|
amaranthine posted:It's the best way to make sure he's still dead. Because there's never an inappropriate time for this comic: 
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
PTBrennan posted:You would have loved the e-mail in it's original form them lol. It literally went from Font Size 10 to 4 to 20 to 16 with no Rhyme or Reason, and on top of that the Font Color would shift between Black and Red with no Rhyme or Reason as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
katlington posted:Hey that reminds me, do any of you people "lucky" enough to get these wonderful emails from friends & relatives ever call them on their poo poo? As in actually say to them, "This is not true. This is a lie. You are telling lies. You are a liar." What's the response? You stop getting those emails, because they stop contacting you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
PTBrennan posted:My aunt is the same way. Obama gonna ruin everything and Democrats are gonna destroy the United States! Anytime I try to even have a discussion with her when she brings up politics it's "No no no, I'm right, you're wrong, blah blah blah" or my favorite "Ohh you must be drinking that Obama Kool-Aid!". "Kool-Aid" is probably the greatest piece of political slang ever because it's a giant red flag that screams "pay no attention to my reprehensible opinions because they were all formed in a comfortable echo chamber protected by thick layers of tinfoil that no amount of reality can penetrate" It's the signal for you to stop paying attention because any counter-argument you can possibly give will be instantly dismissed as the product of brainwashing and any evidence you provide doublethought away before it can challenge their political orthodoxy Kosmonaut fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
amaranthine posted:It's the best way to make sure he's still dead. That sounds to me more like a Republican's Eucharist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You stop getting those emails, because they stop contacting you. Because they feel so silly about being easily duped and making a fool of themselves via the internet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
katlington posted:Because they feel so silly about being easily duped and making a fool of themselves via the internet? If only. It's because they talk politics with the expectation of being high-fived over all their terrible opinions. That's when they're cool enough to stop, though. The rest of the time they either pretend to consider your response or they just flat-out ignore you, and then either way keep right on sending you "liberals are literally Stalin" emails. Kosmonaut fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
This is why I just give them my Facebook where I can put them on ignore instead of my e-mail address. My mom just forwards the best ones to me to laugh at since she's a Democratic Socialist too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Kosmonaut posted:If only. It's because they talk politics with the expectation of being high-fived over all their terrible opinions. I usually just get a "you'll understand when you [get older/have a family/pay taxes(????)]." There's just not much else to say for either person because you disagree on such a fundamental level that any evidence found will simply be considered a fabrication (or possibly a naive misunderstanding). This goes for everyone though, and not just in a "the answer is in the middle" way; a bunch of my young friends have their heads so far up Obama's rear end that they assume anything he did was an objective good and won't humor the thought that he's a center-right politician instead of the socialist-marxist of their dreams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I usually just get a "you'll understand when you [get older/have a family/pay taxes(????)]." There's just not much else to say for either person because you disagree on such a fundamental level that any evidence found will simply be considered a fabrication (or possibly a naive misunderstanding). This goes for everyone though, and not just in a "the answer is in the middle" way; a bunch of my young friends have their heads so far up Obama's rear end that they assume anything he did was an objective good and won't humor the thought that he's a center-right politician instead of the socialist-marxist of their dreams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:I think its just trying way to hard to be folksie and then explaining the joke, whichc is always funny. Like the idiot who wrote that crap gives a gently caress what foreigners think. That was my thought too. Everything about that whole "we ate blah blah blah, on the Fourth of July" is completely unneccessary. It comes across as a "see, we're just ordinary American folks like you!" But it came across to me as too in your face / forced. As for responding to the people who send these. I haven't gotten any in emails, but my wife sometimes does in email and from family and friends back in VA. People I mostly consider to be RINO. If you talk to them about issues outside of political context, but as soon as you bring politics into it, Republicans must be right, because they've always voted (R) and they wouldn't vote (R) if the Republicans were wrong, would they? Anyways, she and I will often call them on their crap. The responses are generally: 1) Respond with "Oh, I agree, but..." BS rationalizing that involves more falsehoods or half truths. Or 2) delete the post. We did have some success with her dad though. He posted one of those "Obama threatened to cut military pay and social security, he should have cut his own pay" posts. And she replied that he didn't threaten anything, he warned that the government couldn't pay those things if the Debt ceiling was raised. He replied back saying something like "Well shut my mouth, shows what I know". But mostly the other two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Similarly, my friends are so drat petrified at the thought of a republican in the white house that they don't realize they have one now... Though, to be fair, a Republican winning the white house would be pretty terrible, regardless of how not-socialist Obama is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Though, to be fair, a Republican winning the white house would be pretty terrible, regardless of how not-socialist Obama is. BUT BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME VOTE GREEN PARTY TO SHOW THOSE CLOWNS THAT YOU MEAN BUSINESS
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Do I need to bust out the checklist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Do I need to bust out the checklist? You mean from the thread that ignored all the differences between Obama and the GOP because it undermined your argument? The one where you kept saying fantasy GOP over and over again because you had no other argument? You mean the list you created from that frame?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I usually just get a "you'll understand when you [get older/have a family/pay taxes(????)]." There's just not much else to say for either person because you disagree on such a fundamental level that any evidence found will simply be considered a fabrication (or possibly a naive misunderstanding). This goes for everyone though, and not just in a "the answer is in the middle" way; a bunch of my young friends have their heads so far up Obama's rear end that they assume anything he did was an objective good and won't humor the thought that he's a center-right politician instead of the socialist-marxist of their dreams. That's my favourite. It's a reason for all sorts of things from why taxes are bad to why Borat was a good talky but Bruno was disgusting. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
That stupid "drug testing for welfare" has been making the rounds on Facebook and I finally snapped. I know it's come up before, but what is a good retort to the idea that drug testing for welfare is extremely fair because "I have to take one to pay them, so they should too."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Ask them why they are so upset that a small portion of the population is smoking a little pot now and again and also on unemployment. When they say it's just not fair, ask them if there are people at work that go one facebook from time to time at their desks. Then ask if they would be ok if their employer monitored their internet access at work to ensure they never strayed. Not even once. Before lunch, a quick look at ESPN.com to see when the game is on? Fired. Then ask if they would be ok if their employers made them install internet monitoring software at home, because, it matters what you are doing there, too. Just like pot can stay in your system for 5-14 days, you can't go on any personal sites pretty much ever. And then there is the argument that urine based drug tests encourage hard drug use, but by now they are just mad at you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Do I need to bust out the checklist? To solve the homeless problem today, the realistic solution isn't to say that we should close the soup kitchens because they clearly aren't solving anything and start building housing today. Sure, the longterm outlook on a plan like that is pretty good, but in the mean time, people are starving to death. Voting 3rd party in a swing state is a bad idea, especially if your goal is to get a 'real progressive' in office. If Romney wins the election, you've closed the soup kitchens. Personhood legislation. Rollback of civil rights. The list goes on and on, but the most important thing to consider is the Supreme Court, but you know this. What you may not have considered is what would happen to everyone to the left of the extreme right. You would have a regressive president in office, and probably a regressive house, senate, and supreme court. Conservatives have no problem ramming through terrible legislation. Maybe even starting a war or two. Then everyone from the left of the extreme right would come together and say 'anyone but this one', and you would end up with a centrist, pragmatic, corporatist, like Barack Obama. What if Obama wins in 2012. Now the true left can argue from a position of strength. There will be a primary. Sure, Russ Feingold might not get the nomination, but you can be assured that true left ideals will come up in the debates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Has D&D ever mined craigslist for political tard fodder? I remember clicking into their politics forum back in 2008, always good for a laugh. And it's regional specific, so you can reallllllly dial in to the real winners.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:That stupid "drug testing for welfare" has been making the rounds on Facebook and I finally snapped. I know it's come up before, but what is a good retort to the idea that drug testing for welfare is extremely fair because "I have to take one to pay them, so they should too." It operates under the false assumption that drug use rates are higher with the poor, it unfairly targets the poor instead of all beneficiaries of government funding, it dehumanizes the poor, it's a huge waste of money, it's straight up unconstitutional. That's the big one. The constitutional violation is strictly a government thing, a company can test without reasonable cause. Also companies that drug test are by and large wasting their money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
New one from an old friend I just recently found on facebook: I pointed out that many illegal immigrants do actually pay taxes and many (I threw out 75% as a number) people on food stamps have jobs. Anything more anyone wants to throw in that stands out as complete b.s. on this one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
downout posted:New one from an old friend I just recently found on facebook: Ask if he wants all the criminals free, and exactly how are "crackheads" sucking on his ample financial tit? Unless they are part of one of the other categories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Cynnik posted:To solve the homeless problem today, the realistic solution isn't to say that we should close the soup kitchens because they clearly aren't solving anything and start building housing today. Sure, the longterm outlook on a plan like that is pretty good, but in the mean time, people are starving to death. You realize you are buying into the same type of boogeyman that the Republicans trick people with, right? "YOU MUST VOTE MCCAIN BECAUSE BARRY HUSSIEN OBAMA WILL TURN THIS COUNTRY INTO COMMUNIST NAZI CUBA!" Guess what, that didn't happen. It's not even close to reality. Now it's "YOU MUST VOTE ROMNEY BECAUSE OBUMMER HAS BEEN WAITING FOR HIS SECOND TERM TO DESTROY AMERICA AND TAKE YOUR GUNS". If he does win, that's not going to happen. He's going to be the same slightly right of center corporate stooge he currently is. If Obama wins, that is just going to be taken as a thumbs up to stay the course of blowing hot air to appease the left while doing whatever the hell he wants policy wise. His successor would be more of the same (because that's the direction the party want to take) The Tea Party is a good example. It may have been astroturfed but as soon as it started winning seats, the Republicans responded by leaning more to the right on almost every issue. A third party vote is only a waste if you believe it is. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
downout posted:New one from an old friend I just recently found on facebook: How are illegal immigrants even sucking off the US gov't? Are they actually even eligible for welfare? People on food stamps aren't necessarily unemployable, either. It's like whoever wrote that doesn't understand being in a bad financial situation can be temporary. I'm also pretty sure the government doesn't pay for crack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Chunk posted:It operates under the false assumption that drug use rates are higher with the poor, it unfairly targets the poor instead of all beneficiaries of government funding, it dehumanizes the poor, it's a huge waste of money, it's straight up unconstitutional. That's the big one. The constitutional violation is strictly a government thing, a company can test without reasonable cause. Yes! The bold part will specifically knock down his argument. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
downout posted:New one from an old friend I just recently found on facebook: This sounds like a re-telling of what happened to Arthur Conan Doyle. I will quote from footnote 8, page 6 (of the dual volume edition). quote:When the income-tax paper arrived that year, Conan Doyle filled it up to show he was not liable. The authoritiees returned the form with the words, "Most unsatisfactory" scrawled across it. Conan Doyle wrote, "I entirely agree" - and sent the form back to the authorities. Sauce: Baring-Gould, William S., ed. The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, Vol. I. Avenel, New Jersey: Wing Books, 1992.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Cacatua posted:How are illegal immigrants even sucking off the US gov't? Are they actually even eligible for welfare? Illegal immigrants are actually a huge source of funding for the government. They pay billions in tax dollars every year that they don't derive benefit from because they obviously can't collect things like SSI. downout posted:New one from an old friend I just recently found on facebook: Would he rather the unemployed starve in the streets? Would he rather drug addicts not receive treatment and/or go to jail for breaking the law (depending on whatever they're trying to advocate for) And for pure snark value, most members of Congress are extremely wealthy and that didn't come from their Congressional salary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
downout posted:New one from an old friend I just recently found on facebook: I agree with him re prisoners. The rest of that is pretty factually wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Chunk posted:It operates under the false assumption that drug use rates are higher with the poor, it unfairly targets the poor instead of all beneficiaries of government funding, it dehumanizes the poor, it's a huge waste of money, it's straight up unconstitutional. That's the big one. The constitutional violation is strictly a government thing, a company can test without reasonable cause. Even for people who've been convicted and sent through a diversionary drug treatment program, frequent testing can lower their chances of staying clean through to the end. The underlying reminders that they can't be trusted end up overwhelming any positive messages that are built in. People end up preferring jail, where they can serve their sentence and get out, over a drawn out process that could still send them to jail if they gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Chunk posted:It operates under the false assumption that drug use rates are higher with the poor, it unfairly targets the poor instead of all beneficiaries of government funding, it dehumanizes the poor, it's a huge waste of money, it's straight up unconstitutional. That's the big one. The constitutional violation is strictly a government thing, a company can test without reasonable cause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Chunk posted:Also companies that drug test are by and large wasting their money. I was also under the impression that the main reason for the testing by companies was for insurance purposes. But yes, there is a difference between a business doing it for employment, and the Government doing it because you're poor. The difference being the Constitution says one is not allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
Thank you everyone for the work you did. I haven't gotten a response to even my first reply which means probably no one wants to defend that poo poo, but your responses definitely gave me a lot of ammo for what allowed me to at least respond with, "Everything on that list is b.s." Hopefully anyone watching changed their minds on one or two things. Little steps. Edit: I should add I have family members (and so does the person posting this crap) up creek for drug abuse and demonizing them and throwing them in prison doesn't work. We both know that through personal experience, so for this person posting this is slightly annoying. downout fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:You realize you are buying into the same type of boogeyman that the Republicans trick people with, right? It's not a Boogeyman to say that a Romney presidency will pave the way for things like the Ryan-Medicare plan or even more spending cuts coupled with more tax cuts for the ludicrously wealthy. Nor is it a boogeyman to say that they will try to push for more socially regressive policies on issues like abortion or homosexuality. Nor is it a boogeyman to say that the next President could likely end up sitting 3 new justices on the Supreme Court and that Romney's picks will absolutely be more Conservative than Obama's and that will have a lasting effect on the country for years after either one of them is out of office. "Romney will abolish SS and sell your grandparents into Corporate servitude, while witch hunts for gays and liberals are carried out across the country, and abortion is completely banned outright." Those are boogeymen. Pointing out that while Obama is more to the right than most of us would like (a problem with American politics in general, not just Obama), and while also recognizing there are some areas where they wouldn't be very different, pointing out that there are other important areas where they are absolutely different is not a "boogeyman" tactic. Also, it does not mean that the next guy will be the same. The Primaries are precisely where that kind of thing matters. Keep pushing for a more liberal agenda in the Presidential and Congressional Primaries (but not so liberal the candidate is unelectable). We didn't get to far-Right crazy town in one election, and we're not going to move things back to the left in one either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
To be fair, don't the Wall Street assholes we bailed out do, like, a ton of coke? Maybe those are the 3 million crack heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:To be fair, don't the Wall Street assholes we bailed out do, like, a ton of coke? Maybe those are the 3 million crack heads. "Job Creators"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:To be fair, don't the Wall Street assholes we bailed out do, like, a ton of coke? Maybe those are the 3 million crack heads. As long as it's not crack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Cacatua posted:I'm also pretty sure the government doesn't pay for crack. Only before they resell it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Well, I finally got a response:quote:haha drat Marc! Did you go all liberal in the last 5 years or so? lol This guy is a friend that I haven't talked to in years, so I figured a polite response of: quote:I hate freeloaders, but most of them are products of a bad system. It's not really a political thing. is fair. Given where I live, there are people that I would define as "freeloaders." Unfortunately, what most people don't consider is that these people don't live some magical life of no bills, they live a terrible life with very little to look forward to and would like to probably not be the way they are except there are no medical programs of any kind to help with their drug addictions/mental problems. Where these people end up, end up never helping them in any way and end up costing all of us more by inevitably tossing them in prison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
When FDR signed the new deal to create the safety net, it was at the threat of racists from the south and in fact his own party that resulted in these benefits being readily available to white people, and difficult to impossible for black people and other minorities. 30 years later, there highest tax bracket was 91%. There were 8 tax brackets that had a higher percentage than the highest bracket that exists now. Where was the tax revolt then? White people with all the money remembered what it was like when they needed these services and had no significant qualms about paying these rates for services they consumed, or wanted to be there so that no one in their family would ever have to stand in a bread line. There wasn't a massive concern for free loaders then. Yes there were some, but there is something about a baby and bath water that fits here. Then greedy white folks decided they wanted to keep more that they were getting before, so they tricked the poor white folks from aspiring to prosperity to aspiring to not be on the bottom of the heap. They invented and then vilified the idea of black people taking a majority of your tax money through social programs, and then trotted out the terrible stereotypes around black people and their work ethic and convinced the poor, disenfranchised white people that they were going to lose what little status they had to the black people because of some notion of free riders amassing great wealth one welfare check at a time and then the white people would be on the bottom and have no status or agency over anyone else. White people dismantled their own social safety net, partially because they were tricked into thinking that hard work was the only thing keeping them from being a rich fat cat that called the shots, but also because the fat cats convinced them that the easiest way to say off the bottom of the pile was to dig out the foundation underneath so the poorest got poorer, and they only slid down the social slide a relatively little bit. And now, everyone is reaping what they have sowed. Never underestimate the shortsightedness or the forgetfulness of the American people. If people joined together , the lower and endangered middle class united against the plutonomy, we could stop this seemingly inevitable march to plutocracy. If only we hey is that person in line for food stamps on a cell phone this is a #travesty
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 08:09
|
|