http://www.statenews.com Recently added or updated comments at http://www.statenews.com en-us Foundry4 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:10:09 -0400 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:44:10 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21276/view gfys=go fuck yourself. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:44:10 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21276/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21275/view First, although the author unfortunately composed the bit about ‘irresponsible sexual behavior’ in a semi-convoluted manner, his point was not lost. The punishment about which he describes is directed towards the irresponsible individual who had sex, became pregnant, and now wants to abort the fetus. That is, he is saying that, as punishment for ‘irresponsible sexual behavior,’ the pregnant woman must now bear the child. He is not referring to the rape victim or the fetus when he uses ‘irresponsible sexual behavior;’ he is referring to the now-pregnant woman who became pregnant after engaging in ‘irresponsible sexual behavior.’ Second, if a fetus is a human person, and, as a result, has similar rights to, for example, a toddler, then when a pregnant mother is murdered, is the crime a double-homicide? If the pregnant mother is hit by a car and killed, is it two counts of manslaughter? When completing a tax form, does a pregnant woman claim the fetus as a dependent? If, by law, answers to all three examples are yes, then a fetus should be considered a human person, with respect to the argument about abortion. If, however, any one of the aforementioned instances yield a ‘no’ response, then it would appear inconsistent to consider a fetus to be a human person when arguing about the legality of abortion. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:31:43 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21275/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21274/view idiot…that’s why we have gas and environment issues because of ignorant idiots like you. let me guess…you drive a hummer? damn republican. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:00:21 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21274/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21273/view Yes, weak-minded lame American. Your grandfather should have surrendered to us after Dec. 7, 1941. So stupid. We would have treated your family like those in Nanking. Yes, weak-minded lame American. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:47:04 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21273/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21272/view So much for local democracy; this is an issue for the people of the Detroit, not the governor. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:59:43 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21272/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21271/view How can we encourage our fellow Americans to join the military when what the military stands for is in direct opposition to what the majority of the country feels is in the country’s — and the soldier’s — best interests? How? Offering scholarships and grants to people who would not be able afford college otherwise. Large signing bonuses for those that don’t have much going for them. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:57:36 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21271/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21270/view A lot of people won’t like what I have to say, but I think it’s a pretty decent idea. First we have to look at Europe and try to understand why drinking there isn’t such a big deal. First, people in London drink like its water, but they have the public transportation to get them home at night. Although the tube closes at 12 or 1am, if people are still out, they are smart enough to call a cab instead of driving home. In the US, unless we are in a big city, we just don’t have the transportation that Europe offers. So, my idea (like it or not) would be to lower the drinking age to 12 or 14, or get rid of it all together, but raise the driving and buying age to 18. This way, parents can teach their kids about responsable drinking without it being a social stigma. Kids will also not have to “hide” their drinking from their parents, either, creating (maybe?) a better relationship with their parents because their parents won’t “have” to get mad at them for doing something illegal. It will also (hopefully) reduce the number of drinking related accidents because these people are supposed to be taught responsibility with their drinking, so they will learn to call a cab or not drink excessively. Now, if the government did this right now, we would have to WAIT more than four years before changing the age again because the first generation will always have issues with this new “wonderful” responsibility. And of course, there will always be good things about this and bad things, but its up to the individual to make the right decisions about what they are doing to themselves and the consequences it has for others. But again, this is just my opinion. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:31:12 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21270/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21269/view “Twenty-one isn’t working,” said Grace Kronenberg, assistant to the director of Choose Responsibility, which advocates lowering the drinking age. “It contributes to a culture of secretive binge drinking. It’s pretty clear that this law isn’t doing what it’s aimed to do.” HAHAHA! Congratulations, you get my vote for the most epically stupid comment ever made on the SN website – which is saying a lot given the summer editorials. Are you suggesting you’d rather have non-secretive binge drinking? And the law is aimed at keeping immature freshman from accessing alcohol easily. How are you making the wild claim that the law isn’t doing this? Show me a statistic that says the percentage of drinkers under 21 is greater than the percentage NOT drinking, and you’d have me interested. But never mind. We should throw away reams of data on public policy and educators and counselors and cave in to students who are more interested in getting wasted than in getting an education. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:19:52 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21269/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21268/view sense of entitlement not since. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:18:16 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21268/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21267/view I will withdrawl my yer stoopid comment Joe. But I will strongly disagree with your statement “However, making college free for all Americans would not create an “arrogance of entitlement.”” Every handout adds up to a since of entitlement, in my ever humble opinion. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:16:43 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21267/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21266/view So when I was there the age was 18. We had kegs in the showers , in the study rooms and of course in the fridge. The problem was that we all binge drank despite all this and several kids died of alcohol poisoning a year. I do side with the argument that you should be able to drink if you are old enough to go to war….maybe we should raise that age to say 25? Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:48 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21266/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21265/view i think jill needs a nap…… Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:22 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21265/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21264/view I concede my overreaction to the “Arrogance of Entitlement” post caused a jump in logic and perhaps a misread of your original post, Mr. Lumberg. (And maybe that does classify me as “stoopid.”) Since it’s been clarified to me, I agree that not every college student is, or should be, interested in a handout. However, making college free for all Americans would not create an “arrogance of entitlement.” People would still need to work hard to get the grades, to prove to employers they have work ethic and committment, and succeed in the workforce. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:58:08 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21264/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21263/view Ben.. I have no idea what that post was supposed to mean. Write me a complete sentence and we will talk. For now I will say that yes, I believe that if you are 18 years old and going to war for your country you should be given immunity to the drinking laws. I do not understand why that is screwed up… they are given immunity to a lot of laws when they go to war and they give up many of their rights. Now I know the next argument will be that they chose to join the military so that is their fault.. well somebody has to fight for your freedoms and I am going to assume that you do not do that. However the point of my argument was not whether or not military people should have the right to drink if they are under 18. My argument was that unless you are serving your country then the argument that was mentioned in the article will not ever be relevant. If you would like to use that argument I assure you the Army recruiters will be happy to sign you up! The fact that the argument is being made that people wouldn’t drink in my opinion is the same thing as saying that little kids would not pitch a fit for toys in the store if we would just give it to them. Grow up.. most of the people on this campus can not even contain themselves after they turn 21 much less at 18. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:48:05 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21263/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21262/view Thanks ploink that was the point I was trying to make. The SN refuses to aid in the identification and capture of criminals on campus because of some crazed ideal of political correctness. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:45:14 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21262/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21261/view I guess it’s unanimous – Joe, yer stoopid! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:38:04 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21261/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21260/view To further rebut the “clearly implies Obama”, I never said anything about Obama. I took the quote from the SN editorial “the creation of an American Opportunity Tax Credit to aid students in their first year of college — something all college students should be interested in” which as I read it means the SN feels that ALL COLLEGE students should be interested in a handout. Since when does the SN = Obama? My guess, and it is just that a guess, is that Obama would say he is in favor of “free” college only for the “under privileged”. Please note that I recognize the previous sentence as pure speculation on my part so don’t come back with the Obama never said that type arguments. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:22:39 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21260/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21259/view “They attempt to validate this position by saying that people should take responsibility for their actions and that rape victims didn’t have a choice. The problem with this is that it treats babies as some kind of punishment for irresponsible sexual behavior.” This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Punishment for who? Who was the sexually irresponsible person? If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, SHE bears the child. The burden of an unplanned pregnancy is hers to bear. Is it her punishment? You definitely seem to be implying that she was the irresponsible one. If you meant the perpetrator, you would be more accurate to say that JAIL is the punishment for sexual irresponsibility. Either way, your writing here is just plain terrible. Also, it’s nice to see someone who also feels that abortion is wrong yet is pro-choice. I am staunchly against abortion. The concept that a lifeform with a full set of unique, human DNA is somehow not human, not alive, and part of its mother rather than a unique entity completely baffles me. Even so, I don’t feel that it’s my place to tell a woman she can’t have an abotion if she choses. The consequences, both emotionally and spiritually, are hers and, dare I say it, the father’s to bear. It’s a tragedy that it (usually) takes the consent of two to create a life, but only the consent of onw to end it. But again – the law is the law and I don’t feel that it’s my place to say otherwise. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:15:11 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21259/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21258/view “I was responding to your post and the “Arrogance of Entitlement” post which together clearly implies Obama feels people don’t need to work hard, but rather are entitled to hand outs.” Huh? How did you gleam this? GPM says he/she wished someone else had paid for his/her college, and haveaheart replied with Obama’s book on how thinking one’s self to be entitled to a handout is bad. Where on earth did you make the amazing jump in logic seem to have taken? I’m still UNclear on the clearly implied suggestion that Obama favors handouts. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:06:49 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21258/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21257/view So, we’re about 48 hours from the Spartans opening it up on the road against Cal, and I think I’ve seen maybe two sentences in the SN referencing the game. In case anybody forgot – SPARTAN FOOTBALL IS HERE – GET HYPED!!!! We are not U-M, so we’re not playing North Central Montana State School of Arts our first three games – this is Cal. Can we get a little more excited than just talking about Coach D’s mini golden football? Where’s the scouting reports on the game? Where’s the over the top predictions? Where’s the arguing over which campus has the hotter co-eds? Hey, Spartans, this is what you’ve been waiting 8 long months for – so let’s get fired up!! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:53:57 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21257/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21256/view Gang related???? Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:52:44 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21256/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21255/view Brent wears dark sweatshirts with red writing. jerk! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:43:16 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21255/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21254/view Ok (aka Sprorts Mind Control) Yer Stoopid! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:40:14 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21254/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21253/view god i hope you’re being sarcastic brent, because we don’t need assholes on this campus either. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:34:13 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21253/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21252/view if we’re getting commended for our greenery, and more people are biking, shouldn’t this campus put together some decent bike lanes finally? This on and off the sidewalk stuff and lack of lanes in 1/2 the campus confuses everyone, including the pedestrians and cars, so no one goes where they’re supposed to. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:32:04 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21252/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21251/view A third party vote is never, ever a wasted vote. If any single presidential candidate can be a spoiler, then they all just spoil it for each other. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:26:45 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21251/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21250/view If the drinking age weren’t dangled in front of kids face it wouldn’t be so tempting. You get to college at 18 and want to “be an adult” but many freshman have literally no idea how to handle themselves while drinking. If we were to take away the temptation, I feel that a large majority of kids would stop drinking as much as they do, because it wouldn’t be taboo anymore and they would have nothing to rebel against. True that some would abuse the power, but once the rule became established and kids started growing up with it, the impact would be much less. And I totally agree with switching to European point of view, they don’t have crazy binge drinking because they don’t sensationalize it there. It is no big deal, so their kids have no reason to go crazy about it. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:26:30 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21250/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21249/view You could say “omg’s” “argument” was a comment, too… so I apologize. Either way, “yer stoopid” is a great post worthy of intelligent discussion. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:17:37 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21249/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21248/view Bill Lumberg, Wow… First, I didn’t have an argument it was a comment. I was responding to your post and the “Arrogance of Entitlement” post which together clearly implies Obama feels people don’t need to work hard, but rather are entitled to hand outs. I was merely pointing out that Obama did work hard to not only make it into Harvard, but to also work to pay his way through school. Second, did you forget we had a draft during Vietnam? Meaning even those (ESPECIALLY those) who’s education was not paid by US tax dollars served our country. Not to discredit McCain’s service, he’s a hero, but he at least got a free education prior to Vietnam. Third, what about my post implies I don’t think people at the bottom of their class can’t dream? My point was merely that McCain did not take advantage of the privilege of his family’s legacy. All accounts of McCain at Annapolis are of his debauchery and overall disregard of authority. I do not believe McCain tried to succeed at the Naval Academy because I believe the man is smart enough to have graduated much higher in his class. Do you disagree? Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:03:06 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21248/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21247/view Thank you so much for letting all of us read that email. We need everyone praying for Melissa and her family Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:45:18 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21247/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21246/view That’s THREW pies. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:25:29 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21246/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21245/view You people are really up tight. In my day we got drunk and through pies in professor’s faces! Bring back dime beer night and dollar pitcher nights. www.aweartworx.com Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:19:14 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21245/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21244/view arr3 You did play the gender card and I told you to stop making excuses. Erudite come-back – “gfys”. That stands for God feels yer stoopid! like he does Joe. Now, don’t come back with your far-left-wing, whacko liberal jibberish about the non-existence of Gad. All you need to know about him is he feels yer stoopid!(Joe too) Go fix that! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:10:12 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21244/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21243/view That’s just what Michigan and Detroit needs. Two more liberal tax-and-spend Democrat sheisters in town.. And on LABOR DAY no less! The unions are gonna love it! Barak Hussein Obama, his wife Angela Davis and Joltin’ Joe Biden, who in two previous presidential runs has never garnered more that 5% of the vote from his own flaming liberal pals. Can’t wait to see them all lined up with the Kanadian Kween, Kwame Korruption (they’ll crop that part of the photo)telling Michiganders they’ll “be blown away!” Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:01:33 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21243/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21242/view no way in hell I will trade my car for a bike or walking. I love my car too much, gas prices are climbing so what? Europeans pay $8 per gallon. No way in hell I will use public transportation. If you buy a car you are expected to pay for gas. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:31:46 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21242/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21241/view The author did not say that that rape is “irresponsible sexual behavior.” You misread it. He said that pro-lifers who only make exceptions for rape are essentially punishing people who did not get pregnant through rape for their “irresponsible sexual behavior” by forcing them to have the baby. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:28:02 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21241/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21240/view Actually Joe omg’s argument was as good as yours was. First, no one at any point said or implied Obama did not work hard for his education. Secondly, if you think severing in Vietnam wasn’t payment enough for McCain’s education you’re an idiot. Third, do you really think that only the top of any given graduation glass should be allowed to have dreams and aspirations of succeeding in this country? Bottom line, Joe – yer stoopid! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:17:43 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21240/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21239/view What’s the argument against it? That you won’t remember games with blown calls? How about getting the call right? Most umpires are in favor of this, because the idiosyncrasies of the new ballparks have made it more difficult to make home run calls. There are no longer any cookie-cutter ballparks. Aside from your “weak” argument against instant replay, you are way off on Bud Selig as well. Sure he’ll be remembered as the “Steroid-Era” commissioner, but too many people turned a blind eye to that stuff (Tony LaRussa, Bart Giamatti, etc.). It started in the 80s, well before he became the man. Bud Selig has been the commissioner with no labor stoppages. The game is as healthy as it has EVER been. Its popularity is strong – its attendance is soaring. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and Tampa Bay Rays are competitive due to a luxury tax. I think your comments about him are inaccurate and baseless. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:05:50 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21239/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21238/view Or, inconsistency on a ideology could be a sign that the person realizes that the issue is far too complex for a black and white answer. Clearly there are two sides to the debate, both carrying water, so clearly there is not one correct answer. Forcing someone to choose sides stifles discussion and discovery, and problem solving. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:55:50 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21238/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21237/view “omg” – good argument…. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:45:23 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21237/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21236/view I should ammend my last statement to say “any Clinton supporter who is threatening to vote for McCain was only voting for her because she was a woman, or is bitter that his/her candidate lost.” Please tell me why someone who sincerely supported Clinton would vote for McCain instead of Obama. And, omg, I wasn’t making excuses, and I didn’t play any ‘card’. gfys Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:34:17 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21236/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21235/view “People seem to forget to look for these important details when under random thug fights on campus.” I would guess that the victim could give better descriptions of his attackers, but the State News has a long-standing (and irrational and non-helpful) policy of not giving full descriptions of suspects. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:17:26 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21235/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21234/view that sissy deserved to get donkey punched like he did…a real man would have turned and fought back, not matter if it is 5, 10, or even 15 so called “thugs”…he should have kept running all the way home to mommy because we don’t need little girls like that on campus!! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:10:40 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21234/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21233/view arr – If there’s anything more annoying than playing the race card, its playing the gender card! Stop making excuses! Joe – yer stoopid! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:07:32 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21233/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21232/view The only way a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote is if your single vote would actually be a deciding vote. Since that’s not likely to happen, it’s all about who can convince the most people to join their team. Well “my team is bigger” is not an argument that’s going to convince me! Being on the winning team doesn’t do me any good at all if the team stands for things I don’t believe in. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:28:36 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/21232/view