|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 4, 2009 20:12:12 GMT -5
[Funny how that works out, isn't it? The people who actually HAVE children are sometimes the worst ones for the job, and the ones who would likely be decent parents are the ones deciding NOT to have any. Then again, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't require a great deal of effort to be a better parent than these people are... Well, considering how many people have kids because they're against birth control, uneducated on sex, fail to consider the repercussions, or are against abortion, it's not surprising. If I ever do have kids, it's going to be because I want them, not because the condom breaks or whatever. And it's not something I'll take lightly or do half-assed. I do sometimes feel the most responsible thing a future parent can do is not become one, which explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 4, 2009 21:37:02 GMT -5
My take on this kid is that he is, perhaps, the future of the GOP. It will take a generation for America to remove the stench of what was, possibly, the worst administration in U.S. history. I think only Calvin Coolidge ranked lower in a recent poll. The math works. This kid will be inelligible to run for president for another 32 years. Sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 4, 2009 22:25:50 GMT -5
Funny how that works out, isn't it? The people who actually HAVE children are sometimes the worst ones for the job, and the ones who would likely be decent parents are the ones deciding NOT to have any. Then again, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't require a great deal of effort to be a better parent than these people are... So true, my brother would make a great parent, except he's never met a woman he could stand long enough to get to the child point. He's actually jealous that if a woman wants a baby she can just go out and get knocked up. He tried being a Scout leader (beavers), but there was just too many eyebrows raised about a single man wanting the position. Too bad, those kids lost out bigtime.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 4, 2009 22:37:53 GMT -5
Antichrist: That's really unfortunate about your brother. He was trying to volunteer his time and help some kids, and because he was single they... what, they thought he was a child molester? I HATE that the witch hunt for kiddie fiddlers has gotten to the point where men, ALL MEN, are viewed with suspicion like that.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 4, 2009 22:39:13 GMT -5
Funny how that works out, isn't it? The people who actually HAVE children are sometimes the worst ones for the job, and the ones who would likely be decent parents are the ones deciding NOT to have any. Then again, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't require a great deal of effort to be a better parent than these people are... So true, my brother would make a great parent, except he's never met a woman he could stand long enough to get to the child point. He's actually jealous that if a woman wants a baby she can just go out and get knocked up. He tried being a Scout leader (beavers), but there was just too many eyebrows raised about a single man wanting the position. Too bad, those kids lost out bigtime. I'm sure explaining that he just can't stand women didn't help his cause any.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 4, 2009 22:50:06 GMT -5
He likes women, it's just he's attracted to what I call the "blonde goddesses of insanity". They're blonde, they're drop dead gorgeous, and they're absolutely bonkers (most of them even have the paperwork to prove it).
He then takes these women and their 5" stilettos and drag them out camping. Now his idea of camping is driving in until the car gets stuck and then walking for 3 days. He then gets upset because they spent the whole time crying. There was one woman that was absolutely perfect for him, but she was brunette and he "just didn't feel that way about her".
As for the kids, he did great things while he was there. It was an underprivileged area, he realized some of these kids were showing up hungry. So he made these huge healthy sandwiches for the kids and nothing happened until the beavers ate their "beaver branches". They couldn't afford to go camping, so he got fridge boxes and paint, and they camped out in the church basement in the "beaver lodges" that they all painted.
And I think he leaves the explanation to strangers as "I never met the right woman". It sounds a lot saner.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 4, 2009 22:55:36 GMT -5
And I think he leaves the explanation to strangers as "I never met the right woman". It sounds a lot saner. I prefer "Women: can't live with 'em". I work a lot in the developmentally disabled community, and it's a lot tougher for a single male working in the field than it would be for a married man or single woman. The fact is rather tragic, too, since the field is dominated by women and there's a want of good male role models for a lot of these people. Making things even harder for men isn't the best thing to do, though of course caution is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 4, 2009 22:56:01 GMT -5
Wow. He sounds like a really great guy for what he did for those kids. They missed out, you're right. All because they just couldn't fathom that a single guy might want to, I dunno, MENTOR KIDS. Isn't that what the Big Brothers/Sisters organization is about? Your brother sounds like he would probably be much better off trying to adopt a kid and just skip the whole woman part of it. (Not that adoption agencies make it easy for HETEROSEXUAL MARRIED PEOPLE to get kids, let alone a single guy. They won't even CONSIDER him, which frankly sucks.)
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 4, 2009 23:46:42 GMT -5
Antichrist: That's really unfortunate about your brother. He was trying to volunteer his time and help some kids, and because he was single they... what, they thought he was a child molester? I HATE that the witch hunt for kiddie fiddlers has gotten to the point where men, ALL MEN, are viewed with suspicion like that. Well, you know, it's easier to paint an entire group than it is to use discretion. Plus, of course, it's a known fact that men hate kids and only put up with them as a penalty for sex.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 5, 2009 0:33:25 GMT -5
*sighs* That's what's so sad about it. I understand the old adage "better safe than sorry", but I'm also familiar with "innocent until proven guilty". Why do men have to PROVE themselves to people who are often virulently skeptical that they're NOT kiddie fiddlers before anybody will believe them? I could go into a sociological discussion about how childcare was almost entirely a female job until really quite recently, and as such it's still considered something of an oddity when men not only like children, but are happy to be around ones that aren't even theirs, and that this coupled with the modern witch-hunt that is child predators provides a hostile at best environment for "suspiciously" single men who just want to mentor underprivileged kids---but I don't think I want to.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 5, 2009 0:42:09 GMT -5
*sighs* That's what's so sad about it. I understand the old adage "better safe than sorry", but I'm also familiar with "innocent until proven guilty". Why do men have to PROVE themselves to people who are often virulently skeptical that they're NOT kiddie fiddlers before anybody will believe them? I could go into a sociological discussion about how childcare was almost entirely a female job until really quite recently, and as such it's still considered something of an oddity when men not only like children, but are happy to be around ones that aren't even theirs, and that this coupled with the modern witch-hunt that is child predators provides a hostile at best environment for "suspiciously" single men who just want to mentor underprivileged kids---but I don't think I want to. It's pretty much impossible to prove you're not a pedophile, anyway. The scary thing is that they're so worried about these single guys, but most of the ones who make the paper seem to be the "happily married" type....At least, in this area. Which kind of pisses me off, because we persecute a group in the name of protection, and give a number of offenders free access, because a family man would never do anything bad to a kid....
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 5, 2009 0:50:57 GMT -5
People tend to zoom in on ALL men, not just singles--at least, that's what I've seen. Because child molesters come from all kinds of places. Though single men are looked at with a far more critical eye, you're right.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 5, 2009 1:10:35 GMT -5
People tend to zoom in on ALL men, not just singles--at least, that's what I've seen. Because child molesters come from all kinds of places. Though single men are looked at with a far more critical eye, you're right. Well, family men have an excuse...Sort of. Of course, we're still not looking for symptoms as much as for a certain body of people, so it's still not right. I don't know. I stay away from kids most of the time, anyway. I openly display signs of eccentricity and femininity, which means gay, which means I must be a child molester by default. So I'd just as soon stay out of the picture when I can. Which is fine by me. Between my ex's nephews and a couple of my friends' rug rats, I get enough of the whole "child" thing.
|
|
|
Post by Alexiel on Mar 5, 2009 9:34:32 GMT -5
This had me laughing. First the kid waxes philosophic about how the Republican party was steered into the ground largely because they abandonded their core beliefs. But when asked who he'd like to see become president, he chooses one of the Republican party's most well known snakes and betrayers of morals and fidelity. Yeah....Need I say more? This kid is no prodigy. He's good at dropping recognizable names, but Krohn seems to have little, if any, understanding about who these people are especially given his "I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican" rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by The Watcher on Mar 8, 2009 2:51:45 GMT -5
The math works. This kid will be ineligible to run for president for another 32 years. Sounds fair to me. The minimum age to be President is 35, so he'll be able to in 22 years. Still long enough for me to forget everything I just saw in that video. Because frankly--and I say this not just to be an asshole, but because I speak from experience--that speech sucks. The substance (of which there isn't any), the rhetorical flow, the attempts at humor...it's all terrible. Yes, I said the flow. Even though the kid is getting high praise for his delivery, even that was weak. Not the worst part, and he does pretty well with it, but he had his problems with that too. Here's a few highlights, as I have it on in my other tab. When your first word is "well" and your fourth word is "uh," you're off to a shitty start. I'll leave the grammar alone. At this point, Krohn pauses, presumably expecting this line to draw some polite laughs. When he hears none, he looks slightly flusters, but continues. Don't stop and shift gears in mid sentence, it sounds like you're lost. Especially if you do it and land right back where you started. Oh you "decided" that, did you? You, a thirteen-year-old kid, have thus ruled that the pundits on TV don't know what they're talking about when they say "conservative," and now you presume to stand up in front of those same people and tell them how wrong they are? Yeah, that should go over well. (And yet, he gets applause for it?) He then gets on kind of a roll, drawing scattered applause a few more times, but this line stood out to me. Wait, what? It's the party that's the shell, but "it's" the inside? Which is it? What "it" are we talking about? I know from listening to him over and over again what he means, but it's not clear on the first run-through. -------------- Okay, that's enough for right now. I'm not going to analyze him to death, I just wanted to point out that the whole thing really isn't as great as people are giving him credit for. Am I being a little harsh? Yes, especially considering that he's just a kid (which is what you were thinking as you read my comments thus far). But that's really my point; yes he's just a kid, but he wants to play in the big leagues. And if you want to play with the adults, you have to play by their rules. If you want to make speeches on an adult forum, you have to be just as good as the adults, and if you're not, that's just tough. Sorry kid, you lose. Go home. That's the reason we don't have that many children doing adult things; because they don't measure up (just as Jonathan doesn't). He's good, I'll give him that. But he's not quite good enough. Nothing's stopping him from coming back in a few years, but he's not there yet. And pretending he's some kind of wunderkind when he really isn't all that special isn't doing him a service. I thought Republicans didn't like affirmative action!
|
|