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.

«‹›2814 »

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

quote:

Those who think that America is an arrogant nation should really reconsider that thought. Our founding fathers used GOD's word and teachings to establish our Great Nation

Yes, let's really reconsider that thought. Nothing arrogant at all about saying your GREAT NATION is based on GOD'S WORD AND TEACHINGS.

# ? Sep 21, 2011 08:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 22:29

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

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

Not if it's true. :colbert:

# ? Sep 21, 2011 09:07

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

21-Gun salute refers to 1776: False

Flag is meant to be folded 13 times because each fold has a specific meaning: False - The folding ceremony was created first, the "symbolism" of each fold was created later.

# ? Sep 21, 2011 16:38

ts12: Jul 24, 2007

It came from facebook:

quote:

Unexplainable, Inexcusable

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.

On Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?

35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will post it on their wall, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."

Now, what are you going to do about it? Read and delete, or work for reform? Share on the wall of EVERY congressman, representative, governor, the white house!!!!! Pass it around!!! Make calls, send fax's and email's...............

� with Veterans Freedom, Desertstorm Veterans, Steven Sonich, Bob Veteran and Veterans.

I don't think I have to explain that it's totally false. The weirdest part is that it's actually an amalgamation of a bunch of bullshit chain emails.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/may/29/chain-email/email-message-says-members-congress-get-full-pensi/

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_120/ornstein_rumored_perks_congressional_service-205495-1.html?zkMobileView=true

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

here's the guy getting credit for it around the internet as far as I can tell.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1820440346&sk=wall

# ? Sep 22, 2011 02:15

Fateo McMurray: Mar 22, 2003

Thanks for all the links. A few people have been posting that on my facebook and I've just been ignoring it, but now I'll just send them those links.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 05:26

spankmeister: Jun 15, 2008

Any of you guys got any good emails on DADT lately? (that's not reheated old crap like most of them)

# ? Sep 22, 2011 08:36

Kosmonaut: Mar 9, 2009

ts12 posted:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/may/29/chain-email/email-message-says-members-congress-get-full-pensi/

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_120/ornstein_rumored_perks_congressional_service-205495-1.html?zkMobileView=true

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

Thanks for the links, this garbage just cropped up on my news feed today. I'm just gonna copy-paste those into the comments every time I see it and hopefully it'll go away.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 10:11

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

This one covers pretty much everything in there:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/

Including the sexual harassment and healthcare reform claims.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 12:38

ts12: Jul 24, 2007

Sarion posted:

This one covers pretty much everything in there:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/

Including the sexual harassment and healthcare reform claims.

The only problem is that, like I said, it's a weird amalgamation of several old chain emails, so that one only covers the LAWS DON'T APPLY TO CONGRESS poo poo. The pension + loans + congress gets a mountain of blow to snort every week stuff is covered in the links I posted.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 12:54

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

ts12 posted:

The only problem is that, like I said, it's a weird amalgamation of several old chain emails, so that one only covers the LAWS DON'T APPLY TO CONGRESS poo poo. The pension + loans + congress gets a mountain of blow to snort every week stuff is covered in the links I posted.

True, it really covers the second half only. In fact it looks like the second half of that Facebook post is a direct copy of the email they're responding too. You can just add it to the list.

Edit: I just read the last Snopes link, which actually covered all the same topics, so I guess it's actually redundant.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 13:02

ts12: Jul 24, 2007

Sarion posted:

True, it really covers the second half only. In fact it looks like the second half of that Facebook post is a direct copy of the email they're responding too. You can just add it to the list.

Edit: I just read the last Snopes link, which actually covered all the same topics, so I guess it's actually redundant.

Whatever, snopes is a site full of lieberal bullshit anyway :rolleyes:

# ? Sep 22, 2011 15:52

Man-Thing: Apr 29, 2011; Whatever knows fear
BURNS at the touch

I'm conflicted, because we probably should call a constitutional convention to accomplish some stuff - basic civil rights for all, proportional delegates, abolish the electoral college and kick out Texas from the Union.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 16:17

CornHolio: May 20, 2001; Toilet Rascal

I was sent this link.

quote:

Top 0.1 Percent Pays More Income Tax than Bottom 80 Percent

In his recently released deficit plan, President Obama lays out the �Buffett Rule� (named, of course, for Warren Buffett, the famous investor and supporter of Obama). The rule, as Obama defines it, is �that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.�

Obama�s clear inference, of course, is that this otherwise happens routinely; that the rich are shirking their citizenly duties while the middle class pays. Is this inference true? Or is it simply a political fiction, a straw man from which Obama hopes to make hay in 2012?

The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a center-left joint-creation of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, publishes federal tax statistics by income group (see, here, here, here, and here). The essential funding source (at least from individuals) for most of the general functions of government � defense, roads, national parks, federal law enforcement, etc. � is the income tax. It is almost entirely through the income tax that individual citizens contribute financially to the day-to-day functions of their government.

In 2010, according to the TPC, Americans in the lowest quintile of income-earners � the bottom 20 percent � paid minus-3.8 percent of the total federal income tax burden. In other words, they got more back, in income tax credits and the like, than they paid in. Similarly, those in the second quintile paid minus-4.3 percent of the total federal income tax burden � so they, too, weren�t paying into the income tax till but rather were taking out.

Those in the middle quintile � pretty much the center of the middle class (this quintile had an average income of $44,000) � paid 3.9 percent of the total federal income tax burden (about $1 of every $25 dollars in income taxes paid nationwide). And those in the fourth quintile � whose income ranged from $58,000 to $102,000 � paid 15.1 percent of the total federal income tax burden.

So, all told, the 80 percent of Americans whose income placed them in one of these first four quintiles of income-earners combined to pay 10.9 percent of the total federal income tax burden. Put otherwise, this 80 percent of the citizenry paid about $1 out of every $9 that was paid in federal income taxes nationwide.

Meanwhile, Americans in the highest 0.1 percent of all income-earners � these are the very rich, with incomes of at least $1.974 million � paid 16.4 percent of the total federal tax burden. Essentially, one out of every $6 paid in federal income tax was paid by this 0.1 percent of the citizenry.

In other words, the top 0.1 percent paid more toward the workings of government than the bottom 80 percent did. That�s despite the fact that the bottom 80 percent collectively made more than six times as much money as the top 0.1 percent did.

On average, a given member of the top 0.1 percent paid $1.1 million in annual federal income tax � $1,147,616, to be more exact. That�s more than 1,000 times what the average person in the middle quintile paid ($1,017). Yes, the very rich made a lot more money � but not anywhere near 1,000 times as much. In fact, only 12 percent of this gap in income-tax payments is attributable to the gap in income between the two groups. The rest resulted from the very rich paying a much higher percentage of their income � more than 8 times as high � in income tax.

Now, I don�t know how much Warren Buffett pays his secretary, or how much either of them really pays in income taxes. But when 0.1 percent of the population is collectively paying more in income taxes than 80 percent of the population is collectively paying, it�s clear that there�s not a whole lot of need for the �Buffett Rule.�

Again, the stats I�ve quoted � all of which are from the TPC � are for income tax. What if we were to include all federal taxes � including payroll taxes, which people pay and then (to a greater or lesser degree) get back in direct payments for themselves in the form of Social Security or Medicare? What if we were also to include employers� share of these payroll taxes, crediting employees as if they had made these payments themselves (like the TPC does)?

Factoring in payroll taxes in this manner, those in the top 0.1 percent no longer paid more in taxes than the bottom 80 percent did last year (although they did pay more than the bottom 40 percent did � four times as much, in fact). But they still paid much higher rates. The average total federal tax rate for those in the top 0.1 percent was 30.7 percent. (That�s before factoring in any state or local taxes.) In comparison, the average total federal tax rate for those in the middle quintile was 12.8 percent. The average rate for those in the fourth quintile was 16.8 percent. And the average rate for those between the 95th and 99th percentile (those making between $204,000 and $509,000) was 23.4 percent. So even if Buffett�s secretary makes a cool half-million annually, he or she still likely pays a much lower total tax rate than the average person in the top 0.1 percent.

Certain prominent Obama supporters (Buffett, General Electric) do seem to be particularly good at avoiding paying taxes, but that doesn�t mean they�re the norm. The facts are clear: Our very richest citizens collectively pay for more of the day-to-day operations of our government than 80 percent of our citizens collectively do. The rich would already seem to be paying � as Obama likes to say � �their fair share.�

Are the numbers accurate? Am I missing something? Is this refutable?

# ? Sep 22, 2011 20:31

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, what the article so conveniently leaves out is that if anything is more of a sign of the gross disparity between the amount of wealth controlled by the top percent vs everyone else. I mean what's the latest figure, that the entire bottom 50% of the country has a whole 2.5% of the pie to fight over between them, And we wonder why the top percent pays a lot in taxes.

also

quote:

but not anywhere near 1,000 times as much

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/story/CEO-pay-2010/45634384/1

if average CEO pay is about $9 million, while the average worker pay is say $45,000, they are making over 200x the average worker, they drat well better pay a higher percent in taxes compared to the average worker. And I'm not sure if that pay counts as the very top .1%

# ? Sep 22, 2011 20:44

NatasDog: Feb 9, 2009

It amazes me how people walk away from the "Top .1% pays 80% of the taxes" line with the opinion that "Them drat middle class don't pay enough taxes" instead of "Them drat middle classes don't get paid enough to pay a lot in taxes". Race to the bottom, etc; I know. No matter how I look at it, I just can't wrap my head around what drives people to be so oblivious to the shared struggle of the lower classes and how they're actively working against their best interests by pandering to crap like this.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 20:48

JerkyBunion: Jun 22, 2002

Why don't we tie taxes to net worth? At least in these arguments.

The uber rich barely pay any taxes compared to the sheer amount of accumulated wealth they control, whereas the working poor pay a much (probably exponentially) greater rate when it comes to their accumulated wealth. Ergo, while the rich are simply not getting rich as fast as they would, the poor are actively getting poorer.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 21:02

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

CornHolio posted:

The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a center-left joint-creation

Ummm... Isn't the Tax Policy Center a center-right/right organization?

Also, the guy who wrote that article seems like the biggest partisan shill ever. Looking at the list of articles he's written is painful.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 21:02

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I'm not sure where he's getting his data from (it looks like he's doing some funky math with the stuff he's citing). The article is a blog post from here btw.

According to his own sourced data http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2975&DocTypeID=7 the average income of the top 0.1% is $5,885,210 and they have a tax burden of $1,805,568 and the middle percentile makes an average of $44,199 and has a burden of $5,641. So it seems to me like the upper 0.1 percent is paying almost three times as much as the middle in terms of percentage. According to that they are paying about 320 times more tax in terms of actual money but make 133 times as much money so I'm not exactly crying huge tears for them. I'm not sure if capitol gains count as "income" in terms of this data but I would love to get educated on that.

I get the feeling this dude is pretending that income tax is the only tax and using that to give the impression that poorer people are paying less of a percentage than they actually are. I'd also like to see median wages since mean allows for some weird statistics with outliers.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 22, 2011

# ? Sep 22, 2011 21:04

Z-Magic: Feb 19, 2011; They talk about the people and the proletariat, I talk about the suckers and the mugs - it's the same thing. They have their five-year plans, so have I.

Radish posted:

I'm not sure where he's getting his data from (it looks like he's doing some funky math with the stuff he's citing). The article is a blog post from here btw.

According to his own sourced data http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2975&DocTypeID=7 the average income of the top 0.1% is $5,885,210 and they have a tax burden of $1,805,568 and the middle percentile makes an average of $44,199 and has a burden of $5,641. So it seems to me like the upper 0.1 percent is paying almost three times as much as the middle in terms of percentage. According to that they are paying about 320 times more tax in terms of actual money but make 133 times as much money so I'm not exactly crying huge tears for them. I'm not sure if capitol gains count as "income" in terms of this data but I would love to get educated on that.

I get the feeling this dude is pretending that income tax is the only tax and using that to give the impression that poorer people are paying less of a percentage than they actually are. I'd also like to see median wages since mean allows for some weird statistics with outliers.

"When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more."

http://www.sfbg.com/2011/04/12/failed-experiment

# ? Sep 22, 2011 21:46

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.

CornHolio posted:

Are the numbers accurate? Am I missing something? Is this refutable?

1. Somewhat accurate, but they are intentionally presented in a way that is misleading.

2. A lot. The context is intentionally left out. The top one percent own something like 35% of the wealth in the entire country, it is not surprising that in concrete terms they are paying WAY more income tax than the other 99% but still not shouldering a fair share of the burden.

3. Absolutely. The argument rests on misdirection and leaving lots of important things out. You might not be able to convince a die-hard conservative that this is completely wrong, but doing the same for a neutral party should be easy peezy.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 21:51

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

I paid taxes last year. Which means I paid more income tax than the 50% of Americans who paid nothing. So I could factually argue that Sarion A. Goon paid more in income taxes by himself than half of the country combined. It doesn't make it a good argument though.

The first problem is that the author is changing the other side's argument to fit what he wants. He's comparing the tax rates of the ultra-wealthy to the tax rates of the very poor (lower 40%) and middle class (next 40%). But the main issue, when you willfully ignore FICA taxes, is that the ultra-wealthy pay a lower percentage than upper-middle class families. A surgeon making $500,000 a year ends up paying roughly 30% in income taxes after deductions, etc. While someone who makes millions from capital gains only pays about 15-20% depending on how much salary income they have. This is what the Buffet rule is really about, but the author wants to change the topic.

Also, how can you say that expecting people who make more in a year than most families will make in several generations pay a slightly larger tax is class warfare, but claiming that people who are barely able to feed their families don't pay enough isn't?

# ? Sep 22, 2011 21:58

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Some of it sounds like straight up lies rather than simple misdirection. Even if you just look at individual income tax it's 3.2% versus 14% which isn't "8 times as much percentage of income" and when you factor in payroll the gap closes quite fast. These types of "you aren't so bad off stop bitching about your betters" blogs from right wingers make me less likely to feel bad for them since even if they were true, somehow they are still doing fine even with 90% income tax fantasies.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Sep 22, 2011

# ? Sep 22, 2011 22:05

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

Today, I got the effects of a crazy forwarded email. I went to see my doctor today to get a refill on some prescriptions. The nurse asked if I had insurance, and I told her "no," and she said:

"Oh, thank god. Dealing with insurance companies is awful for us. And Medicare is even worse! They rape us with paperwork any time we have to deal with them."

I kinda sit there quietly, trying not to laugh at how completely ludicrous that statement is. So she asks how I'm doing, any problems with the medication, etc. And then she asks how old my parents and grandparents are, and if they have any medical problems. I tell her their ages and say that no, they don't have anything hereditary or anything that is passed down to me.

"Well, tell them if they need to have anything done, to do it before 2014. Especially your grandparents. When Obamacare kicks in, it's going to be very scary for anyone past a certain age or with life threatening conditions." I could tell she was so close to "death panels" but didn't seem to want to make that leap. Maybe she thought it would be unprofessional.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 22:28

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Yeah after that debate I don't think people should be allowed to use "death panels" anymore.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 22:31

Yehudis Basya: Jul 27, 2006; THE BEST HEADMISTRESS EVER

I'm hoping to read some awful DADT emails, as well. Don't let your crazy relatives disappoint the thread!!!

Radish posted:

Yeah after that debate I don't think people should be allowed to use "death panels" anymore.

Every time I think of that debate, my heart sinks. Actually hearing those loving cheers was so incredibly disturbing, it was so loving surreal.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 23:36

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

I'm sure it's a very comforting thought that even though you live under the constant threat of either dying or being saddled with unfathomable bills, at least your doctor doesn't have to do some paperwork.

Also, gently caress poor people.

# ? Sep 22, 2011 23:44

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

dumb e-mail posted:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan"..
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)

Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

I responded "That's all good and well if the point of school was to get good grades and not an education."

# ? Sep 23, 2011 00:12

Z-Magic: Feb 19, 2011; They talk about the people and the proletariat, I talk about the suckers and the mugs - it's the same thing. They have their five-year plans, so have I.

Armyman25 posted:

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The moral of this story is that the professor is a liar.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 00:21

Yehudis Basya: Jul 27, 2006; THE BEST HEADMISTRESS EVER

Armyman25 posted:

"Obama's socialism"

Ahahahahah what an oxymoron.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 00:23

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

Radish posted:

Yeah after that debate I don't think people should be allowed to use "death panels" anymore.

Wingnut cares naught for your sense of irony or shame!

# ? Sep 23, 2011 00:55

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

Intel&Sebastian posted:

I'm sure it's a very comforting thought that even though you live under the constant threat of either dying or being saddled with unfathomable bills, at least your doctor doesn't have to do some paperwork.

Also, gently caress poor people.

Yeah, it's a bizarre office. Fox News always on in the waiting room. A big sign that says "We do not accept Medicaid." But the doctor himself does everything he can to save me money, because he knows I don't have insurance. Gives me free samples of stuff he knows I already buy, gives me double dosage and tells me to cut it in half because it's the same price for half-dosage, tells me how little of the medicine I can generally safely get away with taking, in order to make it stretch.

It's like he genuinely wants to help poor people, while voting and advocating for "gently caress the poors." I don't get it.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 01:15

Z-Magic: Feb 19, 2011; They talk about the people and the proletariat, I talk about the suckers and the mugs - it's the same thing. They have their five-year plans, so have I.

XyloJW posted:

Yeah, it's a bizarre office. Fox News always on in the waiting room. A big sign that says "We do not accept Medicaid." But the doctor himself does everything he can to save me money, because he knows I don't have insurance. Gives me free samples of stuff he knows I already buy, gives me double dosage and tells me to cut it in half because it's the same price for half-dosage, tells me how little of the medicine I can generally safely get away with taking, in order to make it stretch.

It's like he genuinely wants to help poor people, while voting and advocating for "gently caress the poors." I don't get it.

That's because you're a good guy who's just been a little unlucky, not like the rest of those lazy good-for-nothings you seen spending their welfare money on grills and rims and malt liquor and watermelons.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 01:20

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Armyman25 posted:

I responded "That's all good and well if the point of school was to get good grades and not an education."

Or if the goal of socialism was to force everyone to make the same money. Few, if any, liberals I know would support the idea that everyone should get equal pay.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 01:56

Vivian Darkbloom: Jul 14, 2004

Sarion posted:

Or if the goal of socialism was to force everyone to make the same money. Few, if any, liberals I know would support the idea that everyone should get equal pay.

Don't conflate American liberals with socialists - that's the category error made over and over by right-wingers and it's deeply misleading.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 02:05

Revdomezehis: Jul 26, 2003; OMG a Moose!

Z-Magic posted:

That's because you're a good guy who's just been a little unlucky, not like the rest of those lazy good-for-nothings you seen spending their welfare money on grills and rims and malt liquor and watermelons.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. It's the good ole "The only moral abortion is my abortion" attitude people have. Namely, if you know the person they're ok, but if you don't know them they are obviously terrible people and doing terrible things.

Doubly so if brown or if they talk funny.

That is how so many Americans (The majority) can be all for helping their neighbor and yet loving over the neighborhood at the same time.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 03:03

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Vivian Darkbloom posted:

Don't conflate American liberals with socialists - that's the category error made over and over by right-wingers and it's deeply misleading.

Fair enough. But I still don't get the impression that most people who consider themselves as socialist want full on government owned and controlled production of everything. Maybe I'm completely wrong on that count, but I don't really see a lot of that, or calls for everyone to make equal wages regardless of their job. Which is what that stupid Professor E-mail is suggesting.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 03:21

Push El Burrito: May 9, 2006; Soiled Meat

Vivian Darkbloom posted:

Don't conflate American liberals with socialists - that's the category error made over and over by right-wingers and it's deeply misleading.

You mean the right doesn't actually know what Socialism is? You're telling me Warren Buffett isn't actually a Socialist?!

# ? Sep 23, 2011 03:22

CornHolio: May 20, 2001; Toilet Rascal

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

You mean the right doesn't actually know what Socialism is? You're telling me Warren Buffett isn't actually a Socialist?!

The right thinks that socialism is the same as communism which is the same as that Stalin guy everybody hates.

# ? Sep 23, 2011 13:18

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

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

Also nazis. It's right in the name!

# ? Sep 23, 2011 16:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 22:29

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

Via facebook. Unintentionally correct?

# ? Sep 23, 2011 18:16

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

«‹›2814 »