Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »

particle409: Jan 15, 2008; Thou bootless clapper-clawed varlot!

RussianBear posted:

Not that political, but still crazy.

Some gizmo! Bootstraps!

I always buy my tomatoes from random men on the street.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 14:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 16:53

Gripen5: Nov 3, 2003; 'Startocaster' is more fun to say than I expected.

Of course I will believe that a bunch of odd ornaments taken at extremely close range had to come from no other place than the White House Christmas tree. And that a single odd shape cookie that vaguely resembles an acorn when someone mentions it to me, must mean that there were plate loads of these and that it was an endorsement of ACORN.

Lets forget about the fact that Obama signed legislation which removed some of their funding.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 14:33

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

oxbrain posted:

I have a business contact who is warning me that California will be declaring bankruptcy on Feb. 28th. In preparation for the inevitable riots they are asking the UN for peacekeeping troops from Mongolia and Canada.

Mongolia and Canada? Seems logical.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 15:11

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

Gotta love that criticism of the Mao picture.

That's Andy Warhol's famous portrait of Mao, made up in rouge and eyeshadow. It's not a flattering portrayal of Mao, and it's certainly not what anyone would use if they're intending to hold up Mao to be praised, but, holy crap it's a picture of Mao, this proves OBAMA'S A COMMIE!

I figure they didn't even notice the makeup, and just assumed that was the supposed to be the original photo and not Warhol's version.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 17:08

unnoticed: Nov 29, 2005; That's odd...

quote:

Enjoying your Freedom? Thank a Veteran..

�WHITE" Pride�

This is great. I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is.....

Proud to be White

Michael Richards makes his point...............
Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.

This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...

Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... and that's OK.

But when I call you, friend of the family, Kike, Towel head, Sand-friend of the family, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.

You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day.

You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

You have the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists..

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US .. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud... But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

There is nothing improper about this e-mail.. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!

BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!

It's not a crime YET... but getting very close!

It is estimated that ONLY 5% of those reaching this point in this e-mail, will pass it on.

I am proud to certainly pass it on!

Got this from my aunt. Considering that we're Jewish, I have a feeling she didn't read most of this before she sent it.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 20:54

unnoticed: Nov 29, 2005; That's odd...

She claims she sent it out because it was thought provoking and would spark a dialogue. My response:

quote:

But it's almost entirely wrong and represents a ridiculously warped world view.

Some of my favorite parts:

1. The "black colleges" that he's talking about do admit white people though not many go. They're actually called historically black colleges because back in the day, they were the only colleges black people were allowed to go to.
2. Has anyone actually been called a honky or a cracker in the last 20 years? I can see the person who wrote this living his life assuming that black people hate him when in fact he's probably never talked to one. And I agree, using any racial slur, no matter who it's against, is racist. I don't think most people would disagree.
3. They tried to attribute it to Michael Richards, but there's no way he actually said this. He never had to to go to court for his racist outburst.
4. They say that observing Yom Hashoah, the day commemorating victims of the Holocaust, is somehow putting your ethnicity above your country. That line makes me think that this was largely written by neo-Nazis.
5. Not only is there a BET, but there's also a couple women's channels (WE and Oxygen), a man's channel (Spike), a hispanic channel (Univision and others), a Polish channel and several Asian channels. What about the fact that pretty much every prime time show on the major networks has a majority white cast? Can we count this as the white channel? Should we ban them all? What would even be on a white TV channel? Does anyone even know what White culture is?
6. There are scholarships for pretty much every ethnic group, including the ones that would be considered "white."
7. Believe it or not, most black people aren't drug dealers or car thieves and it's absolutely a fact that police in many areas pull people over solely based on the color of their skin. (And sometimes white people commit crimes, too. *gasp()
8. Based on the tone in other parts of the email, I'm pretty sure that they're not counting Jews when they say Be Proud to Be White

# ? Dec 23, 2009 22:03

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Only whites can be racist because, as a majority group, we have the power to set policy that privileges ourselves and punishes minority groups. Minorities don't have this power, so they can be prejudiced, but not racist.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 23:11

unnoticed: Nov 29, 2005; That's odd...

SpergyGirl posted:

Only whites can be racist because, as a majority group, we have the power to set policy that privileges ourselves and punishes minority groups. Minorities don't have this power, so they can be prejudiced, but not racist.

I don't buy that since racism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with policy or actions. It just means believing that your race is better. Racism is a form of prejudice.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 23:26

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

What's it called when you hate your own race?

# ? Dec 23, 2009 23:31

unnoticed: Nov 29, 2005; That's odd...

crime fighting hog posted:

What's it called when you hate your own race?

self-hating <insert race here>?

Edit: oh, i see what you're saying. Yeah, it's not necessarily your own race, racism is believing that any race is better than any other.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 23:33

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

Oh I understand the definition of racism/ethnocentrism/etc. I was just wondering if there is a specific term for a white man who hates white people, not just white guilt or anything like that.

# ? Dec 23, 2009 23:36

Dulcissime: Nov 17, 2004; by mons all madden

crime fighting hog posted:

Oh I understand the definition of racism/ethnocentrism/etc. I was just wondering if there is a specific term for a white man who hates white people, not just white guilt or anything like that.

A liberal

# ? Dec 23, 2009 23:41

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

unnoticed posted:

I don't buy that since racism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with policy or actions. It just means believing that your race is better. Racism is a form of prejudice.

I'm going by how racial activists define racism.

I think that a lot of reactionary stuff like the above email stems from semantic issues - neither side is defining its terms properly.

# ? Dec 24, 2009 00:02

grading essays nude: Oct 24, 2009; so why dont we
put him into a canan
and shoot him into the trolls base where
ever it is and let him kill all of them. its
so perfect that it can't go wrong.

i think its the best plan i
have ever heard in my life

unnoticed posted:

Got this from my aunt. Considering that we're Jewish, I have a feeling she didn't read most of this before she sent it.

Did Michael Richards even go to court or anything for those horrid racist comments? On that note I guarantee that whoever wrote that didn't actually see the racist act in question

# ? Dec 24, 2009 05:21

muscles like this!: Jan 17, 2005

cletepurcel posted:

Did Michael Richards even go to court or anything for those horrid racist comments? On that note I guarantee that whoever wrote that didn't actually see the racist act in question

The only thing that happened to him was that his career was finally dealt a deathblow.

# ? Dec 24, 2009 07:58

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

SpergyGirl posted:

Only whites can be racist because, as a majority group, we have the power to set policy that privileges ourselves and punishes minority groups. Minorities don't have this power, so they can be prejudiced, but not racist.

Sorry but that's not true. For example I'm pretty sure that the looting of asian owned businesses during the LA riots were at least partially motivated by racism.

# ? Dec 24, 2009 16:25

Caustic: Jan 20, 2005

quote:

-------------------------------------
Subject: Fwd: FW: Tell it like it is!

TELL IT AS IT IS

Is your ex-wife, or her female attorney, a harridan (bad-tempered old woman), termagant (an overbearing, brawling, shrewish woman), or a virago (an abusive woman)? These are terms you can use instead of vindictive or vicious, which are the standard bearers in your pleadings.

Do you remember the scene? The Senate. Barbara Boxer hearing from a Brigadier General? Silly General! He addresses Barbara as "Ma'am", and she CORRECTS him, telling him she's "worked SO hard to earn the title, "Senator", so please to use that when speaking to her. Get a load of this letter! Read the letter sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer from an Alaskan Airlines pilot below. Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer on June 18, 2009 as she admonished Brigadier General Michael Walsh because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing.

This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines named Jim Hill. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!

Babs:

You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character lack of sophistication, and arrogance, which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!
Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
South Hill , WA 98374

If you care about the way our Country is heading, Please circulate this to remind every voter that the "cesspools" MUST be pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/jim-hills-letter-to-barbara-boxer/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, many democrats want American troops killed and Barbara Boxer how dare you want to be called Senator!!!!! Long fly Alaska!!!!!

# ? Dec 24, 2009 18:52

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

She really has a $20,000 leather chair? That must kick rear end.

Also, the General's taxes? The General is paid from tax revenue, just like everyone else in the military. Soldiers have Federal taxes with held from their checks, but I've found that redundant since it's all money coming from non-government tax payers in the first place.

Edit: Wait, is he from Alaska or Washington?

Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Dec 24, 2009

# ? Dec 24, 2009 19:20

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

Caustic posted:

drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered)

Who is this supposed to be? I'm drawing a blank. Did this happen 30 years ago or something?

# ? Dec 24, 2009 20:40

Vivian Darkbloom: Jul 14, 2004

Caustic posted:

Remember, many democrats want American troops killed and Barbara Boxer how dare you want to be called Senator!!!!! Long fly Alaska!!!!!

And Carly Fiorina has used this in her campaign against Boxer. I can't even imagine the mindset required to get mad about this.

# ? Dec 24, 2009 20:52

Shrecknet: Jan 2, 2005

crime fighting hog posted:

Who is this supposed to be? I'm drawing a blank. Did this happen 30 years ago or something?

Joe Scarborough ~~allegedly~~ killed one of his interns, but he's not in office anymore.

# ? Dec 25, 2009 02:24

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Chappaquiddick, one of the GOP's favorite dead horses since 1972.

# ? Dec 25, 2009 03:13

Econosaurus: Sep 22, 2008; Successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions

quote:

Subject: Excelent Commencement Speech
>
>
>
>
>
> Take the time to read this, though it is long. It contains advice that
> is no longer given young people. You may agree or disagree in part or
> all, but you won't find such thoughts expressed so clearly in many if
> any other places of which I am aware. Norm
>
> -----
>
>
>
> It is the season of commencement speeches. Many are boringly
> predictable.
> Neal Boortz, a Texan lawyer, Texas AGGIE, now nationally syndicated
> talk
> show host from Atlanta is an exception. Agree or not you will find his
> views
> thought provoking. It would have been particularly entertaining to have
> witnessed the faculty's reaction.
>
>
> Commencement Address...
>
> I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion.
> It's
> about time.
> Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have
> enough
> smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not
> here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of
> what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though.
> Especially
> after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without
> saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and
> your
> fortunes as government employees.
>
> This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old
> saying
> that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds
> deliciously
> insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you
> often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to
> your
> faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These
> folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach .
>
> By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma
> doesn't
> mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my
> private
> pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to
> learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning
> has
> just begun.
>
> Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact,
> you
> are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You
> feel so
> much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and
> caring
> person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily
> special.
> Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a
> time
> as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting
> tomorrow, for the truth to set in.
>
> Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality
> down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast ..
> including
> your own assessment of just how much you really know.
>
> So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay
> attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and
> phrases
> that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words
> of
> the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless,
> greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the
> Right
> you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to
> groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less
> Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On
> the
> Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
>
> That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are
> pack
> animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and
> Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their
> identity
> is centered on the individual.
>
> Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the
> property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives and
> Libertarians, myself among them I might add, think that individuals have
> the
> right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the
> masses.
>
> In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at
> your
> diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not
> the
> name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your
> name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and
> appreciation
> of your individual identity starts now.
>
> If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to
> be
> a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you
> can
> and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with
> open
> arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed
> an
> individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on
> to
> the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.
>
> Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your
> eyes.
> You're going to actually get a full time job!
>
> You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't
> going
> to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait
> for
> payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, but in your
> earnings.
>
> Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent. An agent representing a
> strange and diverse group of people. An agent for every teenager with an
> illegitimate child. An agent for a research scientist who wanted to make
> some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their
> teeth.
> An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a
> meaningful and talented artist ... but who just can't manage to sell any
> of
> her artwork on the open market.
>
> Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job
> skills .. but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn
> dictators
> in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent
> for
> multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their
> overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the
> unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and
> benefit.
>
> That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive
> government.
> Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has.
> Power
> that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This
> agent has the legal power to use force deadly force to accomplish its
> goals.
>
>
> You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to
> you,
> introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and
> move
> right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will
> sleep
> anywhere it wants to.
>
> Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful
> it
> will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there
> just
> isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease
> it's share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.
>
> So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be
> clear
> on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear
> government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government
> for
> government is inherently evil. Yes . a necessary evil, but dangerous
> nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper
> dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.
>
>
> Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at
> this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as
> possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they
> fail
> miserably out there in the real world.
>
> First that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia:
> Diversity!
> You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it
> a
> social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based
> on
> diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based
> not on
> an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and
> status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that liberal group identity
> thing
> again.
>
> Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial,
> gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the
> individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.
>
> Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere
> where
> diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual
> achievement
> and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have
> taught
> you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is
> absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard
> work.
> From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can
> rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you
> of
> every vestige of individuality you possess.
>
> We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We
> have
> witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few
> decades, usually emanating from college campuses.
>
> You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place
> to
> live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to
> an
> education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a
> Beemer, for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that
> child you plan on downloading in a year or so.
>
> Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You
> have
> a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll
> also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of
> another.
>
> You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After
> all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive health care
> unless
> some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his
> life -
> to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his
> choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right
> to
> his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.
>
> You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living
> wage,
> whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force
> your
> services on another person, and then the right to demand that this
> person
> compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would
> scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for
> those
> of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and
> adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
>
> The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are
> simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being
> imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their
> right,
> and they exercise it brilliantly.
>
> By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit
> ago
> when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a
> favorite of
> the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.
>
> To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced
> out on
> drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less
> fortunate"
> is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a
> future -
> is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary
> says
> that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place."
> There
> is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also
> nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol,
> and
> the street.
>
> If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and
> failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to
> promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After
> all,
> we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This "success equals
> luck"
> idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic
> presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as
> "people
> who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making
> the
> big bucks because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's
> choice.
>
> One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino,
> entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple:
> "Use
> wisely your power of choice."
>
> That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's
> there
> by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has
> made
> in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people
> to
> accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of
> something
> or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism,
> whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or
> her
> position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look!
>
>
> He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You
> S.O.B.!
> You did this to me!"
>
> The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact
> that
> your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either
> success or failure, however you define those terms.
>
> Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school.
> Whether
> or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not
> to
> keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether
> or
> not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments
> for
> that new car.
>
> Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the
> movies
> with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or
> read
> a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice
> counts.
> Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one
> is a
> part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if
> you
> make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible
> may
> happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one
> of
> the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy,, the successful,
> the
> rich.
>
> The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they
> provide
> the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the
> formation of
> new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send
> millions
> of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.
>
> Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and
> hatred.
> Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most
> Americans
> feel for the evil rich.
>
> Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional
> minefield
> that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White
> House
> interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that
> power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The
> rich
> will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.'
> The
> truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost
> 50%
> of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job
> producers
> would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."
>
> You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get
> poorer.
> Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the
> poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get
> poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who
> remain
> poor .. there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep
> doing
> the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things
> that
> make them poor.
>
> Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an
> endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor in . So,
> you
> need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can
> have a
> $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all
> completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1
> million in your checking account, and you can still be officially
> defined by
> our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't
> seen on the evening news.
>
> How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To
> determine
> whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government
> measures one thing -- just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit
> how
> much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they
> are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and
> spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings
> account. It
> only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This
> means
> that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job
> and
> decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while
> you
> write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living
> in
> poverty."
>
> This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy
> statistics, is it?
> Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics
> show
> that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50
> for
> each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. just
> remember all this the next time Peter Jennings puffs up and tells you
> about
> some hideous new poverty statistics.
>
> Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the
> government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare
> programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the
> government
> can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is
> increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate
> suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion
> Disorder.
>
> I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed
> their
> minds about that honorary degree I was going to get.
>
> That's OK, though. I still have my Ph.D. in Insensitivity from the Neal
> Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short,
> sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no
> sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and
> you'll be unable to dealwith life, or the truth. So, get over it.
>
> Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random
> thoughts.
>
> * You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are
> living
> off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and
> shutting up until you are on your own again.
>
> * When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more
> important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse
> strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
>
> * Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of
> plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who
> earned
> it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is
> certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step
> forward
> and do this dirty work for you.
>
> * Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What
> they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody
> owes
> you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave
> you
> the hell alone.
>
> * Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty
> hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see
> highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at
> five.
> The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The
> winners
> drive home in the dark.
>
> * Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by
> definition, needs no protection.
>
> * Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,
>
> 1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
>
> 2. Use wisely your power of choice.
>
> 3. Go the extra mile ... drive home in the dark.
>
> Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.
>
> Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the
> hell
> out of here and never come back.
>
> Class dismissed.

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

# ? Dec 25, 2009 03:35

Shrecknet: Jan 2, 2005

Econosaurus posted:

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

The "winners drive home in the dark" comment, and all of Europe's 35-hour, statistically-more-productive workweek would be a start. I wouldn't say you've "won" if you have no life outside of work.

# ? Dec 25, 2009 04:04

Commodore 64: Apr 2, 2007; The sky was the color of a television tuned to a dead channel that was orange

Econosaurus posted:

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

I should write a response about the Eagle Scout who graduated in the top of his class from a school in the same league as Carnegie Mellon, Cal-Tech and MIT (that he got into with a partial academic scholarship and the rest in loans) and has spent half of 2009 unemployed and unable to get work in the Chicagoland area.

Then when he did get work it was for half of what his peers make, with double the hours and the only benefit being a crappy health insurance plan that chose not to cover a doctors visit because he had to go on COBRA for the first half of the year.

"Uniquely American; ain't it?"

# ? Dec 25, 2009 05:44

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

Econosaurus posted:

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

The "Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual." line has got me in stitches. Conservatives put aside religion more often then liberals, eh?

# ? Dec 25, 2009 05:51

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

What gets me is the dissonance of this kind of right wing thought and the supposed high regard they have for the military. Military culture is all about the group effort, about communal living and shared hardship. Someone should point out to this guy that WWII was not won by people being rugged individualists and keeping the fruits of their labor. It was won by a massive amount of sacrifice in terms of human lives and tax money.

If I wanted to be cynical, I suppose I could point out the large number of conservative politicians and pundits that avoided military service while trumpeting it virtues. Al Gore is a Vietnam vet, Rush Limbaugh avoided service because of a polyp on his rear end. John Kerry served in Vietnam, while George W. Bush hid in the Air Guard at a time when getting a spot in the Guard was extremely difficult, due to it rarely being deployed to Vietnam.

Why doesn't this guy talk about the CEO's and business men who moved the factories overseas and put American's out of work? Or those that ran the financial sector into the ground and cost this country billions? I think they put in more that 40 hours a week.

Do I have to mention the lie that if you just work hard and do a good job you'll be successful? When people say they are fortunate, they mean that they haven't been struck down by catastrophe. A car accident, or cancer, or violent crime, or other unforeseen events can mean the difference between security and poverty.

I would say that this guy is completely in love with the "self" rather than the Christian idea of caring for your fellow man. All he seems worried about is financial security and achievement, rather than any sense of community of fellowship. In the spirit of Christmas, "mankind should have been my business!"

# ? Dec 25, 2009 06:55

Grifter: Jul 24, 2003; I do this technique called a suplex. You probably haven't heard of it, it's pretty obscure.

This one just confused me.

quote:

Fwd: Fw: YEAH, MICHIGAN STATE! It's about time

YEAH,MICHIGAN STATE!

Very interesting the University is standing by their professor and not bowing down to special interest groups!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp

Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.

Status: True.

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor

Named Indrek Wichman.

http://aolsearch.aolcom/aol/redir?s...w.westernresist

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons

That portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech'

============

Enter Professor Wichman.

==========================================

In his e-mail, he said the following:

===============================

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians,

Cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims,the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture),

the murder of film directors in Holland ,and the rioting and looting in Paris,France .

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.

I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very

aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'

If you do not like the values of the West

- see the 1st Amendment -you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you

choose that option .

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S.. Wichman

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

=============================

As you can imagine,

The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.

They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory

diversity training for faculty

and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray ..

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor

had the right to express his opinion.

==========

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,

Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

============================================================

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.

Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it..

We are in a war.

This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us...

==================

If you agree with this,

Please send it to all your friends,

If not simply delete it.

There was a lot of formatting, large colored letters, that sort of thing. But this is basically just a slightly edited and propagandized c/p of a snopes article, with the link to the snopes page included. I guess whoever propagates these emails is getting tired of receiving responses in the form of links to snopes and is now simply forwarding snopes pages that happen to be correctly attributed.

Grifter fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Dec 29, 2009

# ? Dec 25, 2009 19:57

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Econosaurus posted:

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

Hmm... This_Never_Happened.Txt, or perhaps he was just laughed off the podium before he even got half-way done?

I'd be afraid of any school that allows such Objectivist Tripe to be spouted.

Taerkar fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Dec 25, 2009

# ? Dec 25, 2009 22:07

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Taerkar posted:

Hmm... This_Never_Happened.Txt, or perhaps he was just laughed off the podium before he even got half-way done?

I'd be afraid of any school that allows such Objectivist Tripe to be spouted.

http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html

Neal Boortz posted:

No, this speech has never been delivered at a college or a university. It was written to protest the fact that such an invitation has never been offered! It has only been delivered on my radio show, printed in my book "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" and produced on a limited edition CD. The irony is that this commencement speech has been more widely distributed, and has been the subject of more comment than any commencement speech that actually has been delivered at any college or university in the past 50 years. �Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003 by Neal Boortz.

# ? Dec 25, 2009 22:15

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Ah, even better, so he's been pre-mocked by never being invited to give the speech.

I wonder what he would think of the new version of the "Those that can't" line.

Those that can, do.
Those that can't, manage.

# ? Dec 25, 2009 22:25

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Econosaurus posted:

I dont even know where to start, any comments?

For somebody who despises "group mentalities" so much, he sure does love the partisan divide.

# ? Dec 26, 2009 03:29

CapMoron: Nov 20, 2000; Forum Veteran

Looks like Dad was able to forward on some more crap after Christmas dinner this year:

dad posted:

NEWS BRIEF: "Obama Extends Diplomatic Immunity to Interpol by Executive Order", The New Media Journal, December 22, 2009

"President Obama has issued an amendment to Executive Order 12425, designating the international law enforcement agency Interpol as a �public international organization,� thus extending diplomatic immunity to the law enforcement group The amendment to the Executive Order � which does not need to be put to the senatorial test of 'advise and consent'� reads: �By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words 'except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act' and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.�

:The text of Section 2(c), which now applies to Interpol states: �(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.�

Therefore, if agents of INTERPOL smash in your front door and arrest you and your family without charges, they will not be held responsible for violating your Constitutional rights! What President Obama has just accomplished is the direct overthrow of the American Constitution without any public debate whatsoever. I had always wondered how the overthrow of the Constitution could be accomplished since the vast majority of the American people are steadfastly opposed to giving up their precious guaranteed rights and privileges protected so ardently by the U.S. Constitution.

This next article asks a very pertinent question: why would President Obama do such a thing?

NEWS BRIEF: "Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?", National Review Online, December 23, 2009

"You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is ... President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law. On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States."

INTERPOL works closely with the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction the United States Government has always resisted because to submit to the ICC meant the permanent end of American National Sovereignty. Furthermore, the American public has always instinctively understood that all our liberties and rights would soon come to an end were we to submit to the ICC. Once America comes under the power of the ICC, all our laws which run counter to the International Criminal Court would be rendered invalid and replaced by the international law.

This sweeping act of invalidation would wipe out laws at the Federal, State, and Local levels! America's vaunted "States Rights" would also disappear.

For example, in states where Abortion Laws are tough, the ICC liberal rules would replace the American law. Without any vote by the American people or their representatives, Abortion on Demand would become the law of the land.

What President Obama has just done is to submit American legal and law enforcement authority to the International Community. And he did so quietly and without fanfare. The vast majority of Americans have no idea what has just been done to them.

Enforcement of this provision will likely be delayed until the onset of World War III, when planned terrorist attacks against cities in countries still electing their leaders will provide the excuse to overthrow the American Constitutional Government. At that moment, INTERPOL authorities will have the legal right to smash down your door.

Henry Kissinger is absolutely correct: President Obama is primed to bring in the New World Order!

There was also some article about Obama's approval rating now being worse than Bush due to his "pro-abortion health care", but it wasn't as entertaining.

# ? Dec 26, 2009 05:47

hayden.: Sep 11, 2007; here's a goat on a pig or something

CapMoron posted:

Looks like Dad was able to forward on some more crap after Christmas dinner this year:

I honestly know nothing about this. What's wrong with the information in the article? It seems kind of straightforward.

# ? Dec 27, 2009 20:28

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

buildmyrigdotcom posted:

I honestly know nothing about this. What's wrong with the information in the article? It seems kind of straightforward.

It says Obama has granted diplomatic immunity to Interpol so they can come in and arrest you without a warrant now. Death camps/etc

# ? Dec 27, 2009 20:37

hayden.: Sep 11, 2007; here's a goat on a pig or something

crime fighting hog posted:

It says Obama has granted diplomatic immunity to Interpol so they can come in and arrest you without a warrant now. Death camps/etc

So is that inaccurate? It seems pretty clear from the article that they can do this.

# ? Dec 27, 2009 21:41

Brecht: Nov 7, 2009

buildmyrigdotcom posted:

So is that inaccurate? It seems pretty clear from the article that they can do this.

Reagan wrote executive order 12425, which Obama amended. The original order granted immunity to INTERPOL. The full text of Barry's amendment:

quote:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

So looking at those in context, the original (well, current until this latest amendment) order...

quote:

it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act.

So what are sections 2(c), 2(d), 3, 4, 5 and 6?

quote:

Section 2(c) says that property of international organizations is immune from search or seizure.

Section 3 says that baggage of international organizations is immune from import taxes.

Section 4 says (essentially) that employees of international organizations are immune from income tax.

Section 5 is something about social security (presumably that they don't pay social security taxes or something, I don't care).

Section 6 says that international organizations don't have to pay property tax.

(section 2d was actually cut by Slick Willie back in the 90's, and quoted as I cribbed from another forum) So dropping a handful of immunity restrictions, mostly dealing with tax exemption. You'll notice that nothing in that amendment represents a change of status in any way for INTERPOL -- they were already conferred (practically) full diplomatic immunity by Reagan. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with warrantless arrests, extradition, being above the law... hell, INTERPOL-US agents are just American law enforcement with (AFAIK) additional certification.

"You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is ... President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law." No, Reagan did that.

# ? Dec 27, 2009 21:57

hayden.: Sep 11, 2007; here's a goat on a pig or something

I got it - so they're blaming Obama for something he didn't really do. Unless there's some sort of connection between the US not being able to search/seize and INTERPOL getting a do-anything-they-want card. I have no idea how INTERPOL works or how they're required to report to the US gubberment.

# ? Dec 28, 2009 01:02

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Plus Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and most wars we've been in weren't even voted on by Congress, so I guess you could say that lots of other presidents have "accomplished . . . the direct overthrow of the American Constitution" already.

# ? Dec 28, 2009 03:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 16:53

Pikaoh: Sep 21, 2009; Hey folks, Fake Ronnie here.

Grifter posted:

This one just confused me.

code:

Fwd: Fw: YEAH, MICHIGAN STATE! It's about time

YEAH,MICHIGAN STATE!

        Very interesting the University is standing by their professor and not bowing down to special interest groups!
         


        [url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp[/url]

        Professor Wichman E-mail
        Claim:  A  Michigan  professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.  

        Status:   True.

        The story begins at Michigan   State   University with a mechanical engineering professor

         Named Indrek Wichman.

        [url]http://aolsearch.aolcom/aol/redir?src=image&requestIdecdf055a786dd58&clickedItemRank=5&userQuery=INDREK+WICHMAN&clickedItemURN=imageDetails?invocationType=imageDetails&query=INDREK+WICHMAN&img=http://www.westernresist[/url]

        Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.

    The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons

    That portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

    The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech'

    ============

    Enter Professor Wichman.

    ==========================================

In his e-mail, he said the following:

===============================

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians,

Cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in  Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims,the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture),

the murder of film directors in  Holland ,and the rioting and looting in Paris,France .

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.

I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very

aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'

If you do not like the values of the West

- see the 1st Amendment -you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you

choose that option .

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S.. Wichman

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

=============================

As you can imagine,

The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.

They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory

diversity training for faculty

and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray ..

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor

had the right to express his opinion.

==========

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,

Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

============================================================

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.

Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it..

We are in a war.

This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us...

==================

If you agree with this,

Please send it to all your friends,

If not simply delete it.

Alright, now in mirror world. A Danish cartoonist draws an image of Jesus operating one of the many torture devices used during the Spanish Inquisition. I wonder, would peaceful protest/political correctness be destroying are country then?

# ? Dec 29, 2009 06:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »