|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Where did people get the idea that a government functions economically identically to a nuclear family? I've never understood that. To be fair, its not just a conservative thing. Explaining complex things in a way that they can be easily understood is naturally appealing. But it makes for lovely policy decisions. Complex issues can't be dealt with by oversimplification, you have to think it through, even if it goes over the heads of most people. Generally, my stock response to these kinds of things on facebook goes something like: Can your family... 1) Raise and lower your income at will whenever you want? 2) Invest billions in national programs that not only improve the national economy, but has a direct effect on your future income? 3) Borrow huge sums of money at 1-3% interest rates spread over decades? 4) Print its own money which can be used to pay back the loans in #3? No? Then why the hell would your family's budget be anything like the government's budget?
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 19:29 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 20:26 |
|
This was in an email about Rick Perry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5CuoDpJNDs Jesse Couch- Follow A Leader A tribute song/spiritual hymn about electing Rick Perry. Horrible lyrics and use of vocal samples. Jesse Couch- Follow A Leader
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 19:43 |
|
redmercer posted:And the "home security system" is actually a shotgun, ski mask, roll of duct tape, extra thick plastic sheeting, some corpse-grade lime and a shovel. And pipe bombs. And we spend at least half of the "home security" money repeatedly shooting up some other guys house on the other side of town.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 20:12 |
|
If we took the "government as a mortgage" analogy seriously, the recommended upper limit on how much of your annual income can safely go to interest payments is between a quarter and a third, so the US government has about $100bn more to go (interest payments in 2009 were ~$400bn)
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 20:19 |
|
Hobnob posted:And we spend at least half of the "home security" money repeatedly shooting up some other guys house on the other side of town. No, we were just preemptively robbing poor people before they could rob us!
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 20:32 |
|
crime fighting hog posted:I wonder what the context of this photo is, because I'm drat sure it was way before the Tea Party protests but perhaps after 9/11. http://shii.org/knows/Get_A_Brain_Morans
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 21:35 |
|
ultimatemike posted:http://shii.org/knows/Get_A_Brain_Morans My home town, ladies and gents! I swear our public school system is actually pretty decent there despite a few people obviously falling through the cracks.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 21:50 |
|
ultimatemike posted:http://shii.org/knows/Get_A_Brain_Morans "Civilian weapons inspectors" "A hostile crowd of roughly 75, flag waving, pro-war protesters" "silent peace protesters" I don't think that article is entirely neutral.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 21:59 |
|
spankmeister posted:"Civilian weapons inspectors" Sit ins are often silent, they were dressed as weapon inspectors in a parody of the lead up to the war in Iraq and I dunno about you but I think a crowd with 'there are too many Iraqis, keep making missiles' would be a scootch hostile?
|
# ? Oct 25, 2011 23:50 |
|
spankmeister posted:"Civilian weapons inspectors" I love that one of the pictures with these assholes contains a literal pile of horse poo poo.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 02:00 |
|
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 02:31 |
|
Orkiec posted:God its so sick. Yep our goal was to kill tons of Iraqis!
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 03:32 |
|
I've given up on this guy. He clearly lives in a different world than me. Or he's trolling beyond Poe's wildest dreams.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 03:41 |
|
Another addition to Nazi's were liberals:Crazy Email posted:"After America , There is No Place to Go" Tried my best to keep the original formatting.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 04:00 |
Not surprisingly it's all full of poo poo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Austria#The_Second_Republic_.28since_1945.29 Anschluss posted:Devoted to remaining independent but under considerable pressure from both German and Austrian Nazis, Austria's Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg tried to hold a referendum for a vote on the issue. Although Schuschnigg expected Austria to vote in favour of maintaining autonomy, a well-planned coup d'état by the Austrian Nazi Party of Austria's state institutions in Vienna took place on 11 March, prior to the referendum, which they canceled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 04:10 |
|
Yeah, it's kind of like in 2002 when Saddam got "100% of the vote, with 100% voter turnout". Just cause you say there was an election, doesn't make it so.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 04:22 |
|
Beerdeer posted:I've given up on this guy. He clearly lives in a different world than me. Or he's trolling beyond Poe's wildest dreams. Yeah, man, and if evolution was real, then why are there still monkeys, HUH?
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 04:24 |
|
That last part about the Soviet occupation, while fairly accurate, neglects to mention they held less than a third of the country. And the press definitely wrote about it*- they wrote about it so much that the Russian troops were absolutely detested and Moscow banned violent interrogations by the occupying forces. *I'm assuming that's how news of many of the atrocities spread, or it may have just been word of mouth.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 04:33 |
|
Please don't say anything that even slightly excuses the behavior of Soviet troops or Soviet authorities towards the people they occupied in the 40's. I don't like how what happened is used as a blunt instrument against communism, but I can't excuse the events that literally occurred and were supported from the highest levels of Stalin and his inner circle.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 07:15 |
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Please don't say anything that even slightly excuses the behavior of Soviet troops or Soviet authorities towards the people they occupied in the 40's. I don't like how what happened is used as a blunt instrument against communism, but I can't excuse the events that literally occurred and were supported from the highest levels of Stalin and his inner circle. I'm not. Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to make excuses for them, I was just disagreeing with the spin that forward was putting on events.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 07:36 |
|
Glitterbomber posted:Sit ins are often silent, they were dressed as weapon inspectors in a parody of the lead up to the war in Iraq and I dunno about you but I think a crowd with 'there are too many Iraqis, keep making missiles' would be a scootch hostile? Not saying the article is incorrect per sé, but for example there is no such thing as "civilan weapon inspectors", they're just protesters or activists. All I'm saying is that the writer of the piece is biased. Just like any kind of journalism I guess.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 08:29 |
|
spankmeister posted:"Civilian weapons inspectors" How dare you speak ill of noted permabanned pedophile Shii's website in this way? Such talk could ruin his reputation!
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 08:49 |
|
Armyman25 posted:Why is it that the right wing folks who are so afraid of government control of their lives, of black helicopters and storm troopers, are the first ones to advocate agains their political opponents? This brings up an interesting point. The idea of freedom and individualism promoted by governments is closely related to free-market ideology and soft-touch regulation. By getting the populace riled up about personal freedoms they can transfer this emotion against regulation of business, which serves their interests. However, they can't let people get too free, otherwise they might stop obeying laws or paying tax, or start protests and riots. This is when forms of social control come in; to curb excessive individualism or departure from a norm, controls like religion, "morals", and racism/xenophobia are used to keep people in line. When these methods fail, violence is used to curb protest and dissent. The contradiction of people being against government regulation of business but for government violence against dissent fits very well into the neoliberal strategy. The fact that not only the elites support this, but the very people who stand to lose out, is testament to how clever those at the top are at convincing everyone else that their interests align.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 10:54 |
|
That and they'll spin poo poo so that granting freedoms to one group is really just an infringement of their own rights. For example, our oldest son came home a week or so ago from school, saying that some of his friends said that Obama was forcing people in the military to perform gay marriages. This was after the DADT repeal went into effect, and they said military chaplains that wished to do so could perform gay marriages in States where gay marriage was recognized. Obviously lovely, second hand conservative grumblings going from the parents to their kids to our son, but it still shows a kind of mentality where allowing gays to marry means some loss of religious rights by straight couples; even though no one is suggesting that churches will be forced to preach a pro-gay message or carry out gay marriages. So suddenly an issue that should be about expanding the rights of citizens becomes an issue of taking away rights from [real] Americans.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 16:30 |
|
Sarion posted:That and they'll spin poo poo so that granting freedoms to one group is really just an infringement of their own rights. For example, our oldest son came home a week or so ago from school, saying that some of his friends said that Obama was forcing people in the military to perform gay marriages. This was after the DADT repeal went into effect, and they said military chaplains that wished to do so could perform gay marriages in States where gay marriage was recognized.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 16:44 |
|
quote:Editor, This classic just popped up on my facebook feed a few times. Are there any statements that aren't just rank bigotry or false equivalencies?
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:12 |
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:Yeah, a friend of mine on Facebook posted not too long ago some crazy Catholic blog (Politically-correct rear end-covering here: I've got no problem with Catholics, the person who made the blog was just a lunatic) about how the movement to let gays get married infringes on Catholic Americans' rights. Because Catholicism doesn't like homosexuality, so allowing them to get married infringes on a Catholic's right to...not have anyone do something the Catholic doesn't want them to do, I guess? It didn't even have the "churches will have to provide gay marriages, it will be the law!!" aspect to it, just "these people are doing something I don't agree with even though it affects me in no way at all! MY RIGHTS!! " It's amazing how far a conservative can fit their head up their own rear end to come up with ways that they are really the ones being oppressed. It's the same with a lot of religions. Christianity speaks about great blessings that are given to the oppressed and poor, in powerful and encouraging words. It's an objectively powerful and uplifting message that speaks directly to the disenfranchised. The issue occurs when you have a group of believers who are wealthy and in the majority who only have the instructions, sell everything and come follow me. For just too many believers that's just too difficult and so mental acrobatics must be performed in order to put themselves either out of the wealthy category or into the oppressed category. If your holy book is saying that you the poor, sick and oppressed are most loved by God then it follows that people who are not poor, sick or oppressed are going to do everything in their power to try and include themselves in those groups to make themselves feel better about their lives. It's lead to me personally experiencing people claim that; a 250k+ household income is not "rich", the lack of a nativity at the court house is oppression and that anything short of a theocracy is a blasphemy. It's, frankly, depressing to watch.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:19 |
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:Yeah, a friend of mine on Facebook posted not too long ago some crazy Catholic blog (Politically-correct rear end-covering here: I've got no problem with Catholics, the person who made the blog was just a lunatic) about how the movement to let gays get married infringes on Catholic Americans' rights. Because Catholicism doesn't like homosexuality, so allowing them to get married infringes on a Catholic's right to...not have anyone do something the Catholic doesn't want them to do, I guess? It didn't even have the "churches will have to provide gay marriages, it will be the law!!" aspect to it, just "these people are doing something I don't agree with even though it affects me in no way at all! MY RIGHTS!! " It's amazing how far a conservative can fit their head up their own rear end to come up with ways that they are really the ones being oppressed. Can someone tell me what the Catholic church would think of a practicing Catholic getting a divorce, and then marrying another divorced Catholic? I'm pretty fuzzy about what happens there. What about marrying someone outside their religion? Anyway, the point is that despite the fact that there is not, nor has there ever been, any restrictions on divorcees getting new marriage licenses, the government has done absolutely nothing to make Catholic compromise their position on divorce and marriage, so gay marriage isn't going to change that.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:20 |
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:This was in an email about Rick Perry There's this really really awful song for Terry Schiavo on YouTube.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:21 |
|
Dr Christmas posted:Can someone tell me what the Catholic church would think of a practicing Catholic getting a divorce, and then marrying another divorced Catholic? I'm pretty fuzzy about what happens there. What about marrying someone outside their religion? As long as both previous marriages are annulled (which is literally saying that the marriage was invalid and never really happened - There are a number of justifications for annulment) there shouldn't be a problem with them getting married.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:24 |
|
Dr Christmas posted:Can someone tell me what the Catholic church would think of a practicing Catholic getting a divorce, and then marrying another divorced Catholic? I'm pretty fuzzy about what happens there. What about marrying someone outside their religion? It depends, if both marriages have been annulled by the church and the new marriage was within the church then it would be fine. If either marriage had not been annulled then the marriage can not occur within the church and would technically be grounds for excommunication (though that rarely occurs now-a-days). This is based on the fact that if a marriage is annulled then according to church law the marriage never actually occurred. There is a lot of weird wording regarding children but that's what it more or less simplifies down to. Marrying someone outside of the religion is allowed as long as the couple goes through a set of classes, the marriage occurs within the catholic faith (ie: at a mass with a priest presiding) and either shows how children would be impossible or promises to raise any resulting children catholic. There's some other more specific things in there that they have to accept but it's pretty petty details. And your whole point about the government never forcing the Catholic church to change their rules about divorce and marriage is completely accurate.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:28 |
|
Does the Catholic church charge to do an annullment? I thought I heard that, but can't be certain. Anyway, it's disgusting how blatantly the Church craves nothing but money and power.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:28 |
|
Chunk posted:This classic just popped up on my facebook feed a few times. Are there any statements that aren't just rank bigotry or false equivalencies? I'm glad this one just got that out of the way right up front. "Yeah, I'm racist, it's my First Amendment right."
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:32 |
|
Thenipwax posted:Does the Catholic church charge to do an annullment? I thought I heard that, but can't be certain. Anyway, it's disgusting how blatantly the Church craves nothing but money and power. No, they do not. You have to have some pretty specific reasons to get annulled. The ones I remember off the top of my head are; abuse (physical or mental have both been accepted), extramarital affairs, abandonment, proof that one party did not enter the marriage in good faith (marrying for money alone would be a good example of this), or the spouse leaving Christianity altogether. I'm sure you can dig up somewhere where a priest asked for a donation in exchange for pushing it through to the bishop but as far as stated rules go, no there is no charge and you have to have one of the fairly specific reasons.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:37 |
|
If I remember from my Arrested Development and other tv sitcoms, it can also be annulled if you never consummated the marriage. So if you don't have kids, you can just go "Hey, we never actually had sex. Weird huh?"
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:41 |
|
Some of my favorites:quote:if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right If you hate a black person because that individual is an rear end in a top hat, you're just normal. And if a black person hates all white people by virtue of them being white, it's racist. But the beauty of it is, all of it is your 1st Amendment Right. quote:we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them Which books would those be, exactly? quote:we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea Korean Border: 2.5 miles US/Mexican Border: 1969 miles Math is amazing! quote:if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist I have never heard this claim ever. The Tea Party is retarded, but it is 100% within their rights to protest against Obama, or the government in general. quote:You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas You can have a nativity scene on TV or the internet, but you better not put pornography in a public park, ever. quote:we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal. Stem cells are not fetuses, and even most liberals realize the necessity of animal testing. quote:We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work quote:we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology This one actually makes a good point. Its almost as if we need some group, a Court of some kind, to rule on the correct interpretation of the Constitution. quote:we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct Do I need to put up the KKK picture again? quote:And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign. loving legislative body always trying to fix things via legislation!
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:42 |
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:Yeah, a friend of mine on Facebook posted not too long ago some crazy Catholic blog (Politically-correct rear end-covering here: I've got no problem with Catholics, the person who made the blog was just a lunatic) about how the movement to let gays get married infringes on Catholic Americans' rights. Because Catholicism doesn't like homosexuality, so allowing them to get married infringes on a Catholic's right to...not have anyone do something the Catholic doesn't want them to do, I guess? It didn't even have the "churches will have to provide gay marriages, it will be the law!!" aspect to it, just "these people are doing something I don't agree with even though it affects me in no way at all! MY RIGHTS!! " It's amazing how far a conservative can fit their head up their own rear end to come up with ways that they are really the ones being oppressed. No, see, Freedom of Religion means I must never face anything that challenges my faith. Just like when Muslims made pork illegal and the Jews got Hebrew as our mandatory national language!
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 17:45 |
|
Sarion posted:Korean Border: 2.5 miles Your math is also wrong The Korean DMZ is 2.5 miles wide. The length of the DMZ is about 160 miles (source). Comparing US/Mexico with the two Koreas is still idiotic but someone you're arguing with could call out the incorrect fact and use that as ammo to tune out the rest of your message.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 18:14 |
|
We're also not at war with Mexico
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 19:03 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 20:26 |
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:We're also not at war with Mexico We're not at war with N. Korea either.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2011 19:07 |