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 »

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

PerniciousKnid posted:

I think Snopes has always been known to be a liberal factmonger amongst those conservatives who knew of its existence.

They really are out to prove Colbert isn't as far from parody as we what to think: "Facts have a liberal bias."

# ? Feb 18, 2011 01:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 13:27

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

Political emails, the type that are mass forwarded, are almost uniformly right wing phenomenon in my experience.

I've never seen a right winger express shame or embarrassment when some bullshit email they promulgated was thoroughly and unambiguously debunked, even from some accepted non-Snopes source. At most you get some response like "well I can't bother to check out everything (before I forward it to 500 people on my contact list or post it to the world on my Facebook page or on some message board)"

It just seems to be an accepted form of right wing communication, to affirm membership in the ideological tribe, and the truth or falsehood of the email apparently should have no impact on the credibility of the person forwarding it or posting it, according to this way of thinking.

If anyone has examples of cookie cutter left wing emails that get mass forwarded, it would merit its own thread, I'd think.

"If you can read this you should thank Noam Chomsky."

# ? Feb 18, 2011 02:15

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

The only sort of things I see that aren't distinctly right wing are stuff like loose change, which tends to be popular with college kids who want to be hardcore liberal. But believing in a conspiracy theory is not an inherently left wing philosophy given how many conspiracies conservatives will buy into.

# ? Feb 18, 2011 02:25

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

nm posted:

They really are out to prove Colbert isn't as far from parody as we what to think: "Facts have a liberal bias."

Colbert isn't far from parody at all. In fact, I'd say it's a masterful parody to the point where conservatives sometimes believe he is not parody and I can't watch Colbert regularly or for too long because even though I know it is parody it still drives me nuts.

# ? Feb 18, 2011 14:32

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

Orange Devil posted:

Colbert isn't far from parody at all. In fact, I'd say it's a masterful parody to the point where conservatives sometimes believe he is not parody and I can't watch Colbert regularly or for too long because even though I know it is parody it still drives me nuts.

Colbert spoke at my graduation and my 80 year old, tea party grandparents thought he was completely serious.

# ? Feb 18, 2011 17:33

TerminalSaint: Apr 21, 2007; Where must we go...

we who wander this Wasteland in search of our better selves?

LaMarre, Landreville & Beam 2009 posted:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

# ? Feb 18, 2011 21:55

El Boot: Mar 18, 2009; Thank Dog It's Friday

I just got this from my dad.

quote:

An eye opener

___________________________________

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5...3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette . It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U.. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post .
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

So I sent this back.

quote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

To summarize that link, there is a lot of misinformation in this email. The estimates for the Bakken Formation are around 3-4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, not 500 billion (the link that "will blow your mind" says all this right up front; I guess the author just counted on no one clicking it). While this is a decent amount, it's really only enough to sustain this country for about a year, based on the amount we currently import and use. We are in fact getting oil from there, but as of right now it's only producing "less than half a million barrels per day." This is because of technical limitations, not environmentalists.

As for the second part, there have been estimates of about 1.5-1.8 trillion barrels of shale oil underneath the Green River Formation, however only half of that (around 800 billion barrels) is estimated to be recoverable. Also, even under "high growth assumptions," we're "probably more than 20 years" away from being able to get a production level from this site big enough to cover just 10% of our current oil usage. Once again, this is because of significant technical and scientific obstacles, and not environmentalists. Considering this, I highly doubt President Bush made any sort of mandate to start extraction, and if he did, it would have been about as useful as if he had mandated that cancer be cured or a time machine be invented.

I tried to reply all, but the way it was set up I think it was just sent to him. I tempted to send it separately to everyone else I see it's been sent to.

# ? Feb 18, 2011 21:59

UltraPenguinX: Mar 23, 2009; TC: hOnK hOnK iM a MoThErFuCkInG sEaL :o)

I just got this one:

quote:

Go to FOX and vote NO on banning the American flag in America VOTE !!!
This is disgusting, to put it mildly. Your voice needs to be heard.
This is just sickening. Only 76.15% have voted on the FOX poll to NOT ban
the flag in school and something like 18.0% voted YES, to ban it

What is going on in this country?? Read below.

Fox is running a poll about whether the flag should be banned in schools in
order not to inflame Hispanic students. The poll is being sandbagged by SEIU
and we should mount a counter action if you agree with me that the flag
should be taken down for no one.

Moveon.org, funded by George Soros, Organizing for America, and SEIU,
"Service Employee International UNION", have been twittering today to go to
Fox Poll and vote to BAN the Flag and right now it is still working (18%).

It's time to SHOW THEM WHAT TRUE PATRIOTS BELIEVE!!!

GO HERE NOW:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/06/american-flag-banned-america/

VOTE... and then pass it along!

This seems REALLY fishy. I haven't had time to look into the matter, but this is most likely a case of leaving out very important facts, isn't it?

Edit: what the hell, this poll took play last May...

# ? Feb 18, 2011 23:34

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

The context is kids wearing American flags on their shirts on Cinco de Mayo as a protest against Mexican culture.

# ? Feb 18, 2011 23:56

Pornographic Memory: Dec 17, 2008

I think they should have mandatory classes on burning the American flag at schools.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 00:35

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

From a facebook conversation, linking this - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=4&hp

I mentioned liking the article, here was the response.

quote:

*sigh* I'm sure you did like it. you, like krugman, haven't the first clue about economics and are looking at an economic issue as a political one instead. since you're both committed socialists, the solution to everything is to spend more money and have the government fix everything. you and I can go back and forth about that on a political level, but why is it wrong, economically speaking?

the 'keynesian' macroeconomic theory krugman is basing his column on basically says that recessions happen sometimes - let's not bother with why, it's just people's animal spirits waning - and that do get out of recession, the government must come in and spend money to 'stimulate' the economy and get those animal spirits going again. krugman views the economy as a circular flow of investment and income, and the faster the flow, the stronger the economy (until it overheats, of course, but that's another issue). under this view, the economy is sort of like a car, and when it slows down you just have the government step on the gas a little, either by spending money or printing it (fiscal or monetary policy, respectively).

so what's ridiculous about that? well, first off, it's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, come on. but why, exactly?

well, the first problem is that the economy is not made up of 'output' or any aggregated statistics like gdp or employment. it's made up of companies and firms and entrepreneurs - individual actors. any attempt to aggregate individual economic actors into simplistic variables and then trying to analyze how the variables interact with each other is a recipe for disaster. the economy doesn't increase investment or spend more, individuals do. the basic conception of the economy as a circular flow between aggregates has nothing to do with how economic decisions are actually made in real life, where individuals use price signals (including the interest rate) to coordinate investment and consumption.

nowhere is the problem of aggregation worse than in dealing with capital structure, which keynesian economics completely ignores. it's just 'k.' it's not even 'factories,' it's just one letter. but in real life capital is single family houses and automobile plants and railroad tracks - different types of capital for different uses. lumping it all together is absurd - think maybe it's important if all of a sudden we have no auto plants left but a bazillion houses? krugman's model can't incorporate these distinctions. he even views saving as a bad thing, given his circular flow model - he thinks it's like draining money from the economy like water from a bathtub. in reality, savings are what allow capital formation and new investments. but krugman has no clue.

but again, the more fundamental problem is that keynesian economics is a top-down view of the economy, whereas all economic decisions are made by individual actors at ground level. so he's starting out from a crappy model. I believe locke's definition of a madman is someone who draws the right conclusion from wrong premises...

so why can't spending money - fiscal policy - get us out of a recession? well, of course krugman has no capital theory to work with, and on top of that didn't bother to even ask why we had a financial crisis (it was greed! or something). so naturally, there's no way he could recognize that there were a number of bad investments ('malinvestments') made, specifically in the housing sector. years earlier, the federal reserve artificially lowered interest rates to get out of the previous recession, but that distorted price signal - interest rates are the price of money across time - made investors think there was a larger pool of savings than was really available. so more houses were built than there were people who could afford them - maninvestments - and eventually when this became apparent there was a financial crisis.

now, how to get out of a financial crisis caused by malinvestment? well, you liquidate the malinvestments. you don't spend more money (which you're borrowing in the first place) to fund more malinvestments. you can't just spend a shitton of money to inflate the gdp number and expect that to realign these malinvestments. spending money gathered through taxation or borrowed takes capital out of the economy and funnels it to politicians' pet projects. maybe it keeps some people off the streets, but it doesn't address the longer term issue of the malinvestments.

to boot, krugman has his history wrong. the keynesian narrative is that roosevelt was doing his best to get us out of the depression, but evil republicans made him pull funding from the economy in '37 and that caused another economic downturn, and we didn't really get out of the mess until we had a massive public works project called WWII. this is a load of poo poo.

the depression was caused by - you guessed it - monetary expansion in the 20's which distorted the interest rate and caused malinvestments. instead of letting these malinvestments liquidate, the hoover and roosevelt administrations employed all sorts of schemes which just made things infinitely worse. the downturn in '38 was largely caused by a hostile political environment for business after roosevelt threatened to pack the supreme court and unfavorable labor legislation (wagner act). you might not like that story, but that's what happened.

and how did we get out of it in the end? yes, the war did finally reduce unemployment. great. I guess all we have to do to get out of our current troubles is to send 16 million workers overseas (and shoot 400k of them). however, I wouldn't exactly call wartime rationing and making tanks and bullets the definition of a 'recovery.' indeed, this was mainly financed with debt and the remaining savings of the general population (war bonds). the actual recovery took place because after the war we allowed the structure of production to realign itself to make chevys and televisions.

so fast-forward to today: unless we let the malinvestments in housing be liquidated and our strucutre of production realign itself, we're just going to keep going until we can't borrow anymore. then we'll just print it. oh, wait... http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-economy-flight-666-our-one-way-ticket-zimbabwe

# ? Feb 19, 2011 01:04

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Click here for the full 1786x1562 image.

Yea, I'm sort of dick but really guys? Really? C'mon. There's no reasoning with these people.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Feb 19, 2011

# ? Feb 19, 2011 01:24

Alastor_the_Stylish: Jul 25, 2006; WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

Tab8715 posted:

Click here for the full 1786x1562 image.

There's no reasoning with these people.

So then trying was your first mistake.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 01:39

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

I'd vote for Reagan's exhumed corpse too, a dead president might actually be better for this country than what we've been getting.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 01:41

Orkiec: Dec 28, 2008; My gut, huh?

That is exactly why I don't argue on facebook.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 01:49

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Orkiec posted:

That is exactly why I don't argue on facebook.

I use to have faith in humanity, until I met conservatives who think they simply calling me a "liberal" or whatever buzzword is an acceptable counter argument.

Though, my personal favorite in that debate is how Iran-Contra was somehow acceptable during wartime, because treason is acceptable during wartime, right?... Guys?

# ? Feb 19, 2011 02:09

TerminalSaint: Apr 21, 2007; Where must we go...

we who wander this Wasteland in search of our better selves?

Tab8715 posted:

I use to have faith in humanity, until I met conservatives who think they simply calling me a "liberal" or whatever buzzword is an acceptable counter argument.

I love how they think "liberal" "progressive" and "socialist" are among the most terrible insults known to man, and somehow invalidate anything you might say.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 03:05

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

TerminalSaint posted:

I love how they think "liberal" "progressive" and "socialist" are among the most terrible insults known to man, and somehow invalidate anything you might say.

Or how, if I get a real job, move out my parents job I'll just get it right?

# ? Feb 19, 2011 03:42

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Econosaurus posted:

From a facebook conversation, linking this - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=4&hp

I mentioned liking the article, here was the response.

Wow. John Maynard Keynes completely glossed over why recessions happen. It's not the core of his work at all. Really. What kind of alternate universe is this true in?

I like the little rant about how aggregate analysis is impossible. We shouldn't use aggregate data (in macroeconomics) because it is inherently flawed and worthless. That's about as Austrian as you can get.

And Paul Krugman has never even bothered to look into the cause of the financial crisis. It was totally the fed lowering interest rates that caused 100% of it but Krugman is off being distracted by the ten trillion dollar shadow banking system and its collapse. Really? How can people believe this.

I especially like his assertion that the standard Keynesian narrative for how WWII ended the depression is completely wrong, yet provides the Austrian explanation in one sentence: "and then, after the greatest upheaval in human history, things went back to normal."

And of course, the standard Austrian prescription for all economic woes at the end: "do nothing."

# ? Feb 19, 2011 20:12

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

God where the hell does most of the government get off thinking that the best time to oppose "stifling regulations" is during a time of skyrocketing healthcare costs, banks gaming the system to screw over millions, the warmest year in human history, and a cataclysmic oil spill obliterating the Gulf's ecosystem and economy?

Especially that last part. I can almost understand someone arguing that a few years ago, but arguing against regulation after the Gulf spill?!

# ? Feb 19, 2011 21:20

Ninja_Orca: Nov 12, 2010; by hoodrow trillson

Dr Christmas posted:

Especially that last part. I can almost understand someone arguing that a few years ago, but arguing against regulation after the Gulf spill?!

I've heard it argued that it was because of government oversight that the spill took so long for BP to plug up. I don't know if there's any stock at all to this though, because said person also said that the government was stupid for not accepting Kevin Costner's help, as if the star of Waterworld was destined to be the savior of the Gulf or something.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 21:23

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

That's very true. It's because of government regulations against harming sea turtles, ($50,000 per sea turtle, I believe?) that BP was forced to burn all those sea turtles alive (430 estimated), rather than let anyone know they had been damaged by the oil spill. If it weren't for these harsh regulations, BP wouldn't have had any reason to kill the sea turtles!

# ? Feb 19, 2011 21:36

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

Ninja_Orca posted:

I've heard it argued that it was because of government oversight that the spill took so long for BP to plug up. I don't know if there's any stock at all to this though, because said person also said that the government was stupid for not accepting Kevin Costner's help, as if the star of Waterworld was destined to be the savior of the Gulf or something.

It took so long because a gushing oil well at that extreme depth was an engineering problem that had never happened before, and no one on Earth knew what exactly to do.

And still, they decide now is the best time to redouble their efforts on arguing against taking preventive measures against cataclysmic oil spills.

AAAARGH

# ? Feb 19, 2011 22:15

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Dr Christmas posted:

God where the hell does most of the government get off thinking that the best time to oppose "stifling regulations" is during a time of skyrocketing healthcare costs, banks gaming the system to screw over millions, the warmest year in human history, and a cataclysmic oil spill obliterating the Gulf's ecosystem and economy?

They think that because they are paid lots and lots of money to believe it. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy or narrative about human foolishness, just people with money burning down the world so they can get more of it.

# ? Feb 19, 2011 22:26

Umph: Apr 26, 2008

Just got this from my dear old mother.

quote:

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.

Your Social Security

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

6.2% on earnings up to $106,800 (Democrats want to remove that maximum number)

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
Away -- you may be interested in the following:

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

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.

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

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

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

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

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

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
Giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then after violating the original contract (FICA),
The Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.

I want to write a rebuke but, blegh.

Umph fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Feb 22, 2011

# ? Feb 21, 2011 21:55

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

Umph posted:

Just got this from my dear old mother.

I want to write a rebuke but, blegh.

There's a Snopes page for this. Apparently it's six years old now. It's mostly bullshit.

It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

# ? Feb 21, 2011 23:57

Elder Postsman: Aug 30, 2000; i used hot bot to search for "teens"

Oh lordy. I got into this argument on my mother's facebook with one of her friends, and his latest rebuttal (which really doesn't address a god damned thing I wrote) was just so off the wall, I can't help but put it here.

quote:

You tell me how a per-household share of a government budget is anything other than that ["that" being per-household tax burden, which he calculated by taking total federal budget, divided by number of households, then that result divided by average household income - 35k/60k=58% tax burden, basically].. No liberalized stats.. no spin.. hard numbers.. the government budgets are funded by the citizens.. period.

Now I will agree that there are problems... there will always be problems with wealth distribution; whether it be too much in to few hands, or not enough in one set of hands to accomplish anything... or too much in the hands of corrupt government.. or not enough to properly fund government. But you class-baters focus on a small percentage of malicious profiters, ignoring the healthy aspects to capitalism. There wouldn't BE any usebale wealth creation without them.

You want to have outrage re: inequities ? Try looking at what happens when a government gets too involved. We spent trillions trying "Great Society" our way to "fairness".. But you know what ? Those same human faults that give us Robber-Barons, give us Robber-Barons on steriods when ideologues get their hands on tax revenues... and then get the tax-code adjusted so that 1/2 the population can vote themselves other people's money. [This is directly after my response showing the massive gains in upper income wealth while everyone else stagnated] You want lower and middle-class people to have more of thier fair share ? Then eliminate the poverty-enslaving social programs.. get the wealth BACK into the hands of citizens. Who do you think suffers most when the federal government gobbles up 25% of the GDP.. the rich, or the poor ? Whose opportunities are eroded most.. the rich, or the poor ? Just who IS it that traps the poor into poverty ?

Ponder this [lol]: I was studying a liberal point of lamentation, that people can, "fall of the cliff". This means that a single parent of two earning $8/hour need not bother trying to improve themself. Their increased income disqualifies them for a variety of social programs. Of course the liberal solution is to increase the spending on those programs.. ignoring the fact that all they'd do is make it a break-even deal, until they reached $60K/yr.

Now flip that around... This means that if a single person earning $60K wanted to adopt two children.. they migh as well quit their job and take an $8/hour job. Why even bother to do what's needed of you daily, to earn $60K ? Is that healthy for ANYpart of society? Here are the specifics:

A parent of two earning $60K pays ~ $18K in total income tax.
A parent two earning $16K gets ~$6K in Earned-Income credit

That alone is a $24K swing.. [I don't even know what this means]

Now.. as that parent climbs the income ladder; they lose housing subsidies, utility subsidies, food-stamps, Medicare, child-care, and so on... They don't start getting ahead until $60K.

Yes, that is a hyper-contextualized scenario.. but it's factual.

Anyway.. I am NOT begrudging a person who needs help... I'm just pointing out how ingrained this, "Government can fix it by taxing the rich", attitude has gotten... how entrenched we are into an entitlement world that hurts us all and just keeps growing itself. When government sets out to achieve, "social justice", the administrators of same are infinitley more damaging to society than any super-rich, wealth horders (who, on top of creating jobs/wealth/tax-revenue, are ultimately funding it all).

We've run out of other people's money..

OH.. as for becoming a consumption-based economy.. what do you suppose caused the manufacturing base to wither away ? I'll give ya a hint... it's part of that $35K/household burden..[I guess this is his response to my point about a consumer economy being unsustainable without a functioning middle class when all the wealth is concentrated at the top]

I mean, at this point I've pretty much given up with this guy; he's just taking the shotgun approach of making GBS threads out a string of random arguments and hoping one of them sticks. Great Society robber-barons, poverty-enslaving social programs, why work when there's welfare.. I still don't know why I do this to myself.

Elder Postsman fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 22, 2011

# ? Feb 22, 2011 00:10

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

I'm actually angry about this email.

quote:

(Frosty Wooldridge (born 1947) is a US journalist, writer, environmentalist, traveler)

By Frosty Wooldridge

For 15 years, from the mid 1970's to 1990, I worked in Detroit , Michigan . I watched it descend into the abyss of crime, debauchery, gun play, drugs, school truancy, car-jacking, gangs, and human depravity. I watched entire city blocks burned out. I watched graffiti explode on buildings, cars, trucks, buses, and school yards. Trash everywhere!

Detroiters walked through it, tossed more into it, and ignored it. Tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands today exist on federal welfare, free housing, and food stamps!

With Aid to Dependent Children, minority women birthed eight to 10, and in one case, one woman birthed 24 children as reported by the Detroit Free Press, all on American taxpayer dollars.

A new child meant a new car payment, new TV, and whatever mom wanted. I saw Lyndon Baines Johnson's 'Great Society' flourish in Detroit . If you give money for doing nothing, you will get more hands out taking money for doing nothing.

Mayor Coleman Young, perhaps the most corrupt mayor in America , outside of Richard Daley in Chicago, rode Detroit down to its knees... He set the benchmark for cronyism, incompetence, and arrogance. As a black man, he said, "I am the MFIC." The IC meant "in charge".

You can figure out the rest. Detroit became a majority black city with 67 percent African-Americans.

As a United Van Lines truck driver for my summer job from teaching math and science, I loaded hundreds of American families into my van for a new life in another city or state.

Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan, but most work in Detroit . As the whites moved out, the Muslims moved in.

As the crimes became more violent, the whites fled. Finally, unlawful Mexicans moved in at a torrid pace. Detroit suffers so much shoplifting that grocery stores no longer operate in many inner city locations. You could cut the racial tension in the air with a knife!

Detroit may be one of our best examples of multiculturalism: pure dislike, and total separation from America .

Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosquesin Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June, according to NBC's Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America . English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing.

Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city. In Time Magazine's October 4, 2009, "The Tragedy of Detroit: How a great city fell, and how it can rise again," I choked on the writer's description of what happened. "If Detroit had been ravaged by a hurricane, and submerged by a ravenous flood, we'd know a lot more about it," saidDaniel Okrent. "If drought, and carelessness had spread brush fires across the city, we'd see it on the evening news every night."

Earthquake, tornadoes, you name it, if natural disaster had devastated the city that was once the living proof of American prosperity, the rest of the country might take notice.

But Detroit , once our fourth largest city, now 11th, and slipping rapidly, has had no such luck. Its disaster has long been a slow unwinding that seemed to remove it from the rest of the country.

Even the death rattle that in the past year emanated from its signature industry brought more attention to the auto executives than to the people of the city, who had for so long been victimized by their dreadful decision making."

As Coleman Young's corruption brought the city to its knees, no amount of federal dollars could save the incredible payoffs, kick backs, and illegality permeating his administration. I witnessed the city's death from the seat of my 18-wheeler tractor trailer because I moved people out of every sector of decaying Detroit .

"By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit 's treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services," Okrent said. "The school system, which six years ago was compelled by the teachers' union to reject a philanthropist's offer of $200 million to build 15 small, independent charter high schools, is in receivership. The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved. Three years after Katrina devastated New Orleans , unemployment in that city hit a peak of 11%. In Detroit , the unemployment rate is 28.9%.

That's worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent." At the end of Okrent's report, and he will write a dozen more about Detroit, he said, "That's because the story of Detroit is not simply one of a great city's collapse, it's also about the erosion of the industries that helped build the country we know today. The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century. If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can't find a way to get up, what does that say about our future?"

As you read in my book review of Chris Steiner's book, "$20 Per Gallon", the auto industry won't come back. Immigration will keep pouring more, and more uneducated third world immigrants from the Middle East into Detroit , thus creating a beachhead for Islamic hegemony in America . If 50 percent illiteracy continues, we will see more homegrown terrorists spawned out of the Muslim ghettos of Detroit . Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs.

You have already seen it in Madrid , Spain; London , England and Paris , France with train bombings, subway bombings and riots. As their numbers grow, so will their power to enact their barbaric Sharia Law that negates republican forms of government, first amendment rights, and subjugates women to the lowest rungs on the human ladder. We will see more honor killings by upset husbands, fathers, and brothers that demand subjugation by their daughters, sisters and wives. Muslims prefer beheadings of women to scare the hell out of any other members of their sect from straying. Multiculturalism: what a perfect method to kill our language, culture, country, and way of life.

I PRAY EVERYONE THAT READS THIS REALIZES THAT IF WE DON'T STAND UP, AND SCREAM AT WASHINGTON , AND OUR STATE, CITY, AND LOCAL LEADERS THIS IS WHAT AWAITS THE REST OF AMERICA . IF YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AT ALL YOU KNOW THIS HAS HAPPENED IN ENGLAND , AND FRANCE AND SPAIN .

IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST A BUNCH OF HOOEY AND YOU FEEL NO DUTY TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY, THEN I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO STAND AND FIGHT.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

# ? Feb 22, 2011 00:11

closeted republican: Sep 9, 2005

Econosaurus posted:

I'm actually angry about this email.

I like how it starts off with anti-black racism, then tries to link his bullshit to why Detroit sucks now, then takes a 180 and tops the whole thing off with saying that the Mulsims (as if they're some faceless and evil monothinc bloc) are going to use Detroit as a staging ground to take over America. It's modernracists.txt.

# ? Feb 22, 2011 00:28

Umph: Apr 26, 2008

Umph posted:

Just got this from my dear old mother.

I want to write a rebuke but, blegh.

I went ahead and wrote a rebuke, if anyone gets this letter someday feel free to use it. I used the snopes article, wikipedia, and the bill itself.

quote:

I make it a habit to ignore these, but this one had so much misinformation I had to say something. Please read this, I will show you with quotes from the bill and links that 90% of the statements in this letter are lies. Please do yourself a favor and read this, even if your mind is made up. I am represented by blue text, I am registered independent.

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly

known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid." You can read the original bill here.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

6.2% on earnings up to $106,800 (Democrats want to remove that maximum number)

Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years:
1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program).

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. Directly from the bill:
"For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages."
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent

The Social Security Trust Fund was established by in 1939 by Democrats to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund."

The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education) :
In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.
Detailed information about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overridden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983, By Ronald Reagan.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

This is essentially true though I could get into a diatribe about the prosperity we enjoyed under Clinton, but he did have an affair which obviously invalidates his entire legacy. He did this as part of a large bill in 1993 (ORBA) to try and preserve the social security program, which people in my generation will obviously not get to have.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
Away -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.

As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

The idea originated with a proposal issued by the Greenspan Commission, which had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats under Reagan, but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
Giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!

No one � whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal
alien � is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused (lied about) Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) � the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon.

Then after violating the original contract (FICA),
The Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.

So basically, everything in here is a lie. It's not misinformation or distorted, it's all made up. If you wanted to make an intelligent article about how Democrats have mishandled social security, you could~ because at times they have. But this is just all made up. You should be angry. Who ever sent this to you is lying to you. Ask yourself why the tea party writes these. How do they stand to profit from you being misled? Please be careful when you read these. They are trying to manipulate you and polarize the country. Do not let them.

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.

Please, please, please stop this.

Umph fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Feb 22, 2011

# ? Feb 22, 2011 02:12

UltraPenguinX: Mar 23, 2009; TC: hOnK hOnK iM a MoThErFuCkInG sEaL :o)

an idiot posted:

Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs.

This is my favorite line of any of the email that I've read

# ? Feb 22, 2011 22:05

Foyes36: Oct 23, 2005; Food fight!

Econosaurus posted:

I'm actually angry about this email.

This doesn't even try to hide the racism; it's literally spewing out of nearly every sentence. What a loving screed. Anyone who reads this and finds themselves nodding in agreement should take a long look at their face in a mirror.

# ? Feb 22, 2011 22:15

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

Is there any record anywhere of an illiterate muslim suicide bomber? I know the Tamil Tiger suicide bombers are pretty low income/low education but they're definitely not muslim. The same goes for the IRA. Muslim suicide bombers are usually middle class with a good education.

# ? Feb 23, 2011 02:18

Habibi: Dec 8, 2004; We have the capability to make San Jose's first Cup Champion.

The Sharks could be that Champion.

Pfirti86 posted:

This doesn't even try to hide the racism; it's literally spewing out of nearly every sentence. What a loving screed. Anyone who reads this and finds themselves nodding in agreement should take a long look at their face in a mirror.

Come on, guys. The dude's name is 'Frosty Woolbridge.' He's more gay porn actor than journalist.

Habibi fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 23, 2011

# ? Feb 23, 2011 02:22

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

Is there any record anywhere of an illiterate muslim suicide bomber? I know the Tamil Tiger suicide bombers are pretty low income/low education but they're definitely not muslim. The same goes for the IRA. Muslim suicide bombers are usually middle class with a good education.

Muslims in general are expected to be able to read the Koran if nothing else, so total illiteracy is rare but in poorer regions people may have problems in understanding what they've read, especially if Arabic is not their mother tongue. Even in Palestine UNESCO reports literacy rate to be 93.3%. For suicide bombers recruited in developed countries, like some European Al Qaida bombers, they often are highly educated. In contrast, in remote countryside locations in Afghanistan and Pakistan very few may be literate, especially girls who are traditionally not allowed to go to school. But I think suicide bombings are more common in urban regions where literacy rates are higher. Sometimes in Palestine even little children have been recruited to blow themselves, but this is rare. They wouldn't be too literate. But overall I would say that illiteracy is an exceptionally poor explanation.

# ? Feb 23, 2011 03:41

streetlamp: May 7, 2007; Danny likes his party hat
He does not like his banana hat

Econosaurus posted:

I'm actually angry about this email.

Ugh I just saw this thread on a local forum related just to this wonderful topic of how blacks have ruined Detroit.

http://www.vadriven.com/forums/showthread.php?t=384529

quote:

Detroit isn't controled by liberals as much as it's a Blackocracy.

A bunch of black people voting for other black people because they're black.

All the white people got up and left, there was nobody left to tax, and the whole place went to poo poo.

Outside of storm front this is apparently where these people exist, on local auto forums.

# ? Feb 23, 2011 05:20

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Visiting automotive political sections make me want to slit my wrists.

# ? Feb 23, 2011 08:02

davidb: Apr 11, 2007; by XyloJW

quote:

Meet Col. West--A must see

This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq . He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured. At the same time his men had captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men...

He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken. The prisoner refused so COL West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired.

My mom sent me this with her message "Outstanding. This man knows history and who the enemy is." Watching the video I was less inclined to agree he "knows history." He does know how to spout random dates and locations in history to imply ISLAMS=BAD though.

A quick check of Wikipedia also reveals a starkly different version of events about what West did in Iraq and why he resigned (quick summary if you don't click that link: he's kind of a dick).

My Mom posted:
The Crusades. Please. Let's gloss over the fact that the muslims denied access to the holy sites to Christians, not to mention their overrun of the Iberian peninsula. It took the Christians 700 years to push them out of Spain. They would have been in the rest of Europe if not for Charles Martel. And spare me the tale of how civilized they were compared to the Christians. Speaking for myself, I'm grateful tney never got farther than Turkey. Their treatment of women and total intolerance of other religions (blowing up the Buddah statues, the bombings of churches in Cairo) scares the hell out of me. This is happening right now (along with sexual mutilation of girls), not back in the Middle Ages. About this new congressman, whatever he did in Iraq he at least sees Islam for what it is. And no, we didn't make it the enemy. They proclaimed the jihad.

I wasn't itching to get into a fight, so I told her I'd let it go. But I thought I'd post it as another example of the narrow worldview that many conservatives share. My mom is overall a very smart and reasonable individual. She's even a big science nut and Creationists drive her batty. But there's a cliff somewhere in her brain that she completely drives off of... it starts with global warming being a hoax and then it only goes downhill from there.

This is from like page 100 or so. Just had some questions.

1) reading the wiki page about Mr West. The detainee did know something but was refusing to give information? Seems to me like they know we cant hurt them so their not scared. Mr west scared the man a little bit so he gave us false information?

If thats the case then too bad for him he didnt get any good information. It goes to show that scare tactics dont work for interrogation. But I dont think Mr West is a Dick. Just a soldier, in a war zone. Looking out for his own. Maybe soldiers in a war zone are generally dickish?

If thats the case then we should all be thankful not be there ourselves. That someone else is getting psychologically scarred instead of us. That any reasonable person getting shot at will do some tough things for the only people they can trust, their fellow soldiers.

2) In college my geology professor was teaching how global warming and cooling is part of the earths natural cycle. That when the climate changes it does so quickly. And that humans are probably contributing to the warming. But may not be significant enough. And that most likely we would be having a warming anyways, perhaps a few years in advance of what would otherwise happen. Thoughts?

3) Muslims were more enlightened in the middle ages. Europeans were ignorant brutes. Muslims had an enlightned era where they made significant contributions to science. They spread culture. Some percentage of muslims are decent people. I meet them all the time. Muslim immigrants, chilled, relaxed folks just trying to make a living. Yet...

I have a thing against them. I cant help it. I try to be reasonable about it. Give them benefit of the doubt. I dont like conservative talking points about many things. Im down with illegals from mexico trying to make a living in the US. But when I think about muslims here are the thoughts that creep into my head.

Whenever I hear about terrorist bombings its muslims doing it. I know the IRA had a thing going for a bit. And maybe 40 years ago I would have a thing against those people. But I live now, I only have my experiences to go on. And as long as Ive been politically aware its always muslims loving stuff up. Burning American flags, yelling down with America. Treating their woman bad. Killing random reporters, woman they stumble into.

People say its the extremist muslims who do these things. But it doesnt jive with me. Its their religion and culture thats breeding these extremists. As a percentage they have more violent extremists than other groups I can think off. And if thats the case then I dont like muslims and their culture/religion.

Sometimes I think about how it might be the economic conditions rather than their religion/culture. But then where are the significant asian, russian, south american terrorist presence? I know these countries have violence too. Mexico with kidnapping, drugs. Russia, similar. Yet they arent out there just blowing up everyones poo poo.

So maybe its the economic conditions that set the stage and the muslim religion/culture that pushes it the extra mile. In that case, I still dont like muslim religion/culture.

It seems to me that muslims have this extra little chip on their shoulder against anyone outside their religion/culture. Were corrupt, amoral, evil, and our woman are sluts. The non extremists are barely restraining their desire to force their vews on us.

But I dont want to hate such a large portion of the world. It may be hard to believe but I really do want to be shown, convinced about why its not really like that.

# ? Feb 24, 2011 17:42

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

You don't torture or abuse prisoners of war, it's against the law. A Colonel should know better and should adhere to that law, being forced to retire is a pretty light consequence for doing that.

From what I've read of the situation, the guy he threatened said that there was an ambush planned for the next day, but when COL West's troops investigated, no ambush occurred and they didn't capture any insurgents. COL West then claims this as a victory. But I don't see how this is the case as he can't prove that his actions had any positive effect.

There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. If we take a population that large and only report the hosed up things that they do, it'll sound pretty bad. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world. If you total up all the hosed up things that Catholics do in Central and South America and in Africa, you'd have a pretty collection of crimes as well, but that's not an indictment of Catholicism.

# ? Feb 24, 2011 18:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 13:27

davidb: Apr 11, 2007; by XyloJW

quote:

You don't torture or abuse prisoners of war, it's against the law. A Colonel should know better and should adhere to that law, being forced to retire is a pretty light consequence for doing that

I guess I dont see scaring a prisoner as torture. My drill sergeant did it all the time. Or tried too, I knew he couldnt hurt me so wasnt too scared. More like somewhat stressed. If he had beat the dude, waterboarded then yeah, he went over my boundaries. But not scaring a dude. I see youtube videos of people scaring the crap out of each other all the time.

quote:

From what I've read of the situation, the guy he threatened said that there was an ambush planned for the next day, but when COL West's troops investigated, no ambush occurred and they didn't capture any insurgents. COL West then claims this as a victory. But I don't see how this is the case as he can't prove that his actions had any positive effect

well thats like the swine flue scare. The CDC took a bunch of actions to prevent it from getting serious. When it doesnt get serious they look like they overreacted. Yet without those actions maybe stuff gets really bad. Preventive actions never get due credit. And can be hard to prove effective.

Im not saying Mr Wests actions werent useless. But then again, maybe the attempt was called off when soldiers were spotted?

quote:

There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. If we take a population that large and only report the hosed up things that they do, it'll sound pretty bad. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world. If you total up all the hosed up things that Catholics do in Central and South America and in Africa, you'd have a pretty collection of crimes as well, but that's not an indictment of Catholicism.

What are catholics doing around the world? Crimes in their own countries. Like mexico with their drugs and kidnapping. Seriously bad stuff. Not to different from lets say low income Americans(white or black). But do those groups make actions I would consider terrorist in nature. Blowing up buildings, people etc.

I know the IRA did in the past, and catholics did things like kill the aztecs. These are things in the past. Just like Muslims were enlightened compared to the rest Europe in the middle ages. I prefer the muslims from the middle ages, Im not fond of what I understand of the Europeans during the middle ages. Conversely

Im not fond of muslims in the modern world. I am fond of Europeans. I do ask before someone starts to attack me. I know Im putting myself out there with these opinions. That their probably not going to be popular. And that Im probably gonna feel different after this discussion. Im just being honest about what I actually feel, intellectually Im thinking I shouldnt.

# ? Feb 24, 2011 19:39

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

«‹›2810 »