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 »

Technogeek: Sep 9, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

I found this comment on a newspaper story about a payday loan place being shut down.

Dumbass posted:

Are we that stupid?

Government tried to impose low loan rates in the 1960's - which precipitated Mob lending.

People need money and will get it one way or another.

You Liberal anti-business people are just nut cases. Or Marxists. It doesn't matter; Marxists are nut jobs.

I was bored and had nothing better to do, so I replied.

Technogeek posted:

Fun fact. The FY 2007 Military Authorization Act (passed back in 2006, when Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress), in response to recommendations made by the Department of Defense, explicitly forbade payday loan providers from doing business with soldiers or their family members.

Judging from this, either the Republican party was full of "Marxists" and "Liberal anti-business people" in 2006, or there were good reasons for the DoD to push for regulations that would prevent payday loan providers from targeting the military. Personally, I'm going to go with the option that doesn't make me look like I hate the troops.

A bit excessive at the end, but I figured worst case it'd provoke him into saying something stupid.

Boy, did he ever.

Dumbass posted:

Judging from this, either the Republican party was full of "Marxists" and "Liberal anti-business people" in 2006 . . .

The Catholic Church is full of Marxists . . . why wouldn't the Republican Party be?

Goobermint always knows best 100% of the time, in every circumstance. People must be protected from themselves.

In any case, the Mob thanks the State of Michigan, their new partner in crime.

# ? May 4, 2011 18:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 07:34

York_M_Chan: Sep 11, 2003

a foolish pianist posted:

Remember that, in the South, the democrats were the party of racism and segregation until 70s/80s.

Right, but the people who send these e-mails don't look at logical things like that. That's why I said "be careful" and not "Here is evidence that Democrats = Poverty"

# ? May 4, 2011 18:52

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

Also keep in mind that people tend to be more for 'liberal' ideas when they're on the local or state level compared to the national level for the simple reason of that they're more likely to benefit from them.

Me vs Rest of City
Me vs Rest of State
Me vs Rest of Country

In addition, they know more people in the City/State than in the Country.

# ? May 4, 2011 18:56

Jabarto: Apr 7, 2007; I could do with your...assistance.

This may be slightly outside the point of this thread, and if so I apologize, but I've been seeing this a lot lately and I'm not totally sure how to react to it:

a guy on another forum posted:

ahh yes, increase wages so they get laid off and they are unemployed. Brilliant solution.

The idea seems to be that if you increase minimum wage, you'll force companies to lay off workers. I thought about posting something like, "So clearly the optimal solution is to have people work full-time for peanuts, then?", but I want to know if there's a better way to convince him, or if I'm just plain in the wrong here.

# ? May 4, 2011 18:57

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

The Sharks could be that Champion.

Corbet posted:

This is the first conservative e-mail I don't have a good reply for. Any ideas?

"drat, even 50 years of democratic rule hasn't been enough to clean up some of the messes those republican mayors made..."

# ? May 4, 2011 19:01

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

Jabarto posted:

This may be slightly outside the point of this thread, and if so I apologize, but I've been seeing this a lot lately and I'm not totally sure how to react to it:

The idea seems to be that if you increase minimum wage, you'll force companies to lay off workers. I thought about posting something like, "So clearly the optimal solution is to have people work full-time for peanuts, then?", but I want to know if there's a better way to convince him, or if I'm just plain in the wrong here.

You aren't in the wrong, but you won't convince him of anything. It's similar to people saying we can't tax corporations because then they will leave and set up shop in another country. Their solution is just to let corporations hold the country hostage because welp.

# ? May 4, 2011 19:04

Anubis: Oct 9, 2003; It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.; Fun Shoe

Jabarto posted:

This may be slightly outside the point of this thread, and if so I apologize, but I've been seeing this a lot lately and I'm not totally sure how to react to it:

The idea seems to be that if you increase minimum wage, you'll force companies to lay off workers. I thought about posting something like, "So clearly the optimal solution is to have people work full-time for peanuts, then?", but I want to know if there's a better way to convince him, or if I'm just plain in the wrong here.

It's a BBB / regressive meme that basically tries to justify that a million people working for $1/hr is better than 900k working for $9/hr. They get away with it because economics isn't a hard science so while it's easy to prove that increasing minimum wage does affect job growth, it's currently impossible to quantify it.

It's the kind of thing that undergrad econ classes teach you before you get to practical econ classes showing you that the theories aren't as solid as some would have you believe.

# ? May 4, 2011 19:27

the: Jul 18, 2004; by Cowcaster

Also on the Democratic/Republican mayor issue, I would say that since Republicans tend to dislike poor people and minorities, and helping poor people and minorities, they would definitely not want to have anything to do with them and thus would not want to preside over a city where there were many poor people and minorities.

# ? May 4, 2011 19:28

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Also, they conveniently ignore liberal cities that do better (Cambridge, Boston, NYC) in terms of dealing with poverty and ignore poor red states that suck with poverty issues.

# ? May 4, 2011 19:32

X-Ray Pecs: May 11, 2008; New York
Ice Cream
TV
Travel
~Good Times~

Dr Christmas posted:

We want to help those struggling through the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. It's not their fault it's not their fault IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT. Bad things happening means people need more help, not less. Why do so many of these people find this so hard to understand?!
If every single unemployed person applied to every job they could find, gave stellar and charismatic interviews, got glowing recommendations, and crafted well-made resumes tailored to ephasize their greatest strengths for every job, there would still be just as many unemployed. Teaching a man to fish may feed him for life as they're so fond of saying, but that won't mean poo poo if he doesn't have fishing equipment. All the thrift, gumption, and hard work in the universe won't do a thing if there is no where to put them to work.
I've heard Rush Limbaugh saying that "encouraging dependence" on welfare is "cruel" (This from a man who masturbates to the sobbing of a laid-off Detroit autoworker learning he'll have to sell his house to pay for his son's chemo). Everyone in America is already dependent, on money. Saying the unemployment should be kicked off of welfare in a jobless climate because they shouldn't become dependent is like strangling someone to help them cope with their oxygen addiction.

I've had this kind of discussion with my older sister. According to her, poor people are just plain lazy. Someone doesn't have health insurance? They'd rather spend the money on a big screen TV. High unemployment? People are too lazy to get jobs, as evidenced by the fact that the Wal-Mart she works at is hiring.

There's no logic behind this sort of thinking. They don't "find it hard to understand", they just want to be selfish assholes. But they hand-wave it away by saying "it's okay, we're not assholes, we just don't want our money going to lazy people." They are justified in not helping their fellow human beings.

# ? May 5, 2011 16:14

Perestroika: Apr 8, 2010

X-Ray Pecs posted:

I've had this kind of discussion with my older sister. According to her, poor people are just plain lazy. Someone doesn't have health insurance? They'd rather spend the money on a big screen TV. High unemployment? People are too lazy to get jobs, as evidenced by the fact that the Wal-Mart she works at is hiring.

There's no logic behind this sort of thinking. They don't "find it hard to understand", they just want to be selfish assholes. But they hand-wave it away by saying "it's okay, we're not assholes, we just don't want our money going to lazy people." They are justified in not helping their fellow human beings.

I think a part of it is that they don't understand that as long as there are less jobs than employable people there's bound to be unemployment. They only look at single people unable to get a job (even though they "totally know a guy who has like five open positions") but won't/can't look at the big pictue and realise that there is only a finite number of jobs and it's a mathematical fact there simply are no jobs for some 13 million people.

# ? May 5, 2011 16:37

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

Not to mention a certain level of unemployment is necessary for capitalism to run efficiently. You need a pool of waiting labor to draw from and when a nuclear physicist has to resort to working at McDonalds it's actually a market failure. We're all better off supporting that nuclear physicist while he finds another science-place to work at because the economy is better off with another nuclear physicist than it is with another McDonalds employee.

Once again complex issue vs. gut reaction.

# ? May 5, 2011 17:11

pwnyXpress: Mar 28, 2007

RoboChrist 9000 posted:

Where is that Armyman post from? I'd like to post that as a note too for what it's worth.

It's from a few pages back in this thread.

# ? May 5, 2011 18:22

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

babies havin rabies posted:

Not to mention a certain level of unemployment is necessary for capitalism to run efficiently. You need a pool of waiting labor to draw from and when a nuclear physicist has to resort to working at McDonalds it's actually a market failure. We're all better off supporting that nuclear physicist while he finds another science-place to work at because the economy is better off with another nuclear physicist than it is with another McDonalds employee.

Once again complex issue vs. gut reaction.

THIS THIS THIS THIS. I got in an argument with my Libertarian buddy about unemployment and how we shouldn't be paying it to people. I told him it's better off for us to support people than it is for us to expect them to sell their house/assets because their new McJob doesn't pay enough. He asked

"Do you really think its better for our economy for people to be on unemployment than simply employed"

I said "Yeah, I'd rather have a doctor be a doctor than take an unskilled job. We need doctors"

**Libertarian friend has gone offline**

We talk again now, but this concept was just too hard to wrap his head around. Hell, derailing myself here, my mom was the same way. "Those people need to get a job!". She works full time for the military, and I asked "if your job dissapeared tomorrow, would you just 'get a job'? Would I see you working down at McDonalds or Red Lobster, and expect you to sell your nice house and cars?" She said thought about it and said no, that was unreasonable and undesirable and changed her opinion:)

But yeah, sorry enough derail, that statement really stood out to me because I think its a BIG part of the argument from the Randians.

# ? May 5, 2011 20:13

railroad terror: Jul 2, 2007; choo choo

I was looking at the first few pages of this thread ---- amazing that even two years later, the same drat email about BILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL IN NORTH DAKOTA is still going around. My normally moderate and sane father emailed it to me saying that he "thought I would find it interesting." I sent back a firm but polite reply:

quote:

As much as I LOVE chain emails that falsely label the US Geological Survey as the "US Geological Service" I felt compelled to set the record straight -- you can forward this back on to [relatives]. There is unfortunately no liberal, environmentalist plot to stop a trillion barrels of oil from being recovered in North Dakota::

The "information" here originally came from a tout sheet from some money-making scheme website intended to sell people subscriptions to an "oil newsletter." Here's the link.

Second, Snopes points out that the actual US Geological Survery, when reassessing the Bakken formation in 2008, estimated the region to have apporximately 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil (with no word on the likely astronomical costs of removing said oil) -- not FIVE HUNDRED BILLION.

Here's more information on that: http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

You always taught me to do my research, Dad -- don't take those chain emails at face value!

love,

-railroad terror

He replied with a "thanks, son! you're always good at this kind of stuff." (debunking myths? thank you, dad)

See, it IS possible to get across to some relatives. Some.

# ? May 5, 2011 21:04

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

railroad terror posted:

He replied with a "thanks, son! you're always good at this kind of stuff." (debunking myths? thank you, dad)

This is how my mom replies to most of my responses as well, except she still doesn't change her opinion. I think she doesn't understand that not all political arguments are rhetorical.

# ? May 5, 2011 21:14

railroad terror: Jul 2, 2007; choo choo

babies havin rabies posted:

This is how my mom replies to most of my responses as well, except she still doesn't change her opinion. I think she doesn't understand that not all political arguments are rhetorical.

Yeah. For my relatives, it basically just means that they take me off the list -- which is nice, but man do I enjoy pressing that "reply all" button.

# ? May 5, 2011 21:16

Glimm: Jul 27, 2005; Time is only gonna pass you by

railroad terror posted:

Yeah. For my relatives, it basically just means that they take me off the list -- which is nice, but man do I enjoy pressing that "reply all" button.

Yeah, I'm pretty sad no one e-mails me this bullshit anymore

# ? May 5, 2011 22:47

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

In the US it is not polite to debate about religion or politics, and both for the same reason. You are not going to change peoples' minds about these issues 99% of the time. They are invested in their side of the issue and parts of their world view and identity rest on their positions. Being Christian often has very little to do with Christ or even the Bible in many cases and more about personal identity and community, for example.

# ? May 5, 2011 22:50

JoshTheStampede: Sep 8, 2004; come at me bro

Nathilus posted:

In the US it is not polite to debate about religion or politics, and both for the same reason. You are not going to change peoples' minds about these issues 99% of the time. They are invested in their side of the issue and parts of their world view and identity rest on their positions. Being Christian often has very little to do with Christ or even the Bible in many cases and more about personal identity and community, for example.

It's not polite to debate religion or politics, but people have no problem loudly proclaiming their religious or political beliefs in public, and then glare at people for being rude when anyone responds with anything more than "Heh, yeah".

# ? May 5, 2011 23:00

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

Jastiger posted:

"Do you really think its better for our economy for people to be on unemployment than simply employed"

I said "Yeah, I'd rather have a doctor be a doctor than take an unskilled job. We need doctors"

**Libertarian friend has gone offline**

"He's still a doctor and can go back to being one at any time."

# ? May 5, 2011 23:03

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Dominion posted:

It's not polite to debate religion or politics, but people have no problem loudly proclaiming their religious or political beliefs in public, and then glare at people for being rude when anyone responds with anything more than "Heh, yeah".

And it's for the same reason. They are declaring their identity. It might seem silly but in that context some of the claims of white majority religion being discriminated against start to make some level of sense.

# ? May 5, 2011 23:13

Corb3t: Jun 7, 2003

Dominion posted:

It's not polite to debate religion or politics, but people have no problem loudly proclaiming their religious or political beliefs in public, and then glare at people for being rude when anyone responds with anything more than "Heh, yeah".

True story at work:

Co-Worker: Check out this story on the Drudge Report
Me: The Drudge Report is garbage.
Co-Worker: Ugh, Liberals.

# ? May 5, 2011 23:20

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Rudeboys gotta defend babylon!

# ? May 5, 2011 23:32

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

I've found that many political "debates" are like that, not only in the US. With people from all over the world. Arguments are a signal of identity rather than a rationally generated position that can then be discussed, defended, dissected, then perhaps changed as a result of a dialogue.

# ? May 6, 2011 01:45

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

Can anyone tell me what "NOTUS" stands for? I just saw it in a comment on FR regarding Obama. I can't figure it out.

# ? May 6, 2011 01:53

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

jojoinnit posted:

Can anyone tell me what "NOTUS" stands for? I just saw it in a comment on FR regarding Obama. I can't figure it out.

POTUS = President Of The United States

# ? May 6, 2011 02:11

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

babies havin rabies posted:

POTUS = President Of The United States

I know, but whats the 'N' stand for? Are they using the racial slur, or is it something else? Just curious if anyone would know.

# ? May 6, 2011 02:17

Plinkey: Aug 4, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Not I assume.

'Not of the United States'

# ? May 6, 2011 02:18

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

Not Us.

# ? May 6, 2011 02:20

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

This is FreeRepublic we're talking about, it may very well mean "N***** Of The United States".

Edit: eh gonna asterisk that as it's not a direct quote sorry

babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 6, 2011

# ? May 6, 2011 02:23

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

I spent a good chunk of the afternoon arguing with my aunt on Facebook. My mom was helping me tear her a new rear end in a top hat over this:

quote:

Very good point made on the radio this morning...After Katrina, those who responded immediately were the Christian churches; not the government, the military or FEMA. However, we never once saw the church of Mohammed bringing relief to any victims. No muslims, hindus or buddist. Never Once did we see any of these other religions, no other religion than those who believe in Christ, responded to the needy.

My mom immediately linked her to all the charities for Katrina from other faiths. My Aunt then said "I said IMMEDIATELY responded. They were late, just like the government. Learn to read!"

So then I linked her to several pictures of Islamic Relief operating in New Orleans just after the storm. Apparently, though, I couldn't read either, as she said "I said I didn't SEE them." I asked her just what that was supposed to mean, and she then began viciously attacking me for not being here during Katrina, and how I couldn't know what I was talking about since I left during the storm.

She then said that all those religions were influenced by Jesus's ideas of charity, even modern Jews. I pointed out that Buddhism predates Christianity by 300 years.
:smug:

"And where is Buddha now? Ha!"

Before I could screencap or copy this, she deleted the entire post, and reposted it without comments and blocked me and my mom.

This is a woman who teaches the blind, deaf, and dumb. Not just any of those, she teaches and helps those who are full-on Hellen Keller. And she's the most hateful, bigoted person I know.

# ? May 6, 2011 03:11

Defenestration: Aug 10, 2006; "It wasn't my fault that my first unconscious thought turned out to be-"
"Jesus, kid, what?"
"That something smelled delicious!"; Grimey Drawer

XyloJW posted:

This is a woman who teaches the blind, deaf, and dumb. Not just any of those, she teaches and helps those who are full-on Hellen Keller. And she's the most hateful, bigoted person I know.

Man, and Helen Keller was a die-hard socialist, too

# ? May 6, 2011 04:08

Choadmaster: Oct 7, 2004; I don't care how snug they fit, you're nuts!

XyloJW posted:

She then said that all those religions were influenced by Jesus's ideas of charity, even modern Jews. I pointed out that Buddhism predates Christianity by 300 years.
"And where is Buddha now? Ha!"

I'm an atheist who spent 3 months volunteering in Mississippi and Louisiana post-Katrina, doing cleanup work with a Jewish organization. Send your aunt my regards.

# ? May 6, 2011 07:20

csammis: Aug 26, 2003; Mental Institution

XyloJW posted:

"I said I didn't SEE them."

I feel bad for your aunt, it must be pretty awful to have omnipresence over a disaster area and see everything at all times

# ? May 6, 2011 13:56

PsychoInternetHawk: Apr 4, 2011; Perhaps, if one wishes to remain an individual in the midst of the teeming multitudes, one must make oneself grotesque.; Grimey Drawer

XyloJW posted:

She then said that all those religions were influenced by Jesus's ideas of charity, even modern Jews. I pointed out that Buddhism predates Christianity by 300 years.
"And where is Buddha now? Ha!"

Haha what, this is the most nonsensical line of reasoning ever. "These people's opinions are invalid, because they're dead!"

# ? May 6, 2011 16:12

York_M_Chan: Sep 11, 2003

XyloJW posted:

"I didn't SEE them."

This is a woman who teaches the blind, deaf, and dumb.

Ask her if any of the kids she teaches saw a christian charity helping out.

# ? May 6, 2011 16:20

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

PsychoInternetHawk posted:

Haha what, this is the most nonsensical line of reasoning ever. "These people's opinions are invalid, because they're dead!"

I thought about pointing out that Jesus is dead too, but the whole thing was so mindboggling stupid I thought being antagonistic would just make it worse. But yeah, that was particularly entertaining. "What do the followers of that guy know, he died thousands of years ago!"

York_M_Chan posted:

Ask her if any of the kids she teaches saw a christian charity helping out.

Hahah, good one. I might just post that on my wall and let her stew over that. I got a list of first responders and was going to ask her how many of the churches/charities on that list she personally saw, so I can know which ones were liars or late or invisible or nonexistant--I'm still not sure just what she was implying. Unfortunately, she blocked me just as I had that all typed up.

I'm mostly amazed at how quickly she dismissed everything I had to say. Every point brought up resulted in "You weren't there, you don't know." Because I had the sense to leave for the storm and wait till it was safe to come back, I can't talk about objective facts about it to someone who stupidly stayed. And when my mom then repeated the exact things I did, she dismissed my mom as a disgusting liberal.

And reposted the whole thing, with not one clarification or correction!

# ? May 6, 2011 16:55

red19fire: May 26, 2010

XyloJW posted:

I'm mostly amazed at how quickly she dismissed everything I had to say. Every point brought up resulted in "You weren't there, you don't know." Because I had the sense to leave for the storm and wait till it was safe to come back, I can't talk about objective facts about it to someone who stupidly stayed. And when my mom then repeated the exact things I did, she dismissed my mom as a disgusting liberal.

And reposted the whole thing, with not one clarification or correction!

It's the typical conservative "move the goalposts" response to blinding proof of being wrong. If all else fails: Psh, Liberals, am i right? :fsmug:

# ? May 6, 2011 17:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 07:34

ljw1004: Jan 18, 2005; rum

XyloJW posted:

I thought about pointing out that Jesus is dead too

I think that might miss her point and play into her game...

"Where is Buddha now?" -- hell.
"Where is Jesus now?" -- heaven!

(like the quote "God is dead -- Nietzsche" followed by the christian retort "Nietzsche is dead -- God.")

# ? May 6, 2011 17:16

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

«‹›2810 »