Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Post B #5

Deart Stephen T. Colbert,

I certainly admire your directness when it comes to your oppinons, but sometimes it seems almost too much. Anyways, what you have stated in your book thus far is not only hysterical, but unpolitically correct too. Political correctness, in my opinion, is the bane of society. We live in a country with free speach and I uphold that value about nearly all others. Free speach is what makes us different from Communist Russia, North Korea, and, in the case of France, free educated speach separates us from them. The media today certainly has a pole up their anuses when critisizing nearly everyone who has a different view and wishes to express it. If Bush says something stupid, the media swarms to make fun of him as much as possible, but Hillary? If she does something ideotic (every day) nobody concerned with making news even writes a sentance about it. Even if they dislike her, people are scared of being critisized by other newpapers. Liberal Media is everywhere and is corrupting society.

Now on to homosexuals, your theme for this chapter. I certainly agree that there is no need for gays to flaunt their sexuality, and that otherwise there is not a considerable problem with them in general. Only the fact that they are so obnoxious that they talk differently and dress differently. Why do people need to do this? They don't and they know it, gays only do these things to be annoying and I blame that as the main problem people have with gays. Also, it says nowhere in the bible that gays should be married or allowed to be gay, and I, as a christian, certainly agree with the bible too. God's word is more powerful than Hillary's, especially when the majority of Americans are Christian. If the majority of people in a country want something to be one way, who can be selfish enough to oppose it besides maybe the ACLU and a certain woman of Clinton namesake? Which reminds me that the ACLU is anti-american and should be abolished because it is full of atheistic, communistic people that think their ideas are more important than those of American and that what they want should be law.

2 comments:

Remington said...

Intro:

• Background of racial profiling usage
• How racial profiling is used today
• Controversy of racial profiling in the United States
• Ethics of racial profiling overview
• Is racial profiling appropriate when used to reduce crime rates and terrorism in the United States?

1st Body Paragraph

Remington said...

Intro:

• Background of racial profiling usage
• Controversy of racial profiling in the United States
• Ethics of racial profiling overview
• Is racial profiling appropriate when used to reduce crime rates and terrorism in the United States?

1st Body Paragraph
Where racial profiling originated
History of US in terms of racism
How racial profiling is used today
Why racial profiling is used and who hates it with a passion

2nd Body Paragraph
What advantages racial profiling provides
Safety more important than feelings
Reduces risk of terrorist attacks and crime
Minorities commit more crime
Nearly all terrorists are Muslims these days?
Less drugs
Political correctness not the issue
Go die ACLU

3rd body paragraph
Disadvantages of racial profiling
Makes minorities feel bad
Profiling makes Muslims more hostile
Ineffective?
Humiliation bad

4th Body Paragraph
Why do minorities commit more crimes (so that racial profiling becomes an option?)
Culture
Racist leanings from poll takers
Poverty line
Stereotypes

Conclusion
My opinions
Racial profiling good in the end and reduces political correctness, which is a drain on society