Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
jojoinnit
Dec 13, 2010

Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

Sulphuric Sundae posted:

I didn't hear the term czar itself until Obama was in office, and I'm sure that has something to do with the mental connection one would make and its use in smearing Obama.
Presidential appointment = czar = Russian monarch = COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!

Of course, Communism killed off the Czars, but I'm sure thats just an inconvenient point they're ignoring.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

jojoinnit posted:

Of course, Communism killed off the Czars, but I'm sure thats just an inconvenient point they're ignoring.

Just like how Hitler was a Nazi-commie.

Sulphuric Sundae
Feb 10, 2006

You can't go in there.
Your father is dead.
Oh god I don't have time to reply to this poo poo. This reply I got actually is a FWD that looks like it originally came from here. I started this argument, breaking up their conservative circle-jerk. So I guess I shouldn't back down like the truth-hating, LIEberal pussy I am. It's a couple months old, so if there's any pre-existing response out there, I will be more than happy to copy-paste that onto Facebook.

quote:

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to issue an unlawful “recess-appointment” while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Defy a Federal Judge’s Court Order to Cease Implementing the ‘Health Care Reform’ Law
• First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to “The DREAM Act”, which could not pass Congress
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on ‘Shovel-Ready’ Jobs — and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
• First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases
• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
• First President to Terminate America’s Ability to Put a Man into Space.
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an ‘Auto-pen’ Without Being “Present”
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.
• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil
• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

Anubis
Oct 9, 2003

It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.
Fun Shoe
While most of those are idiotic or outright lies, this one stuck out to me as the worst:

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

We've had presidents send the army and national guard to invade states that were refusing to follow civil rights law. I'm pretty sure nearly every single president has sued a state over one thing or another. It's a very common thing.

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together

Fun Shoe
My favorite is the last one. Not only is he a dictator hell-bent on destroying the country and abridging our freedoms at every step tirelessly, but he is a lazy slacker who golfs a lot too!

Imagine how few freedoms we would have if Obama wasn't golfing all the time! Golf may be this country's greatest protector.

e: "First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It". I assume this is about the DOMA decision given by the DoJ:

quote:

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

[...]

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

Basically they still uphold the law but won't argue for that particular section's Constitutionality because they don't feel there are any reasonable arguments supporting Constitutionality. For reference, here's Section 3:

quote:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:

Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Mar 27, 2012

The Rokstar
Aug 19, 2002

by FactsAreUseless
Yes, it's almost as if these people subscribe to some sort of an ideology that paints their opponents as simultaneously completely inept and overwhelmingly strong...

Kavak
Aug 23, 2009


Mo_Steel posted:

My favorite is the last one. Not only is he a dictator hell-bent on destroying the country and abridging our freedoms at every step tirelessly, but he is a lazy slacker who golfs a lot too!

Imagine how few freedoms we would have if Obama wasn't golfing all the time! Golf may be this country's greatest protector.

It's also wrong- Eisenhower golfed every chance he got, he'd blow that record out of the water.

Elder Postsman
Aug 30, 2000


i used hot bot to search for "teens"

Kavak posted:

It's also wrong- Eisenhower golfed every chance he got, he'd blow that record out of the water.

Here's Ike's golf schedule during hs presidency: http://www.golfdigest.com/images/rankings/2008/04/gd200804ikechronology.pdf

Wilson was a big golfer too, with over 1000 golf outings during his presidency.

Taerkar
Dec 7, 2002

kind of into it, really

Kavak posted:

It's also wrong- Eisenhower golfed every chance he got, he'd blow that record out of the water.

And he wanted a tree cut down at Augusta.

Kavak
Aug 23, 2009


dur posted:

Here's Ike's golf schedule during hs presidency: http://www.golfdigest.com/images/rankings/2008/04/gd200804ikechronology.pdf

Wilson was a big golfer too, with over 1000 golf outings during his presidency.

Three months out for a heart attack, a month and a half for illness, one week for a stroke. He got tougher as he got older.

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
I think the "form response" to that particular email is a big list of "First president to..." and it's talking about George Washington.

zeroprime
Mar 25, 2006

Words go here.

Fun Shoe

Sulphuric Sundae posted:

Oh god I don't have time to reply to this poo poo. This reply I got actually is a FWD that looks like it originally came from here. I started this argument, breaking up their conservative circle-jerk. So I guess I shouldn't back down like the truth-hating, LIEberal pussy I am. It's a couple months old, so if there's any pre-existing response out there, I will be more than happy to copy-paste that onto Facebook.

Almost all of those are shitthatneverhappened.txt or complete non-sequitur. Ask them for citations for the claims in that list.


• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
Note that it says "Preside", they have to use this phrasing because the cause of the downgrade were the teaparty and republican shenanigans about threatening to let the US default instead of raising the debt ceiling. This is explicitly stated by S&P when they released their letter of downgrade http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_story.html

quote:

Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.”
What's ironic about this, is people complaining about the millions of dollars OWS has cost local governments in police overtime, sanitation, property damage, when the downgrade costs the US 10's - 100's of billions of dollars in higher interest rates.

• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
The President "Orchestrated" this? It sounds like a pretty standard bust where illicit items are sold to dealers and then tracked and used to bring down a larger network of illegal traffickers, except in this case, whoever ran the operation royally hosed it up.

• First President to issue an unlawful “recess-appointment” while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).
It wasn't unlawful, it was issued during a pro-forma session, which is arguably a legal point at which to issue a recess appointment. The Republicans would have already taken this to the supreme court if they had a leg to stand on with these claims.

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
Infowars saying he is in contempt of court doesn't actually mean it's true.

Ah gently caress it, I'm not going to hit all these line by line. Tell them to cite their BS claims if they aren't full of poo poo.


Sarion posted:

Yes, thank you. I would post them to Facebook if it wasn't being overwhelmed by porn at the moment.



George Washington...

The First President
to claim to rule over The United States of America

The First President
to only recognize 13 of our States

The First President
to never wear a Flag pin

The First President
to craft a treaty claiming the US was not a Christian nation

The First President
to have not been born a US citizen

The First President
to not have a Social Security number

The First President
to not have an official birth certificate from the State he was born in

The First President
to support a Socialist National Bank

The First President
to preside over a National Debt

The First President
to use military force to exert control over the States and citizens

The First President
to spurn an ally and instead form trade relations with an enemy



What is this guy up to? :tinfoil:

myron cope posted:

First president
to be in office in the years 2010 and 2011, and soon to be 2012

Can we really afford to let that kind of monster continue??

quote:

The Area Number, the first three digits, is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1973, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the office code in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be in the area where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1973, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, neither prior to 1973, nor since.

zeroprime fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Mar 27, 2012

pillsburysoldier
Feb 11, 2008

Yo, peep that shit

They're making a magazine to put all their bad ideas and chain letters now

http://www.theconservativeteen.com/

http://krtins.longboys.net/Winter-2011-TCT/index.html#/1/

Sulphuric Sundae
Feb 10, 2006

You can't go in there.
Your father is dead.
Why did I waste time on this? He'll never read it :( Probably got a couple things wrong, but my Google history is now "did obama..." for like 20 lines.

Sulphuric Sundae posted:

-He was president during the credit rating decrease, but it wasn't solely his fault.
-The "orchestrate the sale of murder weapons" has already been covered. It was also done in 2006, but it didn't receive attention until it was botched under this administration.
-The recess appointments were done during pro-forma recesses, which is still legal.
-The source I can find for the "contempt of court" think is Infowars, which is a conspiracy theorist site.
-I can't find which federal judge this was, but I mean the mandate's going through the court system right now. I expect the resulting "5-4 decision" soon.
-The DREAM Act was not going to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, and currently, the records of illegal immigrants are being gone through to focus on ones with criminal records to deport
-Obamacare is a mess, but this wouldn't be a problem if we had a single-payer system. The crux of healthcare reform requires that everyone have insurance to reduce overall costs, which Republicans proposed in the 90s.
-Yeah, unfortunately, there's too much red tape to make anything immediately shovel-ready
-I think voting is a little different from flying. The argument against the IDs is that it costs money to get one, potentially disenfranchising those too poor to get to a DMV and buy one. Also, reports of voter fraud are very low.
-This is conspiracy stuff, but the argument is that if the auto companies didn't get assistance we'd be worse off now. None of us are macro-economics experts or time-travelers, so we don't know how well or poorly the bailout work.
-The DREAM Act was never implemented.
-I can't argue with this. But the health insurance industry has a pretty profitable racket going on, feeding on the suffering of the American people. By the government's right to levy taxes for the general welfare of the people, I see single-payer as the eventual solution, once the government stops listening to the insurance giants.
-Was that over the "we didn't take bailout money" ad Ford did? I can't find anything concrete except that the White House called Ford, and they pulled the ad.
-I'm not exactly familiar with this one, so no comment.
-The shuttle program was ended. NASA is still working on newer, better, and more efficient ways to get people into space.
-I don't know what this one is about, unless it's like about ACORN or something.
-He reviewed the law and actually saved some taxpayer money by refusing to let somebody fly out to France to get him to sign the bill in person. The real travesty is the bill signed was to extended the Patriot Act for 4 more years.
-This isn't about DOMA, is it? DOMA's constitutionality can be disputed, but it's a terrible bill and detrimental to gay civil rights.
-Also not familiar with this one. I'm sure it has something to do with bailout stuff and job creation.
-AKA the first president to have crazy lady start questioning his birthplace.
-Presidents sue states all the time. Remember when Lincoln refused to allow a bunch of states exercise their right to break free of the union and then invaded them? Makes Obama look like an amateur.
-I was under the impression that the coal mining was going to affect the water quality in the area. But I could be mistaken.
-That's a bit of a jump there, but some parties argue that Walpin mishandled the investigation. I don't know much on this subject.
-I think this is fantastic and good and I'm not even going to Google it because I hope this line is more truthful than the rest.
-To help curb the drug war going on in Mexico, that is the cause of lots of crime in the US and the illegal immigration people complain about.
-Already covered. Obama may golf a lot, but he's not on top. Eisenhower played golf over 50 times in his first year.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003
Wasn't fast and furious started in the W administration? Not that it excuses Holder but to say ONLY PRESIDENT?

Dr Christmas
Apr 24, 2010

Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

Sulphuric Sundae posted:

Why did I waste time on this? He'll never read it :( Probably got a couple things wrong, but my Google history is now "did obama..." for like 20 lines.

I'm sure there's an Iran-Contra comparison to be made with Fast & Furious.

Also, I'm pissed. The Republicans said that they wanted a default. They said this repeatedly, reasoning, out loud, on TV, that the pain it would cause Americans would hurt Obama's reelection chances. Fox talking heads nodded sagely in agreement. After they got everything they wanted, they complained that they didn't get to cause a default, anyway. It's like bank robbers getting away with the money and then complaining that they didn't get to execute the hostages. When I'm looking for someone to blame for the credit downgrade, blame the people who worked out in the open to cause it.

It's fine to not like Obama, but the petty destruction that the Republicans have been causing in their 3-year hissy fit is utterly inexcusable.

Sulphuric Sundae
Feb 10, 2006

You can't go in there.
Your father is dead.

Dr Christmas posted:

It's fine to not like Obama, but the petty destruction that the Republicans have been causing in their 3-year hissy fit is utterly inexcusable.

That's what pisses me off the most. I don't think Obama's doing a great job and I have some valid reasons why. But all the things I think Obama has done right, these guys hate. And the things I think he's done wrong, they hate for a completely different, terrible reason, or begrudgingly admit "I guess he had to do something right" like extending the Patriot Act or leaving Gitmo open.

zeroprime
Mar 25, 2006

Words go here.

Fun Shoe

Dr Christmas posted:

I'm sure there's an Iran-Contra comparison to be made with Fast & Furious.

Also, I'm pissed. The Republicans said that they wanted a default. They said this repeatedly, reasoning, out loud, on TV, that the pain it would cause Americans would hurt Obama's reelection chances. Fox talking heads nodded sagely in agreement. After they got everything they wanted, they complained that they didn't get to cause a default, anyway. It's like bank robbers getting away with the money and then complaining that they didn't get to execute the hostages. When I'm looking for someone to blame for the credit downgrade, blame the people who worked out in the open to cause it.

It's fine to not like Obama, but the petty destruction that the Republicans have been causing in their 3-year hissy fit is utterly inexcusable.

Please, everyone point this out every single time someone tries to blame the sitting President for the credit downgrade. Not just that "it wasn't his fault", but that it was the result of tea partiers and republicans actively using the threat of a US default as a bargaining chip. This game of chicken with a US default was explicitly stated by S&P as the reason for the downgrade.

The Macaroni
Dec 20, 2002
...it does nothing.

Dr Christmas posted:

It's fine to not like Obama, but the petty destruction that the Republicans have been causing in their 3-year hissy fit is utterly inexcusable.
Seriously. A lot of people didn't like GWB, but it's not like the Democrats in Congress completely held poo poo up for 8 years, to the point of shutting the country down and otherwise utterly failing to do their jobs in some form of rear end-backward appeal to their base.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

zeroprime posted:

Please, everyone point this out every single time someone tries to blame the sitting President for the credit downgrade. Not just that "it wasn't his fault", but that it was the result of tea partiers and republicans actively using the threat of a US default as a bargaining chip. This game of chicken with a US default was explicitly stated by S&P as the reason for the downgrade.

The inevitable response "Obama should have agreed with the Tea Party."

Sulphuric Sundae
Feb 10, 2006

You can't go in there.
Your father is dead.
I found a version of that list that cites all the claims. It's funny, because some of the claims are debunked like right in the first line of the linked article. Like those fwds that go "Check Snopes! It's true!" expecting you not to actually go to Snopes.

jojoinnit
Dec 13, 2010

Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.
Why would I check Snopes when I already agree with everything it says? :confused:

Leon Einstein
Feb 6, 2012
I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

BrotherAdso posted:

It's a dumb way to put it. Why not call them policy office directors or something? Czars are inherently bad-sounding.
Why are they inherently bad sounding? Do you feel the same way about Caesar and Kaiser?

a foolish pianist
May 6, 2007

(bi)cyclic mutation

Mooseontheloose posted:

Wasn't fast and furious started in the W administration? Not that it excuses Holder but to say ONLY PRESIDENT?

In the right wing narrative, GWB is basically a democrat now.

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

Leon Einstein posted:

Why are they inherently bad sounding? Do you feel the same way about Caesar and Kaiser?

Ten bucks most of them think Kaiser is a Nazi title.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth
Also literally no one has complained about the name until Obama. This has never been a thing in the decades we've had 'Czars'.

Oh, also, people saying Czar is a communist title, those people are functionally brain damaged.

JoshTheStampede
Sep 8, 2004

come at me bro

Leon Einstein posted:

Why are they inherently bad sounding? Do you feel the same way about Caesar and Kaiser?

They're inherently bad to most people because they are Russian and Russian means Commie and that's bad. It doesn't matter that Czar isn't a Communist title.

And yes, they would say the same thing if someone decided they were going to be the Caesar of North Dakota or the Kaiser of the US. Caesar means Emperor which is bad and Kaiser means German which is bad. It's not complicated, people are pretty simple.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

Mike Fratello was a proud Czar. No one gave him poo poo about that.

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

You'd think that people (Republicans) who hate government and think it can't do anything right would want to have a "czar", if the name would imply that they're a single person in charge of something, instead of having ten different agencies with directors and agendas and protocols and regulations and...

Leon Einstein
Feb 6, 2012
I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

Dominion posted:

They're inherently bad to most people because they are Russian and Russian means Commie and that's bad. It doesn't matter that Czar isn't a Communist title.

And yes, they would say the same thing if someone decided they were going to be the Caesar of North Dakota or the Kaiser of the US. Caesar means Emperor which is bad and Kaiser means German which is bad. It's not complicated, people are pretty simple.
My point is that czar, caesar, and kaiser all mean the same thing, and are variations on the same word. They're not inherently bad just because some people are stupid.

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK
Sep 11, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick

Nap Ghost

Leon Einstein posted:

My point is that czar, caesar, and kaiser all mean the same thing, and are variations on the same word. They're not inherently bad just because some people are stupid.

I think you'd find that the people who actually care about this distinction are a distinct minority of the whole US voting population :ssh:

JoshTheStampede
Sep 8, 2004

come at me bro

Leon Einstein posted:

My point is that czar, caesar, and kaiser all mean the same thing, and are variations on the same word. They're not inherently bad just because some people are stupid.

It doesn't matter at all if they are inherently bad words. It only matters what the majority of people think about them, and the majority of people in the US would, in fact, think any of those titles were bad when applied to American officials.

Dr Christmas
Apr 24, 2010

Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/kristof-politics-odors-and-soap.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This got posted without comment on one of the vanishingly few Facebook friends of mine who posts Conservative stuff. (I don't avoid or de-friend them, it's just a happy coincidence, I guess).

Anyway, the crux of it is that conservatives are better at guessing how liberals will answer questions than vice-versa.

Sudden Loud Noise
Feb 18, 2007

Dr Christmas posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/kristof-politics-odors-and-soap.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This got posted without comment on one of the vanishingly few Facebook friends of mine who posts Conservative stuff. (I don't avoid or de-friend them, it's just a happy coincidence, I guess).

Anyway, the crux of it is that conservatives are better at guessing how liberals will answer questions than vice-versa.

Jonathan Haidt gave my favorite TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Sudden Loud Noise fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 28, 2012

NatasDog
Feb 9, 2009
Got this gem from one of my old high school buddies on facebook this morning:

My Terrible FB Friend posted:

intresting...

John Maki's Photos

Copy-Share-REPOST-Copy-Share-REPOST-Copy-Share-REPOST
By: John Maki

Natas Dog posted:

Maybe it's because the guys who did that are in jail and not walking the streets without so much as being charged? Just a hunch.

Sarion
Dec 24, 2003

They have a point. Why didn't Fox News and CNN cover this issue more than 4 years ago? WHYYYY?!

Also, the CNN story, if you watch it, points out that the genital mutilations mentioned in that image never took place and were the fabrication of white supremacy bloggers.

The guy on the bottom right was only an accessory in the car-jacking and not involved in the rest. He got the maximum sentence of 18 years.

The woman got 53 years.

The guy at the top left is on death row.

The other two both got life without parole.

All of the sentencing was handed down more than two years ago. That's why no one is talking about it. It's been dealt with. George Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon Martin; George Zimmerman is still free.

But nope, don't see the difference at all!

DarkHorse
Dec 13, 2006

Nap Ghost
Not to mention the disparity between "white girl kidnapped" vs. "black girl kidnapped"

Here's an example that actually did get pointed out: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-512915.html

jojoinnit
Dec 13, 2010

Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

Sarion posted:

They have a point. Why didn't Fox News and CNN cover this issue more than 4 years ago? WHYYYY?!

Also, the CNN story, if you watch it, points out that the genital mutilations mentioned in that image never took place and were the fabrication of white supremacy bloggers.

The guy on the bottom right was only an accessory in the car-jacking and not involved in the rest. He got the maximum sentence of 18 years.

The woman got 53 years.

The guy at the top left is on death row.

The other two both got life without parole.

All of the sentencing was handed down more than two years ago. That's why no one is talking about it. It's been dealt with. George Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon Martin; George Zimmerman is still free.

But nope, don't see the difference at all!

That pic popped up on my news feed, so I stole most of your post. :)

Fart Sandwiches
Apr 4, 2006

i never asked for this
Someone actually linked the snopes article about that story on my feed and I correctly pointed out that in the article they say the reason it didn't get national attention is because every murder can't get national attention, and also because punishment was handled relatively swiftly. The ones that do get national attention either involve celebrities or kids.

They got mad and deleted my post.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kosmonaut
Mar 9, 2009

One of my friends posted the same thing, I didn't even know it was false. I called her out for being racist and said if I ever get murdered I hope people don't use it as an excuse to say it sucks to be white. She quietly deleted the whole thing.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply