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 »

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

The Ugly Duchess's crazy e-mail posted:

Simple. Christians cannot be enslaved.

Phew, good thing all those African slaves in America were freed once they converted to Christianity. I guess the Civil War wasn't about slavery after all! Those poor ol' slaveowners were just trying to bring their slaves to Christ, and let them all go once they got saved. We fought a whole war for nothing.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 14:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:40

jackpot: Aug 31, 2004; First cousin to the Black Rabbit himself. Such was Woundwort's monument...and perhaps it would not have displeased him.<

Haha, I like this

quote:

The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad. Adding to this apparent hypocrisy, reports ANS, students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."

"We could never teach Christianity like this," one outraged parent told ANS.

Not "would never" but "could never." That's an important distinction.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 14:31

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Christianity is barely monotheistic. More out of habit than any rigorous interpretation.

I have noticed AP and some other news sources translating "Allah" as "God" which is a good trend and I hope it continues.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 14:41

Turing sex machine: Dec 14, 2008; I want to have
your robot-babies

quote:

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3, The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

'Cause economy is a zero-sum game, am I right? It's not like new wealth is ever produced or anything.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 14:41

ManoliIsFat: Oct 4, 2002

Lansdowne posted:

This could also be referring to the estate tax. I'm not 100% on this, but I think it is repealed for 2010 due to a quirk in the law

The quirk in the law being they passed it through budget reconciliation.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 16:01

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

Lansdowne posted:

This could also be referring to the estate tax. I'm not 100% on this, but I think it is repealed for 2010 due to a quirk in the law, but comes in back into effect starting in 2011.

It's not a quirk in the law that 2010 has no estate tax, it was the intention of the law to repeal it.

That it's going to be re-implemented in 2011 is due to the tax cut bill being passed as a budget reconciliation item, which means it can't impact deficits more than 10 years out. So, they had to include a sunset provision. The intention of the GOP was to follow up the tax cut bill in later years with a second provision that made the rates for 2010 permanent. However, they never did it while they were in power, and then they lost power and found themselves unable to make those rates permanent.

It was the intention of the GOP to have the estate tax removed permanently after 2010, they just never got to the second bill that would have eliminated it permanently.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 18:23

BetterToRuleInHell: Jul 2, 2007; Touch my mask top
Get the chop chop

jackpot posted:

Haha, I like this

Not "would never" but "could never." That's an important distinction.

Wait, are other faiths, including Christianity, given as much time and effort into educating students? The omgmuslimconspiracy stuff is stupid, but if a public school is actually putting that much effort into educating students about one faith (which seems weird for a public school to do in the first place) only, then the school and the program deserves to be scrutinized.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 19:25

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Wait, are other faiths, including Christianity, given as much time and effort into educating students? The omgmuslimconspiracy stuff is stupid, but if a public school is actually putting that much effort into educating students about one faith (which seems weird for a public school to do in the first place) only, then the school and the program deserves to be scrutinized.

My guess? They're referring to a comparative religion class, and the email conveniently neglects to mention Buddhism Week, Judaism Week, and Christianity Month (which they don't count because most of it was dedicated to wrong kinds of Christianity).

# ? Jul 7, 2010 23:00

BetterToRuleInHell: Jul 2, 2007; Touch my mask top
Get the chop chop

Absurd Alhazred posted:

My guess? They're referring to a comparative religion class, and the email conveniently neglects to mention Buddhism Week, Judaism Week, and Christianity Month (which they don't count because most of it was dedicated to wrong kinds of Christianity).

Are there such classes now in public schools?

# ? Jul 7, 2010 23:07

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

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Are there such classes now in public schools?

Heck, religion has such a huge impact on history and society that I'd consider it remiss if schools didn't have those kinds of classes. At my (secular private) school, we got a crash course in each of the major religions as part of our standard history curriculum, and I think that's probably the best way to teach religion in a secular setting. I'd be interested in hearing about how other people learned comparative religion, though. :allears:

# ? Jul 7, 2010 23:33

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Religion is imperative to understand history, but it's also pretty drat important to understand culture today. I think it's rather stupid that many high schools don't cover religion as much as they should. Instead, we get a bunch of people graduating who only know their own world view (which is likely slanted toward Christianity).

# ? Jul 7, 2010 23:51

Dark Chicken: Dec 15, 2002

The Ugly Duchess posted:

Heck, religion has such a huge impact on history and society that I'd consider it remiss if schools didn't have those kinds of classes. At my (secular private) school, we got a crash course in each of the major religions as part of our standard history curriculum, and I think that's probably the best way to teach religion in a secular setting. I'd be interested in hearing about how other people learned comparative religion, though.

I had kind of the same thing, crash course in major religions at my private Christian school. I don't remember much of it beyond the Five Pillars of Islam, the Four Noble Truths, and the Noble Eightfold Path.

# ? Jul 7, 2010 23:55

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

I don't really know where else to post this, I just want a little help with this. I'm having a debate with a big Paul Ryan supporter, and I'm frankly not well educated enough in this area to make an intelligent response to this. Does anyone know anything about these facts/are they true/what makes them not true/whatever? I'm having trouble writing a response to this

quote:

But fundamentally, why do you think we should tax the wealthy more? Is it an issue of revenues? Or an issue of justice? From a revenue standpoint, you can't soak enough away from the rich to pay for our unfunded liabilities. I'm not even talking about the effect on job creation, simply that you cannot raise $75 trillion by just hammering away at the wealthy. We have data on this if you want but I hope you agree that's a fair point.

Now, if it's an issue of justice, I don't feel like that's a debate I want to have.
Econosaurus, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your facts are wrong. 1/3 of the stimulus was NOT tax cuts. We do not consider REFUNDABLE tax credits tax cuts - these are simply spending via checks handed out. We would never defend that part of ARRA. And we would consider tax credits that are not refundable to also be "spending" through the tax code, not rate reductions. There were no real rate reductions in the stimulus.

As far as "dropping" the Bush tax cuts, it may have given us some slack with deficits (although not as much as you'd expect if you use a dynamic score, which means figuring in the second, third, and so on, order impacts of what tax increases do to capital formation and job creation), but the way budgeting works is that these are already assumed to expire as part of the baseline. It's called the "current law" approach. And under the baseline, debt will reach 90% of GDP by 2020 - this ASSUMES the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, again. I don't have to tell you that the reason why debt will skyrocket is because of Medicare and Social Security (we'll have 80 million baby boomers retiring), and to some extent Medicaid because of rising health care costs. We're up the creek without a paddle here, unless of course we adopt Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America. You've heard how politicians love to defend these benefit systems for their constituents - after all, who wants to "privatize" social security or "voucherize" Medicare for seniors? - but the fact is that these programs are walking their way right into extinction on their current path, and you cannot tax the wealthy enough to pay for them. Even worse, they will cause shocks in the debt markets way before the day of reckoning, leading to higher interest rates, private sector crowding out, lower growth, etc, if we do nothing.

One other thing we should get straight about the the Bush tax cuts. It's a misnomer to think that most of these were directed at the wealthy. The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation says that 31.1% of taxes paid from 2001-06 (latest data available) come from taxpayers making over $200,000. If you look at just the individual rate cuts, it's closer to 23%. There were plenty of other components to the Bush tax cuts - income tax cuts for those under $200K, child credits, marriage penalty breaks, education breaks, pensions, AMT, etc. And I know the Bush tax cuts have become the poster children for how much Republicans love to support the wealthy, but in all fairness, when they were passed we had a $3.38 trillion 10-year budget surplus projected. I may have done things a little differently given the impending entitlement crisis - I don't defend all of Bush's policies and think he was not a true fiscal conservative - but it's important to understand the argument from all sides.

# ? Jul 9, 2010 17:50

the: Jul 18, 2004; by Cowcaster

Ask him why he's not rich, and if he ever thinks he will be.

# ? Jul 9, 2010 18:12

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Econosaurus posted:

I don't really know where else to post this, I just want a little help with this. I'm having a debate with a big Paul Ryan supporter, and I'm frankly not well educated enough in this area to make an intelligent response to this. Does anyone know anything about these facts/are they true/what makes them not true/whatever? I'm having trouble writing a response to this

As far as progressive taxation, the concept to argue around is "marginal utility". The last dollar taxed should affect all citizens equally. Ask him if it is fair that the last dollar taxed for a rich person should impact whether or not to make a trip to Cancun, while on a poor person that last dollar would impact whether she can buy enough food to feed her family.

# ? Jul 9, 2010 18:16

Turing sex machine: Dec 14, 2008; I want to have
your robot-babies

quote:

From a revenue standpoint, you can't soak enough away from the rich to pay for our unfunded liabilities. I'm not even talking about the effect on job creation, simply that you cannot raise $75 trillion by just hammering away at the wealthy. We have data on this if you want but I hope you agree that's a fair point.

That's a strawman, unless you were actually arguing that increasing taxes to the rich is all we need to do to solve the deficit problem.

# ? Jul 9, 2010 19:41

xanthig: Apr 23, 2005

Econosaurus posted:

I don't really know where else to post this, I just want a little help with this. I'm having a debate with a big Paul Ryan supporter, and I'm frankly not well educated enough in this area to make an intelligent response to this. Does anyone know anything about these facts/are they true/what makes them not true/whatever? I'm having trouble writing a response to this

Who wrote that, the person you are arguing with? Or is it quoted from some other source? This is basically a lot of jargon and made up numbers strung together with good grammar. It sounds credible if you don't know anything about the subject it discusses, but it is basically a rehash of conservative economic talking points.

# ? Jul 9, 2010 19:52

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

xanthig posted:

Who wrote that, the person you are arguing with? Or is it quoted from some other source? This is basically a lot of jargon and made up numbers strung together with good grammar. It sounds credible if you don't know anything about the subject it discusses, but it is basically a rehash of conservative economic talking points.

The person wrote it, she works with republicans but is smart as hell. Could you point out why this stuff is wrong specifically? I don't want to respond with "those are all talking points :smug:

# ? Jul 9, 2010 21:43

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Econosaurus posted:

The person wrote it, she works with republicans but is smart as hell. Could you point out why this stuff is wrong specifically? I don't want to respond with "those are all talking points "

Based on data from 2007, the total household income of households earning more than $100,000 (i.e., the top quintile) was $3,946,295,705,000, roughly 4 trillion dollars. Given a 2010 budget deficit of roughly 1.5 trillion, you could, theoretically, balance the budgets by raising effective tax rates on such households by roughly 37.5%, though obviously this would represent a substantial increase. Total corporate profits stand at $1.4 trillion, and could be used to take some of the weight off - actual changes in tax rates may not be necessary, given how many corporations simply do not pay taxes at the present time.

I don't know what the $75 trillion figure represents, or why it's relevant. Presumably, we are trying to balance budgets, not raise a particular lump sum.

Additionally, her analysis seems to be suggesting that if a given level of taxation on the rich does not balance the budget, then it cannot be justified on the basis of providing government revenue, which seems faintly absurd to me. More taxes bring us closer to a balanced budget, even if it does not actually bring us entirely there.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jul 10, 2010

# ? Jul 10, 2010 02:53

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

Deteriorata posted:

As far as progressive taxation, the concept to argue around is "marginal utility". The last dollar taxed should affect all citizens equally. Ask him if it is fair that the last dollar taxed for a rich person should impact whether or not to make a trip to Cancun, while on a poor person that last dollar would impact whether she can buy enough food to feed her family.

Also, how much each person benefits from the system they are paying into. Somebody with vast investments and multiple business interests benefits a shitload more from working roads, security, etc, etc than some poor schlub living hand to mouth.

# ? Jul 10, 2010 13:29

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Econosaurus posted:

The person wrote it, she works with republicans but is smart as hell. Could you point out why this stuff is wrong specifically? I don't want to respond with "those are all talking points "

TPM has a great chart on what makes up the current deficit spending.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/chart-of-the-day-reminder-the-deficit-youre-freaking-out-about-is-bushs-fault.php?ref=fpblg

I'm not sure if it will help, but it might get you part of the way on pointing out some of the bullshit. Also, I think the 75 trillion number is from total debt of the U.S. This number is completely retarded as it includes personal debt, corporate debt, and all sorts of b.s. that has nothing to do with the national debt. The national debt is $13,192,234,850,314.21 as per the treasury website:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

edit: You may want to check out the post in D&D about wealth/income disparity in the U.S.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3325771
The person you quoted is acting as if the rich are just sooo taxed that they can't take it anymore and might quit creating jobs. Which is all bullshit.

downout fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 10, 2010

# ? Jul 10, 2010 19:45

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

This is all really great, thanks guys. What about her assertions that we can't afford social security/medicare?

Edit: did paul ryan vote for the f-22? I can't find the house vote count. I also can't find a good source on military spending as a % of gdp

Econosaurus fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jul 10, 2010

# ? Jul 10, 2010 20:45

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Econosaurus posted:

This is all really great, thanks guys. What about her assertions that we can't afford social security/medicare?

Some sort of alteration to social security may in fact be necessary - people are living much longer now than they were when it was first put into place. However, privatization is a non-answer - the entire purpose of social security is to provide a guaranteed support for the old age, while investment is always a gamble. If social security is turned, in whole or in part, into 'investment accounts,' then economic crises (such as the one we have right now!) are redoubled; the older population suddenly doesn't have enough to get by.

If in such cases the government picks up the slack, then we are throwing an additional financial burden upon it precisely when money is tightest, and after removing the monetary inflow which would have funded it. If it doesn't pick up the slack, then we have senior citizens starving in their homes, precisely what social security was meant to prevent. Talking about the market getting a better average rate of return is whitewashing; the system is there to prevent individuals from falling through the cracks, and the market always has winners and losers.

Medicare's biggest problem, as I understand it, is that medical costs in general are still skyrocketing. If the government can't afford health care, that's because nobody can afford health care, save perhaps for the rich. We need a system to get medical costs under control, which is why it's a pity the recent health care bill was so tepid.

The most obvious logical flaw is just this line: "We're up the creek without a paddle here, unless of course we adopt Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America."

It's a ludicrous dichotomy. We need to address our budget deficits, but anything which better matches revenues to spending does so - we don't have to turn the country into a neofeudal state.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jul 10, 2010

# ? Jul 10, 2010 21:06

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

Okay, my super fundie guy I know from High School sent me this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY

But the tone of it makes me think it's actually making fun of creationists, but I'm not sure.

Also he told my group of friends and I about the Canopy Theory. "What's the canopy theory, cfh?" you may ask:

The canopy theory seeks to explain the reference in Genesis 1:6 to �the waters above the firmament,� assuming that �firmament,� or �expanse,� as the Hebrew word is alternatively translated, refers to our atmosphere. According to the canopy theory, there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere until the cataclysm of Noah�s day, at which point it disappeared either by collapsing upon the earth or by dissipation into space. It is presumed to have consisted of water vapor because a canopy of ice could not have survived the constant bombardment of celestial objects like meteoroids which perpetually barrage the earth�s atmosphere.

This is also the reason people lived to be 999 years old. Somehow.

# ? Jul 10, 2010 23:59

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

crime fighting hog posted:

But the tone of it makes me think it's actually making fun of creationists, but I'm not sure.

It's subtle but once he demanded a fossil of every single generation told me it was definitely satire.

# ? Jul 11, 2010 00:30

Bagpuss: Mar 23, 2001; A little bit of solidarity goes a long way.

crime fighting hog posted:

Okay, my super fundie guy I know from High School sent me this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY

Yeah, Edward Current is satire. Check out some of his other vids as that one is way to close to what creationist actually believe.

# ? Jul 11, 2010 00:45

MOLLUSC: Nov 30, 2005

That is a pretty good satirical video, but then you realise people actual believe that line of reasoning is true :smith:

# ? Jul 11, 2010 13:21

MiddleNotch: Apr 28, 2010; by Fistgrrl

Probably a repeat, but I just got this one today :

A DC airport ticket agency offers some examples of 'why' our country is
in trouble!

1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an
aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the
window. (On an airplane!)

2. I got a call from a Kansas Congressman's (Moore) staffer (Howard
Bauleke), who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length
of the flight and the passport information, and then he interrupted me
with, ''I'm not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in
Massachusetts .''

Without trying to make him look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod
is in Massachusetts, Capetown is in Africa ''

His response -- click.

3. A senior Vermont Congressman (Bernie Sanders) called, furious about a
Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in
Orlando. He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain
that's not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the
state.

He replied, 'don't lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very
thin state!'' (OMG)

4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife (Landra Reid) who asked, ''Is it
possible to see England from Canada?''

I said, ''No.''

She said, ''But they look so close on the map.'' (OMG, again!)

5. An aide for a cabinet member(Janet Napolitano) once called and asked
if he could rent a car in Dallas. I pulled up the reservation and
noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he
wanted to rent a car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and
we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.'' (Aghhhh)

6. An Illinois Congresswoman (Jan Schakowsky) called last week. She
needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at
8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m.

I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois, but
she couldn't understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her
the plane went fast, and she bought that.

7. A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ''Do airlines
put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage
belongs to whom?''

I said, 'No, why do you ask?'

He replied, ''Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag
on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very
rude!''

After putting him on hold for a minute, while I looked into it, (I was
dying laughing), I came back and explained the city code for Fresno,
CA. is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a
destination tag on his luggage.

8. A Senator John Kerry aide (Lindsay Ross) called to inquire about a
trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked,
''Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to
Hawaii ?''

9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman, Bobby Bright
(D) from Alabama who asked, ''How do I know which plane to get on?''

I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my
flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.''

10. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) called and said, ''I need to fly to
Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer
planes?''

I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane.

She said, ''Yeah, whatever, smarty!''

11. Mary Landrieu (D) LA. Senator called and had a question about the
documents she needed in order to fly to China. After a lengthy
discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. 'Oh,
no I don't. I've been to China many times and never had to have one of
those.''

I double checked and sure enough, her stay required a visa.
When I told her this she said, ''Look, I've been to China four times and
every time they have accepted my American Express!''

12. A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations,
''I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York.''

I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, ''Are you sure that's the
name of the town?''

'Yes, what flights do you have?'' replied the man.

After some searching, I came back with, ''I'm sorry, sir, I've looked up
every airport code in the country and can't find a rhino anywhere."

''The man retorted, ''Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is.
Check your map!''

So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, ''You
don't mean Buffalo, do you?''

The reply? ''Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.''

Now you know why the Government is in the shape that it's in!

Could anyone be this DUMB?

YES,
THEY WALK AMONG US, ARE IN POLITICS, AND THEY CONTINUE TO BREED.

BREEDBREEDBREEDBREED!!!!!111eleventeen.

# ? Jul 12, 2010 21:21

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

Wow, if I had known that the key to great political satire was grabbing a bunch of "dumb people" anecdotes and attributing them to political figures, I would have become a comedian long ago!

# ? Jul 12, 2010 21:49

Pungent Mammy: Jul 29, 2003; The pig is a huge fat pig.; Fallen Rib

Barack Obama walks into a bar. George Bush ducks. :smug:

# ? Jul 12, 2010 21:59

MiddleNotch: Apr 28, 2010; by Fistgrrl

Pungent Mammy posted:

Barack Obama walks into a bar. George Bush ducks.

All the polish people die.

# ? Jul 12, 2010 22:00

AKA Pseudonym: May 16, 2004; A dashing and sophisticated young man; Doctor Rope

MiddleNotch posted:

7. A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ''Do airlines
put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage
belongs to whom?''

I said, 'No, why do you ask?'

He replied, ''Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag
on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very
rude!''

After putting him on hold for a minute, while I looked into it, (I was
dying laughing), I came back and explained the city code for Fresno,
CA. is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a
destination tag on his luggage.

This one is subtle and a lot of people might not get it. It's stupid because he's going to Fresno.

# ? Jul 12, 2010 22:27

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

MiddleNotch posted:

All the polish people die.

I honestly don't get this. :blush:

# ? Jul 12, 2010 22:44

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

Knock knock
who's there
interrupting barack obama
interrupting ba-
WELCOME TO THE SOCIALIST STATE HERE'S YOUR 20 INCH SPINNER RIMS

Forward this to 30 people or your crush won't go to the dance with you.

# ? Jul 12, 2010 23:02

MiddleNotch: Apr 28, 2010; by Fistgrrl

The Ugly Duchess posted:

I honestly don't get this.

The russians made a bad airport.

# ? Jul 12, 2010 23:46

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

I like how they finally started putting (D) next to the names.

"You see! They're all Dumbocrats! Haha!"

# ? Jul 12, 2010 23:52

MiddleNotch: Apr 28, 2010; by Fistgrrl

Taerkar posted:

I like how they finally started putting (D) next to the names.

"You see! They're all Dumbocrats! Haha!"

REPUKEAGAINS, DEMONRATS lol/.

# ? Jul 12, 2010 23:56

Hardcore Phonography: Apr 28, 2004; I have my eye on a suite in Baker Street.

Here's one that probably hasn't been posted:

quote:

I can't believe you voted for that friend of the family hussein obama. YOU are no reletive of mine, friend of the family lover. But I guess I cantt blame you for having poisoned blood. I will pray for your soul in Jesus's Name.

I got this from an aunt I haven't talked to in 9 years, completely out of the blue - I left in all the... flavor. I guess word gets around. My mother was Cherokee, she died in front of me when I was 5. All Jesus, no class.

Family reunion is gonna be mighty awkward.

# ? Jul 13, 2010 03:16

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

Geez, sounds like you should be praying for her nasty, racist soul, not the other way around. :smith:

# ? Jul 13, 2010 03:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:40

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Hardcore Phonography posted:

Here's one that probably hasn't been posted:

I got this from an aunt I haven't talked to in 9 years, completely out of the blue - I left in all the... flavor. I guess word gets around. My mother was Cherokee, she died in front of me when I was 5. All Jesus, no class.

Family reunion is gonna be mighty awkward.

Cause Jesus was all about using racial slurs and hating people.

# ? Jul 13, 2010 03:34

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

«‹›2810 »