|
I know this is old: And we just talked about it a few pages ago. But from now on, whenever you see it on Facebook/G+ you can just link this back: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple The last two minutes made me just lose it.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:So I got this today. My mom sent it to me, and ladies at her work sent it to her. When I pressed for details, like, names and the like, she only said she wishes I wouldn't drink diet soda. My dad has MS and about 6 months ago stopped drinking diet soda on advice from some nutjob friend. Needless to say, his condition is not improving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 04:45
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:My dad has MS and about 6 months ago stopped drinking diet soda on advice from some nutjob friend. Needless to say, his condition is not improving. Cutting soda out of your diet isn't a bad plan either way.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Cutting soda out of your diet isn't a bad plan either way. The problem with sentiments like this is that people do it in exclusion of actual real medical care. http://whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html That may not be this case. But its important not to give things like this a pass because people who believe it can get seriously harmed. Edit: There's nothing specifically I can find on the soda thing, that pretty benign, but its one step down the rabbit hole. Soda gave you MS time to DETOXIFY. http://whatstheharm.net/detoxification.html Bombadilillo fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
In relation to a study about low IQ being related to racism quote:Ok. Let me see if I got this down now..... Well okie dokie buddy, I'm glad you proved that you can be both smart and racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
streetlamp posted:In relation to a study about low IQ being related to racism Nope. He is still stupid and racist. If he was smart, he would realize the underlying pattern was built on poverty, not race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
I like that he feels so righteous in his television judgment of the situation, and basically every aspect of poverty, race, and the relationship between poor minorities AND whites, and the police. I grew up literally in the ghetto of Philadelphia, and the situation is so much more nuanced and systemic than most anyone would give it credit for.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
quote:I am an intellectual. Whoa there, way to set the bar too high and then immediately smack your head on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 08:11
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Too bad the USPS hasn't received tax money since before I was born. What is with that? One of the politics undergrad courses that I had to go to at Uni dealt with your constitution as a model for ours, we had to actually read that crap and write short answers as part of our assessment. I am pretty sure the USPS is the only government agency that is actually constitutionally mandated, because that was one of the questions on the exam. I might be wrong, it was ages ago, pretty sure that was the case though. e: Thinking on it I am almost certain that is the case. So, how the hell is that legal? (Uppity people from other countries knowing about your constitution. Bastards.) Incident Number fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:What is with that? One of the politics undergrad courses that I had to go to at Uni dealt with your constitution as a model for ours, we had to actually read that crap and write short answers as part of our assessment. I am pretty sure the USPS is the only government agency that is actually constitutionally mandated, because that was one of the questions on the exam. I might be wrong, it was ages ago, pretty sure that was the case though. The program is constitutionally mandated, but how it's funded is probably handled entirely by congress. It's funded by user fees, and you can ship something from sea to shining sea for under half a buck. Adjusted for inflation, the price of a stamp has stayed roughly the same for over a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postage_rates  It's probably one of the best run government programs on the planet, but that won't stop regressive fuckheads from making GBS threads all over it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:The program is constitutionally mandated, but how it's funded is probably handled entirely by congress. It's funded by user fees, and you can ship something from sea to shining sea for under half a buck. Adjusted for inflation, the price of a stamp has stayed roughly the same for over a century. Plus they're actively sabotaging it so they can make it the poster child for why Government can't do anything right, but its really the poster child for why the Republicans have no business running anything. In 2006 the Republican Congress and President Bush passed a law requiring the Post Office to set aside funding for its next 75 years of pensions; they have 10 years to do it. In 2006, the Post Office operated with a Net Income of ~$0.75B. Between 2003-2005 they had Net Income of between $1B-4B each year. In 2007, they reported a $5.5B loss. And they have been making huge budget cuts, but still suffering losses ever since.  The 2006 law costs the post office ~$5.5B a year. Without it, the Post Office would have posted income gains every year since 2000 expect for 2001, 2002, 2010, and 2011. All years suffering from a Recession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
^^Wait, this is them termiting the US constitution and seeing how it goes across with the voting public?Snoggle posted:The program is constitutionally mandated, but how it's funded is probably handled entirely by congress. It's funded by user fees, and you can ship something from sea to shining sea for under half a buck. Adjusted for inflation, the price of a stamp has stayed roughly the same for over a century. So basically they took the Royal Mail and codified it into law, nice. You guys should amend a few more government agencies, like the DOD, for instance, into the constitution. Still, if some people are trying to defund this and it has not had government funds and been imposed significant and unrealistic liabilities (I checked) in the last decade, how is this legal? How can you attack the viability, and funding of a constitutionally mandated government agency? Is this just some long term bullshit that results in a referendum about the USPS with some really other vaguely worded insane thing like banning homosexuality included? Hang on. Is the problem because you would have to defund the DoD or Homeland Security before this? Is that the issue? Incident Number fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:^^Wait, this is them termiting the US constitution and seeing how it goes across with the voting public? It's legal because it's not illegal, at least not blatantly so. It's part of a wider strategy by conservatives called "starve the beast" that's intended both to reduce the size of government and to instill the idea that government is, as Reagan said, "the problem". I imagine the end game would be a new, privately contracted for-profit USPS. The USPS has historically been a very efficient and well run system, which doesn't conform with the idea that government is inherently wasteful and slow so conservatives want to do everything they can to make it that way. As an aside, there is no Federal referendum process, if that's what you were referring to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:It's legal because it's not illegal, at least not blatantly so. Right, that is really loving insane. As for the referendum process, how do you guys amend the constitution if not through popular referendum with a majority of states? It is essentially a referendum after a constitutional convention. Majority of people in 2/3 of states thing. Incident Number fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:Right, that is really loving insane. After an amendment is proposed it's ratified either by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states or by special conventions in 3/4 of the states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:Right, that is really loving insane. American government was specifically constructed to moderate the amount of influence the hoi polloi could wield:  Notice that there is no way to propose an amendment by popular vote. The closest you get it the state legislatures doing it by calling a convention, but modern US state legislatures are gerrymandered, strange institutions dominated by old white doctors and lawyers. Hell, in a majority of US states, being a state legislator is only a part time job that comes with a minimal stipend instead of a salary. Having the national congress propose it is the second way, but obviously the incumbent Congress has little interest in far reaching reform of its structures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:After an amendment is proposed it's ratified either by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states or by special conventions in 3/4 of the states. Yeah, but this would be derived by popular vote, not random wankers who were previously elected just voting, right? There is no way they could get away with loving you over like that? If so I guess this is why we have mandatory voting on all amendments here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:Yeah, but this would be derived by popular vote, not random wankers who were previously elected just voting, right? At no point, except possibly state conventions, which are ill defined, does a Constitutional amendment encounter a national popular vote. In fact, nothing in the American government is based on a national popular vote directly -- and this is absolutely on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:At no point, except possibly state conventions, which are ill defined, does a Constitutional amendment encounter a national popular vote. In fact, nothing in the American government is based on a national popular vote directly -- and this is absolutely on purpose. That is bizarre. If it changes the constitution it should be a mandatory national vote. I come from a mandatory voting place, but even if I didn't there is no loving way your constitution should be amended without a plebiscite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:That is bizarre. If it changes the constitution it should be a mandatory national vote. The people who wrote our Constitution in 1787 feared the pebes with a deep terror known only by rich white men who had just watched the Haitian revolution and were beginning to see the French Revolution start. We are still using the same Constitution, with some nibbling around the edges (making black people not slaves, letting women vote, etc).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:The people who wrote our Constitution in 1787 feared the pebes with a deep terror known only by rich white men who had just watched the Haitian revolution and were beginning to see the French Revolution start. We are still using the same Constitution, with some nibbling around the edges (making black people not slaves, letting women vote, etc). I guess we learned some stuff. We let women vote in 1901 with the institution of the constitution (I think second place) and amended it in 1967 via a plebiscite to allow traditional landowners full franchise (really loving horrible). I guess the thing we took from you in the 'Wasminster Mutation' was a living constitution. Also, mandatory voting, while a massive pain in the anus on the particular day is a pretty good thing, especially since they can sell booze on the day now. You should do this, it is a bit like a holiday and you can skive off work for a few hours because you have to vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:I guess we learned some stuff. We let women vote in 1901 with the institution of the constitution (I think second place) and amended it in 1967 via a plebiscite to allow traditional landowners full franchise (really loving horrible). Americans don't believe in mandatory voting almost universally because voting is meant to be an excercize in civic duty. This line of reasoning basically says that if you can't be bothered to learn about the candidates and issues or sacrifice your time to give input, your vote would probably be counterproductive because it comes from a place of laziness/ignorance. It's a crap line of reasoning but a substantial majority of Americans embrace it, so there will never be mandatory voting in this country, at least not in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Americans don't believe in mandatory voting almost universally because voting is meant to be an excercize in civic duty. This line of reasoning basically says that if you can't be bothered to learn about the candidates and issues or sacrifice your time to give input, your vote would probably be counterproductive because it comes from a place of laziness/ignorance. It is just because that here, if you penalise your employees for taking time off to vote you get destroyed by the government, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
I was actually pleasantly surprised to see this one on FB.It's such a change of pace from the BS I usually see there I had to post it.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:I was actually pleasantly surprised to see this one on FB.It's such a change of pace from the BS I usually see there I had to post it. It is the whole thing, isn't it. If you allow a thing to happen it dose not effect you. If you ban something it effects a whole load of people who are not you. Why the hell ban it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Cutting soda out of your diet isn't a bad plan either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 18:56
|
|
Herman Merman posted:Replacing diet soda with the real thing is if you're a fatty or a diabetic. I meant cutting out soda completely as opposed to switching to regular pop. I did have a clerk at a convenience store try to tell me that diet was just as bad as regular which of course makes no sense when you look at the shear difference in calories. I've stopped drinking either and I feel a lot better though. Cheaper too.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Is this a real problem in your military?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:29
|
|
Incident Number posted:Is this a real problem in your military? Drinking pop? The Army basically runs on energy drinks and coffee though.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Incident Number posted:It is the whole thing, isn't it. If you allow a thing to happen it dose not effect you. If you ban something it effects a whole load of people who are not you. Depends. Some of those, like smoking in public areas, do effect others. But generally the reason is God. As for the earlier stuff. The easiest way to think of the US is that it was founded as a group of States, not a group of people. Nowadays it seems stupid and if we could change it I would, but its nearly impossible to change the Constitution to that degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Drinking pop? Has that red bull bullshit I saw in 2003 become an industry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:37
|
|
Incident Number posted:Has that red bull bullshit I saw in 2003 become an industry? Am I missing something here? I feel like this is a trick question.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Incident Number, I thought you were from Australia, but apparently you are from the moon. Here in America, Red Bull is in nearly every gas station, grocery store, convenience store, liquor store and bar. I have no direct knowledge, but I can only assume our fighting men abroad have access to it in quantity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Incident Number, I thought you were from Australia, but apparently you are from the moon. The Army issues an energy drink called Rip It, which is cheap and nasty as hell. I knew a lot of guys who would buy Monster or Red Bull because they liked those better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:The Army issues an energy drink called Rip It, which is cheap and nasty as hell. I knew a lot of guys who would buy Monster or Red Bull because they liked those better. So you guys are actually supplying that crap now? Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:The Army issues an energy drink called Rip It, which is cheap and nasty as hell. I knew a lot of guys who would buy Monster or Red Bull because they liked those better. Aaahahaha this loving country. It isn't enough to pass out Nuvigil like breath mints?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
niggerstink420 posted:Aaahahaha this loving country. I think if you qualify for Special Forces then you graduate to meth and anabolic steroids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Incident Number you're going to hurt yourself if you keep trying to bring rational thought to anything that America does 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
niggerstink420 posted:Aaahahaha this loving country. I remember my squadron's physician's assistant saying that they gave out more Ambien than aspirin during my last deployment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
myron_cope posted:Incident Number you're going to hurt yourself if you keep trying to bring rational thought to anything that America does I'm trying. It is like my sisters kid. He is loving nuts and wants to break stuff. He is good times a lot when he is here, but destroys stuff if I don't watch him. Good kid, bad attitude: The US. I was in Borneo and Timor back in the day, and it was not fun. I was in Afghanistan at the start and that crap was definitely not fun. I mean, you go in now and spend all day jacking off in some base far behind the lines. You don't get how loving bad doing these things were back in the day. If you were there at the start it loving sucked. Turned me completely against the war on terror. E: I'm some kind of traitor. Incident Number fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 20:27
|
|