poverty graph I linked to earlier?  Well, it does happen to show something which I doubt many are willing to admit: Poverty rates follow the business cycle.  Therefore, welfare has probably had no real impact on them whatsoever.

Except the poverty rate post-welfare reform during the most recent recession was STILL lower than the poverty rate on welfare reform at any point since the late 1970's. It was a solid 2-3% lower than it was during the last recession WITH welfare as the old system.

 

Nice try.

 

Welfare made poverty worse. Your graph, like it or not, PROVES my point. The most recent recession's poverty rate was significantly lower than the PREVIOUS two recessions (1980-2 and 1991). And that is WITHOUT welfare.

 

What you're also failing to consider is that not all recessions equal in severity, and thus would have differing effects on the exact numbers of the poverty rate.

 

Welfare reform CAN NOT be the cause of the decreased poverty rate in the 1990s because poverty rates started going down in the 1990s BEFORE welfare reform was passed in 1996.

 

How can one thing cause something that happened before it, Mike? I'd really like to know.

 

Look again if you don't believe me: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

I don't know if you noticed this or not, but according to that chart POVERTY IS ON THE RISE AGAIN (starting in 2000). Those years correspond almost EXACTLY with changes in the business cycle.

 

Seriously, recessions increase the poverty rate, and prosperity decreases the poverty rate. Duh.

It dropped PRECIPITOUSLY after welfare reform was passed (which, again, using the logic that "welfare helped alleviate poverty" should be an impossibility).

 

And, with the uptick, it's STILL below where it was before reform.

 

Ironic, since welfare "alleviated" the problem and all.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Seriously, recessions increase the poverty rate, and prosperity decreases the poverty rate.  Duh.

It dropped PRECIPITOUSLY after welfare reform was passed (which, again, using the logic that "welfare helped alleviate poverty" should be an impossibility).

You're so full of crap. All you have to do to disprove that bullshit excuse of yours is to look at the chart. It was already dropping just as PRECIPITOUSLY before welfare reform was passed. During the 1990s, the slope of decline is never more steep than it was from 1993-1995, which was BEFORE welfare reform in 1996.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

And, with the uptick, it's STILL below where it was before reform.

 

As of 2003, it was still increasing. Who knows how high it will ultimately get before decreasing again?

 

Ironic, since welfare "alleviated" the problem and all.

 

My argument was that the business cycle alleviates and increases poverty, not welfare.

 

 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET OR DO I NEED TO START EXPLAINING WITH CRAYONS?????

 

 

Is green an easy color for you to understand?

 

Business cycles are alternating periods of expansion and contraction in economic activity. Business cycles are divisible by four subperiods: (1) peak or boom, (2) a recession or contraction, (3) a depression of trough, and (4) a recovery or expansion. Recent recessions have included periods during the late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s. Unemployment, a term used to describe a lack of jobs, rises when national output declines. Unemployment causes a decrease in income for people who are unemployed, leading to increased instances of poverty. It also creates demand for government services such as welfare. Therefore, you can see a direct correlation between periods of recession and period of increased numbers of people on welfare. For example, the periods of time I previously mentioned as being times of recession (the very late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s) are also marked by increased numbers of people in conditions of poverty. You can see this by directly comparing periods of recession with increases in poverty over the last 40 years by using the chart I provided, which has the periods of recession marked in dark blue. Let me also demonstrate the correlation between the business cycle and poverty rates by looking at the opposite: periods of economic expansion and lowered poverty. Times of economic expansion in the last 40 years have also closely reflected decreases in poverty rates. The mid to late 1960s, the early 1970s, mid to late 1980s, and the mid to late 1990s are marked by both economic expansion and lower poverty rates. I believe these two separate sets of statistical information behave to similarly to not be closely related. When you take into consideration that the effects of a declining economy (decrease in the number of good paying jobs) are also the reasons why people could be poor, the two phenomena appear to be not just related, but a direct result of cause and effect.

 

I have other colors if you still don't get it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Seriously, recessions increase the poverty rate, and prosperity decreases the poverty rate.  Duh.

It dropped PRECIPITOUSLY after welfare reform was passed (which, again, using the logic that "welfare helped alleviate poverty" should be an impossibility).

You're so full of crap. All you have to do to disprove that bullshit excuse of yours is to look at the chart. It was already dropping just as PRECIPITOUSLY before welfare reform was passed. During the 1990s, the slope of decline is never more steep than it was from 1993-1995, which was BEFORE welfare reform in 1996.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

 

And you are ignoring that IF WELFARE WAS ALLEVIATING POVERTY, A DECREASE --- INCLUDING A PRECIPITOUS ONE, WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.

 

If something is preventing something from becoming a problem --- then removing it should, LOGICALLY, make it a bigger problem.

 

It is illogical, exceptionlly so, that a virtual removal of it should cause a big increase in poverty --- not a dramatic REDUCTION of it.

 

Is it REALLY a hard line to follow?

And, with the uptick, it's STILL below where it was before reform.

As of 2003, it was still increasing. Who knows how high it will ultimately get before decreasing again?

Considering we're in the midst of a recovery --- it will not be hitting the levels PRE-reform.

 

Which STILL shows how utterly useless welfare was and how much it damage it caused to the economy.

Ironic, since welfare "alleviated" the problem and all.

My argument was that the business cycle alleviates and increases poverty, not welfare.

 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET OR DO I NEED TO START EXPLAINING WITH CRAYONS?????

You're the tard arguing that welfare alleviated poverty, ignoring that removing it BROUGHT ABOUT A DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN THE POVERTY RATE.

 

You are such a moron.

 

I'd say it feels good --- but it's pretty obvious to anybody that you are clueless.

Business cycles are alternating periods of expansion and contraction in economic activity.  Business cycles are divisible by four subperiods: (1) peak or boom, (2) a recession or contraction, (3) a depression of trough, and (4) a recovery or expansion.  Recent recessions have included periods during the late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s.  Unemployment, a term used to describe a lack of jobs, rises when national output declines.  Unemployment causes a decrease in income for people who are unemployed, leading to increased instances of poverty.  It also creates demand for government services such as welfare.  Therefore, you can see a direct correlation between periods of recession and period of increased numbers of people on welfare.  For example, the periods of time I previously mentioned as being times of recession (the very late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s) are also marked by increased numbers of people in conditions of poverty.  You can see this by directly comparing periods of recession with increases in poverty over the last 40 years by using the chart I provided, which has the periods of recession marked in dark blue.  Let me also demonstrate the correlation between the business cycle and poverty rates by looking at the opposite: periods of economic expansion and lowered poverty.  Times of economic expansion in the last 40 years have also closely reflected decreases in poverty rates.  The mid to late 1960s, the early 1970s, mid to late 1980s, and the mid to late 1990s are marked by both economic expansion and lower poverty rates.  I believe these two separate sets of statistical information behave to similarly to not be closely related.  When you take into consideration that the effects of a declining economy (decrease in the number of good paying jobs) are also the reasons why people could be poor, the two phenomena appear to be not just related, but a direct result of cause and effect.

 

I have other colors if you still don't get it.

Since apparently WORDS don't really convey meaning to you, would you please be willing to explain what level of communication you DO comprehend? I don't dance well, but I'd be willing to try interpretive dance if it could spark SOME semblance of a clue in that gaping chasm between your ears.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

God damn it, you're a broken goddamn record with that fucking "welfare increased poverty" broken record bullshit. How many times do I have to disprove you before you shut the fuck up?

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

FACT: Poverty rates are lower than they were before welfare was instituted.

FACT: Poverty rates go up before and during recessions.

FACT: Poverty was on the decline before welfare reform was implemented.

FACT: Poverty has increased steadily since the last recession started.

 

The facts clearly contradict you, Mike.

 

Business cycles are alternating periods of expansion and contraction in economic activity.  Business cycles are divisible by four subperiods: (1) peak or boom, (2) a recession or contraction, (3) a depression of trough, and (4) a recovery or expansion.  Recent recessions have included periods during the late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s.  Unemployment, a term used to describe a lack of jobs, rises when national output declines.  Unemployment causes a decrease in income for people who are unemployed, leading to increased instances of poverty.  It also creates demand for government services such as welfare.  Therefore, you can see a direct correlation between periods of recession and period of increased numbers of people on welfare.  For example, the periods of time I previously mentioned as being times of recession (the very late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s) are also marked by increased numbers of people in conditions of poverty.  You can see this by directly comparing periods of recession with increases in poverty over the last 40 years by using the chart I provided, which has the periods of recession marked in dark blue.  Let me also demonstrate the correlation between the business cycle and poverty rates by looking at the opposite: periods of economic expansion and lowered poverty.  Times of economic expansion in the last 40 years have also closely reflected decreases in poverty rates.  The mid to late 1960s, the early 1970s, mid to late 1980s, and the mid to late 1990s are marked by both economic expansion and lower poverty rates.  I believe these two separate sets of statistical information behave to similarly to not be closely related.  When you take into consideration that the effects of a declining economy (decrease in the number of good paying jobs) are also the reasons why people could be poor, the two phenomena appear to be not just related, but a direct result of cause and effect.

 

I have other colors if you still don't get it.

Since apparently WORDS don't really convey meaning to you, would you please be willing to explain what level of communication you DO comprehend? I don't dance well, but I'd be willing to try interpretive dance if it could spark SOME semblance of a clue in that gaping chasm between your ears.

-=Mike

I like the way you quote my explanation in your rebuttal, then proceed to ignore everything I said because it apparently went over your head.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

God damn it, you're a broken goddamn record with that fucking "welfare increased poverty" broken record bullshit.

This line made me laugh -- that is all...

[Guest MikeSC]

God damn it, you're a broken goddamn record with that fucking "welfare increased poverty" broken  record bullshit.    How many times do I have to disprove you before you shut the fuck up? 

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

FACT: Poverty rates are lower than they were before welfare was instituted.

FACT: Poverty rates go up before and during recessions.

FACT: Poverty was on the decline before welfare reform was implemented.

FACT: Poverty has increased steadily since the last recession started.

 

The facts clearly contradict you, Mike. 

 

Business cycles are alternating periods of expansion and contraction in economic activity.  Business cycles are divisible by four subperiods: (1) peak or boom, (2) a recession or contraction, (3) a depression of trough, and (4) a recovery or expansion.  Recent recessions have included periods during the late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s.  Unemployment, a term used to describe a lack of jobs, rises when national output declines.  Unemployment causes a decrease in income for people who are unemployed, leading to increased instances of poverty.  It also creates demand for government services such as welfare.  Therefore, you can see a direct correlation between periods of recession and period of increased numbers of people on welfare.  For example, the periods of time I previously mentioned as being times of recession (the very late 1960s, the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and the early 2000s) are also marked by increased numbers of people in conditions of poverty.  You can see this by directly comparing periods of recession with increases in poverty over the last 40 years by using the chart I provided, which has the periods of recession marked in dark blue.  Let me also demonstrate the correlation between the business cycle and poverty rates by looking at the opposite: periods of economic expansion and lowered poverty.  Times of economic expansion in the last 40 years have also closely reflected decreases in poverty rates.  The mid to late 1960s, the early 1970s, mid to late 1980s, and the mid to late 1990s are marked by both economic expansion and lower poverty rates.  I believe these two separate sets of statistical information behave to similarly to not be closely related.  When you take into consideration that the effects of a declining economy (decrease in the number of good paying jobs) are also the reasons why people could be poor, the two phenomena appear to be not just related, but a direct result of cause and effect.

 

I have other colors if you still don't get it.

Since apparently WORDS don't really convey meaning to you, would you please be willing to explain what level of communication you DO comprehend? I don't dance well, but I'd be willing to try interpretive dance if it could spark SOME semblance of a clue in that gaping chasm between your ears.

-=Mike

I like the way you quote my explanation in your rebuttal, then proceed to ignore everything I said because it apparently went over your head.

No --- REMOVING WELFARE REDUCED POVERTY. Your stats show that.

 

WHICH MEANS WELFARE WAS KEEPING IT ARTIFICIALLY HIGH. If welfare was alleviating the problem, removing it WOULD HAVE CAUSED POVERTY TO INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY.

 

You might want to lay some new tracks, because your train of logic derailed long, long ago.

 

I will go to the Carolina campus later and ask the experts at the school of education for the best way to explain basic logic to the mentally deficient in hopes of explaining this to you. I can't quite express myself in monosyllabic words for you to follow.

-=Mike

[Boon 0]

God damn it, you're a broken goddamn record with that fucking "welfare increased poverty" broken  record bullshit.

This line made me laugh -- that is all...

Yeah, this fucking funny line made me fucking laugh because it was fucking funny and I laughed, too.. fucking funny.

[EricMM 0]

I will go to the Carolina campus later

 

I doubt that. Don't you know if you go to a college campus you'll set off their "pigfucker" alarms, and a bunch of commie liberal hippies will come and lynch you?

 

They have those alarms now, you know. Oh, wait, you wouldn't.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The commie liberal hippies won't do a thing -- they'll hire their jack-booted union thugs to do the dirty work -- for a living wage, of course...

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Actually, if I could sue my Geometry teacher for wasting my time during my Sophomore year, would be a situation that I could buy. Man, talk about a frustrating experience, where my teacher did not care about his students. Geometry was a pain for me and I had many questions, which if you dared to ask him, he would give you this annoyed look and just sit there. This was my worse teacher ever and I was pissed when I learned he retired. He was the poster boy for what is wrong with teachers. Also, my English teacher during the same year was a heavy smoker. Now I don't get this, but sometimes older people who smoke cigs decide that brushing their teeth and using mints does not apply to them. So all this nasty, smelly residue begins to accumalate. Well her breathe was hideous. So bad that it made the classroom smell. I want to sue her for making my learning environment unbearable. Worse, she also tended to talk to me, so I got a upclose whiff of her breathe. Man Sophomore year sucked.

 

And KKK get it right, Hippies never do anything. They just talk about how much they hate life, but never do anything about it, usually do to being stoned or realizing that the Greatful Dead concert either began ten minutes ago, or ended and the still are enjoying the show.

 

Man how did this thread turn into a poverty line discussion anyways? But, since that is where the thread is. Welfare should only be used in the case where a family needs financial assistance to help the bread winners get on their feet. It should not be meant as a means of supporting someone financially without earning the money, by working. I just feel that there are many benefits that one gets from earning a paycheck and that should be everyone's goal, well except for that homeless guy whose fly is down, soaked in urine, and keeps talking to his imaginary friend. So if a welfare recipient is making an effort to find work, then I am ok with welfare being paid to help him during the meantime. When many years have passed and the same individual still gets welfare, then welfare is not serving its purpose. So welfare used as a short term finacial help is acceptable, to me. Long term welfare used to support those who don't work, usually voluntarily, is not so good.

[Guest MikeSC]

I will go to the Carolina campus later

 

I doubt that. Don't you know if you go to a college campus you'll set off their "pigfucker" alarms, and a bunch of commie liberal hippies will come and lynch you?

 

They have those alarms now, you know. Oh, wait, you wouldn't.

Sounds like you have some personal experience with "pigfucker" alarms.

 

Well, we know you love nature --- I just never assumed you'd love it this much.

 

Keep your perversions to yourself and return to trying to convince special ed students thaty environmentalism is a science or something.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Actually, if I could sue my Geometry teacher for wasting my time during my Sophomore year, would be a situation that I could buy.

Ha. I had a chinese stat teacher when I was in college. He'd come in and say "Who has quession?" Nobody would ask and then he'd get mad and say, "You have to ass quession." When someone would ask a "quession," he'd get mad and say the answer was in the textbook. That was the only D I got while in college. At least I have the memories...

[Guest MikeSC]

I had a bio instructor who barely spoke English.

 

The entire class failed his section. Some impressively so.

 

The professor (and don't even get me started on how absurd it is to pay full price for a course that is taught by a grad student and not the professor listed) had to give us all passing marks due to his inability to communicate with us. He was forbidden from being an instructor any further.

 

Shame, because he was a really nice guy.

 

Just couldn't speak English.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

REMOVING WELFARE REDUCED POVERTY. Your stats show that.

 

I've decided you're either deeply deluded, or just blind.

 

Here is it AGAIN.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

FACT: Poverty rates are now lower than they were before welfare was instituted.

FACT: Poverty rates go up before and during recessions.

FACT: Poverty was on the decline before welfare reform was ever implemented.

FACT: Poverty has increased steadily since the last recession started.

 

These facts clearly show that welfare does not increase poverty, nor do they support your theory that removing welfare (which never even HAPPENED, by the way) reduced poverty.

 

 

Now, let me illustrate my point witgh another exciting episode of...

 

ROBOTJERK THEATER

 

Tonight's Episode: MikeSC Tries to Get Laid

 

Mike: Well, Dave, are we going to have sex or not?

 

Dave: I'll have sex with you, Mike, but no anal.

 

Mike: How can we have sex unless I stick my dick in you?

 

Dave: Well, I'll let you put it in my mouth. We can have oral sex.

 

Mike: I wanted to have sex!

 

Dave: Mike, I'm offering to blow you! Isn't that technically sex?

 

Mike: No, you retard! I asked if we could have sex, and you said no!

 

Dave: I only said no to anal, not oral.

 

Mike: Anal sex is sex, and if you said no to anal sex, then you're saying no to sex!

 

Dave: Mike, let me explain again. I wanted to have oral sex, not anal sex.

 

Mike: I knew it! You had no intention of ever having sex with me!

 

Dave: Huh?

 

Mike: You fucking hypocrite! You're trying to say that oral sex is sex, but when Bill Clinton said oral sex wasn't sex, you defended him!

 

Dave: I never said that...

 

Mike: You support Bill Clinton, therefore, you must have anal sex with me!

 

Dave: Your utter stupidity is turning me straight...

 

THE END.

[Guest MikeSC]

REMOVING WELFARE REDUCED POVERTY. Your stats show that.

 

I've decided you're either deeply deluded, or just blind.

 

Here is it AGAIN.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

FACT: Poverty rates are now lower than they were before welfare was instituted.

FACT: Poverty rates go up before and during recessions.

FACT: Poverty was on the decline before welfare reform was ever implemented.

FACT: Poverty has increased steadily since the last recession started.

 

These facts clearly show that welfare does not increase poverty, nor do they support your theory that removing welfare (which never even HAPPENED, by the way) reduced poverty.

 

 

Now, let me illustrate my point witgh another exciting episode of...

 

ROBOTJERK THEATER

 

Tonight's Episode: MikeSC Tries to Get Laid

 

Mike: Well, Dave, are we going to have sex or not?

 

Dave: I'll have sex with you, Mike, but no anal.

 

Mike: How can we have sex unless I stick my dick in you?

 

Dave: Well, I'll let you put it in my mouth. We can have oral sex.

 

Mike: I wanted to have sex!

 

Dave: Mike, I'm offering to blow you! Isn't that technically sex?

 

Mike: No, you retard! I asked if we could have sex, and you said no!

 

Dave: I only said no to anal, not oral.

 

Mike: Anal sex is sex, and if you said no to anal sex, then you're saying no to sex!

 

Dave: Mike, let me explain again. I wanted to have oral sex, not anal sex.

 

Mike: I knew it! You had no intention of ever having sex with me!

 

Dave: Huh?

 

Mike: You fucking hypocrite! You're trying to say that oral sex is sex, but when Bill Clinton said oral sex wasn't sex, you defended him!

 

Dave: I never said that...

 

Mike: You support Bill Clinton, therefore, you must have anal sex with me!

 

Dave: Your utter stupidity is turning me straight...

 

THE END.

You forgot the whole "If welfare alleviated poverty, removing it would INCREASE poverty" thing.

 

You see, in my car, GASOLINE is used to power the engine. It ALLEVIATES the car from sitting in one place and not moving.

 

With gasoline in my car, it moves forward.

 

If I REMOVE the GASOLINE, the engine DOES NOT CONTINUE TO MOVE THE CAR FORWARD AT 70 MPH. It tends to, you know, STOP.

 

Really. is this THAT hard to comprehend?

 

And, again, I do not care what man you wish to insert yourself into -- but do not put your issues upon others.

[The Czech Republic 0]

RobotJerk had done a pretty good job dismantling MikeSC until he wrote a gay sex skit that makes a Banders Kennany post seem clever and witty. Way to go, you forfeited your credibility

[SuperJerk 0]

RobotJerk had done a pretty good job dismantling MikeSC until he wrote a gay sex skit that makes a Banders Kennany post seem clever and witty. Way to go, you forfeited your credibility

Aw, you're just pissed you didn't think of it first.

[The Czech Republic 0]

No, that was some pretty bad shit.

[SuperJerk 0]

Was it not realistic enough for you?

[bob_barron 0]

No- it was just brutally unfunny and totally killed any points you were trying to make

[SuperJerk 0]

I guess I'd better say goodbye to my dream of writing humorous gay porn.

[tommytomlin 0]

I liked it because he said sex lots.