|
RagnarokAngel posted:Cause they're too proud of this country Ronald Reagan Founding Fathers (Except for Jefferson [sometimes]) White America Matlock And most likely in that order.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
I guess our troops fit in there. Somewhere between white america and founding fathers probably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Cause they're too proud of this country The myth of America. They love a fairy tale people tell their children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
That list is shrinking, seeing as how the families of troops killed in Iraq and 9/11 victims are smeared as attention-seeking ghouls using their deaths for politics, and that the GoP (Who really honors America's heroes unlike Code PINKOs and LIEberals who hate troops and religion and only pretend to like them for votes) voted lockstep twice to deny health care to the 9/11 first responders who are sick right now as a direct result of saving lives on 9/11 out of pure spite for the Obama administration.
Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Nov 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
Also, be careful about "White America", you can't let those drat Irish in, or we'll be overrun by papists in a decade! Then those kids have kids and one day we might wind up with a *gasp* Catholic in charge! *adjusts monocle*
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 14:47
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The myth of America. "We" beat Hitler. "We" have a lot of money. "We" have the biggest economy in the world. "We" have a giant army. The single biggest Republican goal for government is vicarious manliness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
Jazu posted:"We" beat Hitler. Don't forget "We" have the best healthcare system in the world, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Don't forget "We" have the best healthcare system in the world, too. The free market has shown that insurance companies' death panels deny care more efficiently and widely and make more profit doing so than Obama's bloated government death panels ever could!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Jazu posted:"We" beat Hitler. This one is actually true since American industry is what enabled Russia to even fight through the Lend-Lease program! Although I guess if you're just talking timelines then nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
the yellow dart posted:This one is actually true since American industry is what enabled Russia to even fight through the Lend-Lease program! Soviets had already stopped the Germans and started their winter counter-offensive at the gates of Moscow before USA even had entered the war, and after that it took some time for the material assistance to start trickling in in meaningful amounts. It would have been much harder for the Red Army to march all the way to Berlin without US support especially in the form of trucks, but to say that it 'enabled' them to fight is plain wrong. It was the size of the country and its industrial and man reserves that enabled it to keep fighting and eventually win. Germany, like Japan, bit more than it could eat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure "we" were involved in material support of the Allies (Lend-Lease) before "we" officially entered the war and that's what he was referring to. Even so, out of all of the arrogant things we do, the American tendency to take credit for single-handedly showing up and winning both world wars is near the top of the list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
Parity Bit posted:I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure "we" were involved in material support of the Allies (Lend-Lease) before "we" officially entered the war and that's what he was referring to. Yes, but Lend-Lease to USSR didn't start arriving in large amounts until in 1942-1943 by which time the crisis had been averted. Soviets were totally capable of fighting the war on their own, perhaps even winning, but it would have taken much more time and lives to do so, as highly mobile operations such as Bagration couldn't have been managed with supply lines relying on horse carts and railways. Anyway, it's understandable that nations tend to (over)emphasize their own role in wars, and Russians do that as well and probably even more - it's the Great Patriotic War to them, and WW2 was just a sideshow compared to it! The trouble starts when people, limited by their narrow perspectives, start to make demands like "don't you forget that without the contribution of USA/Russia/Britain/New Zealand you'd all be speaking German/Japanese/Italian today!" and being asses in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
Not an email, but there was some Law and Order SVU episode where some guy was killing 'anchor babies' of illegal citizens. One of the cops goes to a couple to tell them their eight year old son has been murdered, and the mom starts wailing that he 'was their anchor' and now they're in trouble. Way to show that people wouldn't be upset because their kid was loving killed. Wow, I love that desk analogy. How do the kids earn their textbooks though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 06:27
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Not an email, but there was some Law and Order SVU episode where some guy was killing 'anchor babies' of illegal citizens. One of the cops goes to a couple to tell them their eight year old son has been murdered, and the mom starts wailing that he 'was their anchor' and now they're in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
Davish Krail posted:Way to legitimize the "anchor baby" myth, more like. Really, it's not at all how the law works. Yes, they deport parents with US citizen children all the loving time. And those people get extra screwed because they get banned for the US for X years and it make it harder to get a green card. Anyone who has paid even the smallest interest in immigration law knows it is bullshit. Instead it is a ploy to keep the Mexicans from voting. Republicans know their anti-immigration/racist stances will keep hispanics (except cubans) from voting republican for generations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
nm posted:Seriously. People don't realize how long with would for that to take effect. 20+ years to pull in mom. While is does keep hispanics from voting, I don't think that's their reason for pulling all the racist crap they do. Rather, it's a way to get large portions of their current voting base to the polls, which is quite anti-immigration. Granted, this will probably backfire horribly on them in about 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 07:29
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:While is does keep hispanics from voting, I don't think that's their reason for pulling all the racist crap they do. Rather, it's a way to get large portions of their current voting base to the polls, which is quite anti-immigration. By which time they will be either 1) too rich to care, 2) dead, or 3) have bastardized the system so much it won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:While is does keep hispanics from voting, I don't think that's their reason for pulling all the racist crap they do. Rather, it's a way to get large portions of their current voting base to the polls, which is quite anti-immigration. It absolutely will not backfire on them in 30 years. It has to backfire on them in the year it occurs, or it didn't occur at all. I think we've seen very clearly that in American politics if it didn't happen this year, people won't remember it. The Republican party can spend massive amounts of effort between 2000 and 2007 demonizing gays, and as long as they slack off in 2008, you still have gays voting Republican!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
nm posted:epublicans know their anti-immigration/racist stances will keep hispanics (except cubans) from voting republican for generations. It seems they really do think they can stop the demographic readjustment that'll give Latinos majority populations in much of the US. It'd be hilariously idiotic on their part if it didn't have offensive and tragic human rights impicatioms: the GOP is calling for a wholesale US economic invasion of Latin America but literally wants to wall the US off to stop the demographic effects of economic realignment. Essentially, they're filling a balloon with water and working their asses off to hold the hole shut. And they don't give a poo poo if the balloon pops, as long as the water doesn't come out where they're holding it shut. The good news is that people are getting through anyway, and there's definitively no way they can stop the wave that's coming. The GOP had a choice about 10 years ago to either court or pour hatred onto the Latino population. They really easily could've secured their vote, since the Latino population is largely conservative and Catholic. All the GOP had to do was make them vote on moral rather than economic lines, like they've gotten poor white voters to do for 30 years. But they hosed it up. The Republicans under Bush demonstrated they weren't interested in reconciling with Latinos, and they came down further to the right than Bush on immigration. It's a colossal fuckup that probably hasn't begun to be felt just yet. In 20 years as Latinos born here start voting they'll come down decidedly for Democrats. The GOP just won't be able to turn around on the immigration issue. They can quiet down on gay rights because young people in the US just don't care and the GOP is starting to see this. Xenophobia and hatred of all Latinos is, on the other hand, alive and well among lots of young white people in the US. The GOP absolutely won't abandon these people, and there can't be any sort of coalition between them and Latinos. The influence of these people is going to very suddenly start decreasing in 15-20 years. Children of undocumented immigrants get to vote just like everyone else, and needless to say there are a lot of these people. It's going to be great to watch the GOP collapse, at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
What do you guys do when conservatives endlessly repeat the talking point that Europe is imploding and that everyone over there are slashing their unsustainable social programs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 01:50
|
|
|
Snipee posted:What do you guys do when conservatives endlessly repeat the talking point that Europe is imploding and that everyone over there are slashing their unsustainable social programs? Along these lines, last night my uncle claimed that there were constant riots all over Europe because of "socialism." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 03:54
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Along these lines, last night my uncle claimed that there were constant riots all over Europe because of "socialism." My cousin was going to fly Paris when all the protests started recently, and she expressed some (perfectly reasonable) concern that places being shut down as a result would limit the activities available to her and her kids. One of her friends advised her not to go because (paraphrasing) "Things are different over there. They have all kinds of people we don't have, and thankfully we wouldn't let them get away with that here." Basically she simultaneously attributed the general strike to Muslim terrorists, socialism, and thuggery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:It absolutely will not backfire on them in 30 years. It has to backfire on them in the year it occurs, or it didn't occur at all. I think we've seen very clearly that in American politics if it didn't happen this year, people won't remember it. You just lost your own argument there. Seriously though, they are making a huge mistake in doing this. In 30 years they won't be able to court Mexicans and rednecks at the same time. Like African Americans they'll side with the liberals (despite being just as homophobic and sexist as the rednecks generally speaking) and be poo poo out of luck. Any attempt to moderate themselves when it comes to immigration or other users will just result in another Tea Party movement, pushing further on the right on those issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Along these lines, last night my uncle claimed that there were constant riots all over Europe because of "socialism." Aren't those really about popular anger over "austerity measures," essentially the exact opposite of what he claimed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Aren't those really about popular anger over "austerity measures," essentially the exact opposite of what he claimed? "Austerity measures" justifies their comments about unsustainable social programs (which they see as socialism).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 05:32
|
|
|
Snipee posted:"Austerity measures" justifies their comments about unsustainable social programs (which they see as socialism). I'm only using the term I've seen thrown around, I don't think it actually does justify any of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
quote:1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to ...augh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:...augh. Jesus. I can't think of a possible reply other than "gently caress you."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:...augh. I changed some of the "Muslim"s to "Mormon"s in my head. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:...augh. What data shows that Muslims wipe the as with their bare hands? And with a few simple word swaps, most of those could be changed to "You may be a redneck."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
Isn't the line "You might be a redneck?" Like, not to be pedantic, but there aren't a lot of good, Christian comics out there that are Toby-Keith-approved listening, so these people have to have heard that bit a million times. How do you get it wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
We wouldn't want to come off as derivative now would we?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:...augh. Mommy, why do the terrorists hate us?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
HipGnosis posted:I changed some of the "Muslim"s to "Mormon"s in my head. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, it seems. It is very bad to be bigoted against X but it is very OK to be bigoted against Y? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
Turnquiet posted:It is very bad to be bigoted against X but it is very OK to be bigoted against Y? Except that the official and centralized command and policy of the entire Mormon church is ingrained in and based on extreme prejudice against gays and blacks. So gently caress them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:...augh. If you're ignorant enough to forward this email around, you probably are extremely bigoted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
tek79 posted:Mommy, why do the terrorists hate us? Fer ARE freedoms, sonny. Fer are freedoms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:If you're ignorant enough to forward this email around, I don't think there's any "probably" about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Turnquiet posted:It is very bad to be bigoted against X but it is very OK to be bigoted against Y? It's not good to be bigoted against anybody, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
HipGnosis posted:It's not good to be bigoted against anybody, iirc. Well obviously, but I guess people like Shimrra Jamaane didn't get the memo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 23:32
|
|