jimnyc
11-17-2007, 07:24 AM
Matt joined us quite awhile back along with a bunch of other members from another board. I could be wrong on this, but I believe he was a moderator himself at a previous political forum (forgot to ask in my interview!). While others either left, or were solely here to troll, Matt endured the chaos and remains with us today. While still only in High School, Matt has shown himself to be quite intelligent and has a firm grasp on today's political issues. Many of us may disagree with his views, and think maybe he hasn't experienced enough, but he's leap years ahead of his peers in knowledge. Matt might experience some things to change his views a little bit as he soon enters the "real world" or "working world", but he's at an advantage already with his desire to learn, which most at his age really don't care about.
Matt and I had a little run in with one another months back. He reached out to me via PM and apologized, which I also did in return. He earned my respect right there for being a man and doing what he thought was right, and what many are incapable of doing. My hope as the board grows is that we see more of the "intelligent Matt" rather than the "instigating Matt", as I know he can offer the board lots of good debate.
First and foremost, let's find out a little bit more about "you". We know you're a soon to be HS graduate who has plans to further his education immediately upon graduation. Whether anyone will admit to as much or not, we all know you're pretty damn intelligent for your age. Is it Purdue you said you wanted to attend? What do you do outside of school to enhance yourself? Are you an avid reader? Attend seminars?
Well my real name is Matt (just in case any of you were wondering). As you said, I am currently a senior at a pretty big high school in upstate New York. I’ve played soccer and lacrosse my whole life, and sadly just finished my last high school season of soccer. I’ve managed to good in high school, but it wasn’t easy at all. I spent many Saturdays and Sundays going to school for IB and AP classes. It pissed me off at the time, because those were nights I could have spent running around the city drinking and smoking. But now that all the hard stuff is over, the end result is most kids are going to the community college, where as I get to choose some of the best schools in the country.
As for what I plan on doing next year, I’m not really sure yet. My original plan was to go straight into college, in particular Cornell or Syracuse. I liked Syracuse because (and I’m being serious when I say this) it’s a lot less nerdy, and has a lot more kids focused on having fun. Also, Cornell is humongous. Cornell feels more like a town than a college. If I go to Cornell, I’ll probably end up making better friends with kids at Ithaca College. But in the past month I’ve been thinking about possibly taking the year off to travel around Europe. Ultimately, after I’m done with my 4 years, I was thinking about going to law school in DC. That way I could intern, and constantly be in the political action. Maybe intern for a place like NARAL, or be a house staffer.
Eventually after I get a degree, I plan on moving to NYC to practice law. That way I can get myself situated in the city, and make good money. But I don’t plan on staying in law forever. My ultimate goal in life is to become a pundit for the left. The left has no well established pundits like the right. The most people can think of on the left is Michael Moore, and a few others. But the right has extremely successful and well known (even to people not interested in politics) political icons. Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh…they all make millions of dollars off of expressing radical political opinions. Ann Coulter shows up at a college for 40 minutes and uses sarcastic wit and humor, and gets $20,000 to $40,000 (depending on where she has to travel). Figure between that and the constant flow of book sales, she’s living the high life. Politics alone won’t make you money, but politics and entertainment combined will.
Outside of school I do attend some seminars in DC in the summer, snowboard in the winter, and go to a lot of concerts….and spend A LOT of time on the computer.
I have to ask about the Flag burning issue as I find it to be quite offensive. I believe you stand for the right, believing this to be "free expression", is that true? Do you not think our national symbol should be treated, and protected, in a better manner? Literally, men and women have given their lives to protect that flag. It's been carried throughout many battles in our history. How can you post pictures of a burning Flag, knowing full well it's storied history, and that veterans are a member of our board, and that possibly hundreds of other veterans read our board as a guest? Have you seen the movie "Rules of Engagement" with Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones? In this movie, Jackson risks his life in another country to remove the American Flag from atop the US Embassy, so that the US Ambassador can retreat from the facility with said Flag in hand. Many veterans feel this strongly, and place their lives at risk, and not just for the symbol, but the physical Flag as well.
I don’t believe that the government should ever restrict someone’s freedom to expression unless it threatens someone’s life. Do I think it was a little childish to post the flag like I did? Yes. Am I sorry? No. I’ll be flat out (and most of you wont believe this), but I would never publicly engage in a flag burning, and I don’t think its right to burn the flag, but I also don’t think talking on your cell phone while driving is right either. However, as always, the right believes freedom of expression is fine as long as nothing negative is expressed about the military or Christianity.
I look at it like this:
You can’t say that its “disrespectful” to the men who “died for our freedom”. If they “died for our freedom” which does not define what “freedom” is, then we assume that they died for all freedoms. And one of those freedoms is the freedom to burn the flag if one chooses. Because if we are to say “you can’t do that, you may not express yourself in that matter” then fallen American soldiers did not die for our freedom, because here we are, restricting freedom.
What seems to be your problem with Pale Rider? This isn't an excuse to flame and get away with it, I just want your respectful point of view on this animosity. It seems that whenever he posts about a controversial issue that you frequently attack the messenger unprovoked. I also know that he offered you an olive branch, or truce, why have you not replied to him?
LOL, listen, I only have problems with Pale Rider when he doesn’t think. What bugs me most often is when he makes posts mocking evolution and promoting creationism. I’ve been through two excruciating years of International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology and I will tell you that in the science community, evolution has more clear-as-day evidence than the theory of the atom. The only reason it’s called a “theory” is because we don’t have a photograph of each variation in the human species, or the millions of different species, for that matter, over the millions of years that they’ve changed. We do however; have fossils which are the next best thing. The fossil record clearly shows that variations over time, with the highest layer being the newest, and the lowest the oldest. The comparisons in DNA, basic anatomy, and embryonic anatomy overwhelmingly show almost exact similarities in certain species. My 10th grade religious ed teacher, which was the year I was to be confirmed, was a climatology professor at the local university. He explained so perfectly, that there doesn’t need to be a fight between evolution and religion. He explained that there is nothing in evolution that says god couldn’t have made the spark which set everything off. He also explained that while many in the Christian religion hold the story of creationism to be true, the most likely scenario for its making was the same as that of Greek mythology and other world ancient religions. It was a story designed to stop people from wondering, it was to explain what could not be explained at the time.
I do tend to be an asshole to Pale at times, but it’s usually when he’s being just as big of one back, and just for the record, he NEVER sent me a private message asking me to stop the attacks, and I’ll even let jimmy have my password to verify it. Believe me, if he did, I would have sent back either A)Something extremely mean and degrading or B)An agreement that we should both stop.
I notice you like to provoke the board at times. Your issue with Pale, the burning Flag and some issues with Catholics that some would find offensive. What is your purpose, to piss people off? Just to have fun and watch them get riled up? I've seen you post debates quite intelligently on many occasions, so I know it's within you to express yourself in such a manner, but at times you seem to want to purposely offend.
I’m really not trying to get people riled up; I’m just stating exactly what I think. You know what else people would find very offensive jim? To the point that it would make some people kill themselves if constantly harassed with it, is the degrading rhetoric on homosexuality. Luckily LN has a thick skin, but do you think its nice when pale rider in basic terms tells her she’s no better than dirt? That she is somehow less than human because of her feelings? That she is just this EVIL disgusting, demon- witch, because she has the same exact feelings towards girls that you and pale have jim?
I believe you stand in defense of homosexuality and the right for them to get married and/or form civil unions. Why should special rights be given to them? I mean, every other person in the USA only has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, why should standards be changed to cater to people involved in deviant and abhorrent behavior? The overwhelming majority of Americans are against this latest push by homosexuals, and yet some liberal judges have went against what the people want in many instances. How do you feel about that? Eventually, it's going to be voted upon in every state, and will likely be outlawed in almost all of them. Your thoughts? Is it possible that these "majority" are on to something, and that they are aware that this type of behavior is bad for society and "accepting" it is the wrong way to go forward?
I don’t believe that it’s a “special right” for them to be allowed to get married or have a civil union; it’s just allowing them to do what every other “straight” person is allowed to do. Deviant and abhorrent behavior? Is sucking a dick “harming” someone? No. Do straight people engage in oral sex? Yes. Is kissing “harming” someone? No. Do the majority of straight people kiss? Yes. If you’re going to argue that this behavior is “deviant”, well guys, take a look in the mirror. What do you think jacking off would fall under? Both involve using our parts for pleasure rather than procreation. The only thing that can slightly be argued as “harmful” is anal sex, but when done properly won’t cause any negative effects. And again, anal sex is something that’s becoming increasingly popular with straight people. Would it be a good argument that AIDS is a good reason not to be gay? Back in the 80’s, yes. But AIDS is so widespread now that there it is impossible to argue that AIDS as a reason to why you shouldn’t have gay sex. I fully understand why people like Pale, Stephanie, or Abbey who grew up in a totally different time period may not feel comfortable with gay people. But as with black people, gay people are on a steady path that’s gaining them more and more acceptance. Speaking from experience, bashing gay kids in high school is as bad as calling black kids niggers. My high school has TONS of gay kids, and even one kid who’s trans-gendered. Honestly, the gay kids just don’t get called fags at all. I’m friends with a few of them, and everyone loves to hang out with them. The truth is my generation, which will eventually become the old generation some day, is full of WAY more acceptance than our parents generation was. As of right now, the “majority” as you call it, is a voting block of older people, and Christian influence. My sister who majored in sociology did a group research project in college where they polled hundreds of young people (18-25) in different cities and towns, and out of that the majority said that they had no problem with gay people marrying each other. The current situation is one that is mimicked in To Kill a Mockingbird. Scout and the rest of the main young characters (except for Atticus who’s an adult) are at odds with what the majority of older people in Maycombe think of black people. My generation is at odds with what you guys think of gay people. That’s actually a bad example because a lot of the young people in Maycomb hated black people too lol, but you get the point. I can assure you though, that in time, acceptance will only grow.
You recently seemed to be agitated at photographs of President Bush alongside wounded troops, specifically a soldier who was severely burned. Would you not condemn GW for NOT visiting the wounded from the war? Do you not think it's appropriate of him to visit these fine men and women and offer his "thanks" for their service to our country? You're reasoning was "the president never served in the military, he lied to the country in order to send us to Iraq, I have no face now, no legs, and I can't see out of one eye, but now this president who has never experienced what we experienced, who still sent us to feel that experience, is here to try and "boost" or morale". While I disagree with these reasons, I'm not going to debate it, I just want to ask why any of that should influence whether or not he should visit the very troops that he is in charge of?
I suppose that not going to visit the troops would make his disgustingly low reputation even worse, but the way I see it (and EVERYONES going to disagree with me), is that it’s sort of like a murderer who stabs his victim, and then comes to say hello in the hospital.
I know you are against the war. I know you are a liberal. I know you don't appreciate GW Bush or the current administration as a whole. There are a bunch of people out there that believe 9/11 was an "inside job" or a "false flag" operation. With all of your disdain for our government makeup, do you believe they had a hand in the 4 hijacked planes, or performed controlled demolitions on any of the WTC towers? We have a member on the board that believes the planes were either remote controlled, and that at least one of them was actually a missile. He believes that nobody died in these crashes, but were killed elsewhere and shipped to the medical facility for identification. What are your thoughts on these theories?
While I did look into those theories a little bit, and watched all of the videos about it on youtube, I honestly don’t believe that there’s any way our government, or specifically his administration, could have ever pulled that off and gotten away with it. However, the people who do believe the theory raise some compelling questions, and I really can’t answer those or comment on them because I don’t know enough, and haven’t done enough research on the topic.
I added one hahah:
And I’d like to answer the question about how GW Bush is going to be remembered:
All I can say is that social studies textbooks are going to write that no WMD were ever found, and that the rest of the world, and intelligence officials from across the board told him not to invade the country. The majority of what can be remembered off this man is only negative.
Matt and I had a little run in with one another months back. He reached out to me via PM and apologized, which I also did in return. He earned my respect right there for being a man and doing what he thought was right, and what many are incapable of doing. My hope as the board grows is that we see more of the "intelligent Matt" rather than the "instigating Matt", as I know he can offer the board lots of good debate.
First and foremost, let's find out a little bit more about "you". We know you're a soon to be HS graduate who has plans to further his education immediately upon graduation. Whether anyone will admit to as much or not, we all know you're pretty damn intelligent for your age. Is it Purdue you said you wanted to attend? What do you do outside of school to enhance yourself? Are you an avid reader? Attend seminars?
Well my real name is Matt (just in case any of you were wondering). As you said, I am currently a senior at a pretty big high school in upstate New York. I’ve played soccer and lacrosse my whole life, and sadly just finished my last high school season of soccer. I’ve managed to good in high school, but it wasn’t easy at all. I spent many Saturdays and Sundays going to school for IB and AP classes. It pissed me off at the time, because those were nights I could have spent running around the city drinking and smoking. But now that all the hard stuff is over, the end result is most kids are going to the community college, where as I get to choose some of the best schools in the country.
As for what I plan on doing next year, I’m not really sure yet. My original plan was to go straight into college, in particular Cornell or Syracuse. I liked Syracuse because (and I’m being serious when I say this) it’s a lot less nerdy, and has a lot more kids focused on having fun. Also, Cornell is humongous. Cornell feels more like a town than a college. If I go to Cornell, I’ll probably end up making better friends with kids at Ithaca College. But in the past month I’ve been thinking about possibly taking the year off to travel around Europe. Ultimately, after I’m done with my 4 years, I was thinking about going to law school in DC. That way I could intern, and constantly be in the political action. Maybe intern for a place like NARAL, or be a house staffer.
Eventually after I get a degree, I plan on moving to NYC to practice law. That way I can get myself situated in the city, and make good money. But I don’t plan on staying in law forever. My ultimate goal in life is to become a pundit for the left. The left has no well established pundits like the right. The most people can think of on the left is Michael Moore, and a few others. But the right has extremely successful and well known (even to people not interested in politics) political icons. Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh…they all make millions of dollars off of expressing radical political opinions. Ann Coulter shows up at a college for 40 minutes and uses sarcastic wit and humor, and gets $20,000 to $40,000 (depending on where she has to travel). Figure between that and the constant flow of book sales, she’s living the high life. Politics alone won’t make you money, but politics and entertainment combined will.
Outside of school I do attend some seminars in DC in the summer, snowboard in the winter, and go to a lot of concerts….and spend A LOT of time on the computer.
I have to ask about the Flag burning issue as I find it to be quite offensive. I believe you stand for the right, believing this to be "free expression", is that true? Do you not think our national symbol should be treated, and protected, in a better manner? Literally, men and women have given their lives to protect that flag. It's been carried throughout many battles in our history. How can you post pictures of a burning Flag, knowing full well it's storied history, and that veterans are a member of our board, and that possibly hundreds of other veterans read our board as a guest? Have you seen the movie "Rules of Engagement" with Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones? In this movie, Jackson risks his life in another country to remove the American Flag from atop the US Embassy, so that the US Ambassador can retreat from the facility with said Flag in hand. Many veterans feel this strongly, and place their lives at risk, and not just for the symbol, but the physical Flag as well.
I don’t believe that the government should ever restrict someone’s freedom to expression unless it threatens someone’s life. Do I think it was a little childish to post the flag like I did? Yes. Am I sorry? No. I’ll be flat out (and most of you wont believe this), but I would never publicly engage in a flag burning, and I don’t think its right to burn the flag, but I also don’t think talking on your cell phone while driving is right either. However, as always, the right believes freedom of expression is fine as long as nothing negative is expressed about the military or Christianity.
I look at it like this:
You can’t say that its “disrespectful” to the men who “died for our freedom”. If they “died for our freedom” which does not define what “freedom” is, then we assume that they died for all freedoms. And one of those freedoms is the freedom to burn the flag if one chooses. Because if we are to say “you can’t do that, you may not express yourself in that matter” then fallen American soldiers did not die for our freedom, because here we are, restricting freedom.
What seems to be your problem with Pale Rider? This isn't an excuse to flame and get away with it, I just want your respectful point of view on this animosity. It seems that whenever he posts about a controversial issue that you frequently attack the messenger unprovoked. I also know that he offered you an olive branch, or truce, why have you not replied to him?
LOL, listen, I only have problems with Pale Rider when he doesn’t think. What bugs me most often is when he makes posts mocking evolution and promoting creationism. I’ve been through two excruciating years of International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology and I will tell you that in the science community, evolution has more clear-as-day evidence than the theory of the atom. The only reason it’s called a “theory” is because we don’t have a photograph of each variation in the human species, or the millions of different species, for that matter, over the millions of years that they’ve changed. We do however; have fossils which are the next best thing. The fossil record clearly shows that variations over time, with the highest layer being the newest, and the lowest the oldest. The comparisons in DNA, basic anatomy, and embryonic anatomy overwhelmingly show almost exact similarities in certain species. My 10th grade religious ed teacher, which was the year I was to be confirmed, was a climatology professor at the local university. He explained so perfectly, that there doesn’t need to be a fight between evolution and religion. He explained that there is nothing in evolution that says god couldn’t have made the spark which set everything off. He also explained that while many in the Christian religion hold the story of creationism to be true, the most likely scenario for its making was the same as that of Greek mythology and other world ancient religions. It was a story designed to stop people from wondering, it was to explain what could not be explained at the time.
I do tend to be an asshole to Pale at times, but it’s usually when he’s being just as big of one back, and just for the record, he NEVER sent me a private message asking me to stop the attacks, and I’ll even let jimmy have my password to verify it. Believe me, if he did, I would have sent back either A)Something extremely mean and degrading or B)An agreement that we should both stop.
I notice you like to provoke the board at times. Your issue with Pale, the burning Flag and some issues with Catholics that some would find offensive. What is your purpose, to piss people off? Just to have fun and watch them get riled up? I've seen you post debates quite intelligently on many occasions, so I know it's within you to express yourself in such a manner, but at times you seem to want to purposely offend.
I’m really not trying to get people riled up; I’m just stating exactly what I think. You know what else people would find very offensive jim? To the point that it would make some people kill themselves if constantly harassed with it, is the degrading rhetoric on homosexuality. Luckily LN has a thick skin, but do you think its nice when pale rider in basic terms tells her she’s no better than dirt? That she is somehow less than human because of her feelings? That she is just this EVIL disgusting, demon- witch, because she has the same exact feelings towards girls that you and pale have jim?
I believe you stand in defense of homosexuality and the right for them to get married and/or form civil unions. Why should special rights be given to them? I mean, every other person in the USA only has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, why should standards be changed to cater to people involved in deviant and abhorrent behavior? The overwhelming majority of Americans are against this latest push by homosexuals, and yet some liberal judges have went against what the people want in many instances. How do you feel about that? Eventually, it's going to be voted upon in every state, and will likely be outlawed in almost all of them. Your thoughts? Is it possible that these "majority" are on to something, and that they are aware that this type of behavior is bad for society and "accepting" it is the wrong way to go forward?
I don’t believe that it’s a “special right” for them to be allowed to get married or have a civil union; it’s just allowing them to do what every other “straight” person is allowed to do. Deviant and abhorrent behavior? Is sucking a dick “harming” someone? No. Do straight people engage in oral sex? Yes. Is kissing “harming” someone? No. Do the majority of straight people kiss? Yes. If you’re going to argue that this behavior is “deviant”, well guys, take a look in the mirror. What do you think jacking off would fall under? Both involve using our parts for pleasure rather than procreation. The only thing that can slightly be argued as “harmful” is anal sex, but when done properly won’t cause any negative effects. And again, anal sex is something that’s becoming increasingly popular with straight people. Would it be a good argument that AIDS is a good reason not to be gay? Back in the 80’s, yes. But AIDS is so widespread now that there it is impossible to argue that AIDS as a reason to why you shouldn’t have gay sex. I fully understand why people like Pale, Stephanie, or Abbey who grew up in a totally different time period may not feel comfortable with gay people. But as with black people, gay people are on a steady path that’s gaining them more and more acceptance. Speaking from experience, bashing gay kids in high school is as bad as calling black kids niggers. My high school has TONS of gay kids, and even one kid who’s trans-gendered. Honestly, the gay kids just don’t get called fags at all. I’m friends with a few of them, and everyone loves to hang out with them. The truth is my generation, which will eventually become the old generation some day, is full of WAY more acceptance than our parents generation was. As of right now, the “majority” as you call it, is a voting block of older people, and Christian influence. My sister who majored in sociology did a group research project in college where they polled hundreds of young people (18-25) in different cities and towns, and out of that the majority said that they had no problem with gay people marrying each other. The current situation is one that is mimicked in To Kill a Mockingbird. Scout and the rest of the main young characters (except for Atticus who’s an adult) are at odds with what the majority of older people in Maycombe think of black people. My generation is at odds with what you guys think of gay people. That’s actually a bad example because a lot of the young people in Maycomb hated black people too lol, but you get the point. I can assure you though, that in time, acceptance will only grow.
You recently seemed to be agitated at photographs of President Bush alongside wounded troops, specifically a soldier who was severely burned. Would you not condemn GW for NOT visiting the wounded from the war? Do you not think it's appropriate of him to visit these fine men and women and offer his "thanks" for their service to our country? You're reasoning was "the president never served in the military, he lied to the country in order to send us to Iraq, I have no face now, no legs, and I can't see out of one eye, but now this president who has never experienced what we experienced, who still sent us to feel that experience, is here to try and "boost" or morale". While I disagree with these reasons, I'm not going to debate it, I just want to ask why any of that should influence whether or not he should visit the very troops that he is in charge of?
I suppose that not going to visit the troops would make his disgustingly low reputation even worse, but the way I see it (and EVERYONES going to disagree with me), is that it’s sort of like a murderer who stabs his victim, and then comes to say hello in the hospital.
I know you are against the war. I know you are a liberal. I know you don't appreciate GW Bush or the current administration as a whole. There are a bunch of people out there that believe 9/11 was an "inside job" or a "false flag" operation. With all of your disdain for our government makeup, do you believe they had a hand in the 4 hijacked planes, or performed controlled demolitions on any of the WTC towers? We have a member on the board that believes the planes were either remote controlled, and that at least one of them was actually a missile. He believes that nobody died in these crashes, but were killed elsewhere and shipped to the medical facility for identification. What are your thoughts on these theories?
While I did look into those theories a little bit, and watched all of the videos about it on youtube, I honestly don’t believe that there’s any way our government, or specifically his administration, could have ever pulled that off and gotten away with it. However, the people who do believe the theory raise some compelling questions, and I really can’t answer those or comment on them because I don’t know enough, and haven’t done enough research on the topic.
I added one hahah:
And I’d like to answer the question about how GW Bush is going to be remembered:
All I can say is that social studies textbooks are going to write that no WMD were ever found, and that the rest of the world, and intelligence officials from across the board told him not to invade the country. The majority of what can be remembered off this man is only negative.