Comments by
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on April 28 at 1:25 p.m.Suggest removal
Okie3L is right. The Arizona law says you can't question people solely based upon their race. The governor of Arizona said herself that she doesn't know what an illegal alien looks like. See? They could be ANYONE. Therefore, nobody will ever question a person as to their legal resident status based upon race--ever, because the law says they can't This bill doesn't make it easier to racially profile, because it has a provision saying they can't. Don't you see? There's no way the law will ever be abused because law officers always obey the laws! Especially in border towns with a large Latino population. duh.
Posted on April 26 at 4:04 p.m.Suggest removal
Can I read books ABOUT sports? Which makes me look more like an intellectual? PLEASE GOD JJanowiak TELL ME WHAT TO DO!
Posted on April 26 at 4 p.m.Suggest removal
A comment that begins "I agree with Jerry Falwell" is an indication that the subsequent lines are not to be taken seriously or to be given any amount of credibility. @matthewmurrayday would be better suited in Wichita with the Westboro people with such an abhorrent ideology. Might also be gay.
Posted on April 19 at 6:40 p.m.Suggest removal
God forbid the Opinion page of a student newspaper offends a sector of the student body that is largely rich, white, and upper-class. Worry about egregious errors later--protect their interests first.
Posted on April 12 at 1:07 p.m.Suggest removal
GPAs would plummet if the student body were forced to take Savage's OK History class. And somewhere in a musky office, Bill is laughing diabolically.
Posted on April 1 at 11:52 a.m.Suggest removal
Can you hear the sound of the plane whizzing by your head? SCHOOM!
Posted on March 31 at 1:38 p.m.Suggest removal
So the idea, then, of your column is to say that, if you are reading Cosmo thinking you are getting a good steady does of intellectual fervor that articulates what it means to be a woman with all its racial, gendered, and economic inclusions, then watch out, because it's not? What consumer expects this from Cosmo in the first place? And maybe we should give the consumers more credit--surely they know it's more or less "low-brow." And, of course, the magazine industry, Cosmo included, has its shortcomings with its representations of sex and women--but to attack the magazine for its lack of intellectualism and not appealing to a broader audience (outside its niche market)--i.e., wanting the magazine to be a different magazine--is going at it the wrong way, don't you think?
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on May 10 at 2:42 p.m.Suggest removal
Wait, was he making fun of fraternities and sororities? FIRE THIS CARTOONIST!!
On