|
nm posted:Will have the same legal effect as "You're not a cop, right?" The "UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE." crap is the same bullshit that the Sovereign Citizen movement uses to stamp their declarations with some fever-dream belief that citing the Uniform Commercial Code nullifies federal and/or state laws from having jurisdiction over them. This Facebook thing is just more idiocy from that camp.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
CarterUSM posted:The "UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE." crap is the same bullshit that the Sovereign Citizen movement uses to stamp their declarations with some fever-dream belief that citing the Uniform Commercial Code nullifies federal and/or state laws from having jurisdiction over them. This Facebook thing is just more idiocy from that camp. Multiplied by the gullibility of the average Facebook user, I'm surprised more of us haven't seen it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:And then he was eaten by wolves. At the senseless age of 72.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Multiplied by the gullibility of the average Facebook user, I'm surprised more of us haven't seen it. Meh. It showed up on the wall of one of my old right-wing college buddies. I thought it was him just being stupid. I should've realized he wasn't smart enough to come up with something like this on his own. (Of course, he also bitches about big government, yet is a LT in the Navy.  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Point your friends here: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06/05/facebook-privacy-notice-chain-letter-is-a-hoax/ (or snopes, as linked from there). I've seen it a couple times. As for accents, there is "General American" but I don't think that's what someone really means when they say "TALK LIKE AN AMERICAN" I just read about this somewhere on SA. Was it this thread? It was fairly recent. I have a bad memory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:Making the rounds on Facebook. I'm not really sure what the point is. Don't tread on me, I guess? It's cute that they probably think the "All rights reserved" refers to them and not Facebook. Didn't they, along with every social site, add a clause to their TOS saying they can do whatever they want with what you post? Edit: My question is answered in the above link!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Reminds me of the old days where you could find any warez sites by searching on Altavista for "431.322.12"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
I was just gonna say I hadn't seen any friends post it yet, but one of my friends just had when I went to drop the link as a status to let them know ahead of time. Dammit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 09:42
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:The "UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE." crap is the same bullshit that the Sovereign Citizen movement uses to stamp their declarations with some fever-dream belief that citing the Uniform Commercial Code nullifies federal and/or state laws from having jurisdiction over them. This Facebook thing is just more idiocy from that camp. Ugh I wish Sovereign Citizen types would go read the philosophers whose ideas they purport to hold dear. What is the Commercial Code anyway? Is that a real thing or is it outside of the actual U.S. and state legal code?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
myron cope posted:As for accents, there is "General American" but I don't think that's what someone really means when they say "TALK LIKE AN AMERICAN" I just read about this somewhere on SA. Was it this thread? It was fairly recent. I have a bad memory. I'm pretty sure anytime someone says "TALK LIKE AN AMERICAN" that means "speak whatever dialect I happen to speak because we don't have an accent, everyone else does!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
FB guy posted:PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. *Posts picture of himself sporting duck face throwing double west-side faux gang signs* *Watches Socialcam video on Segway crashes in public*
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
Got this from my left-leaning grandparents. It's sad quite how much everyone in the developed world seems predisposed to right wing bullshit: [url=] Read this one over slowly and absorb the facts that are within this definition! I love this word and believe that it will become a recognized English word, a word to describe our current political situation... (I do like the word ineptocracy, though). Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jun 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
OK I managed to gently caress that up something awful (hur hur), and now it won't let me edit  Let me try again: Got this from my left-leaning grandparents. It's sad quite how much everyone in the developed world seems predisposed to right wing bullshit: quote:Read this one over slowly and absorb the facts that are within this definition! I love this word and believe that it will become a recognized English word, a word to describe our current political situation... (I do like the word ineptocracy, though). Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jun 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Serfer posted:From my dad's facebook: I'm sure the guys with all the marketing spreadsheets will read this and say "Of course! American accents. Why didn't we think of that?" You know, instead of knowing full well that fancy sounding foreign accents make people buy more poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What is the Commercial Code anyway? Is that a real thing or is it outside of the actual U.S. and state legal code? So it's kind of like citing HTML 5 white papers as authority for the Interwebz to be free from censorship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Wait that sounds like... treaty law!  The ICC is coming to take your guns and put a microchip in your butt!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Cahal posted:OK I managed to gently caress that up something awful (hur hur), and now it won't let me edit Oh, those poor hard working "producers". Why can't they have a say in how our government is run? If only wealth was flowing into their pockets, as God intended, instead of being constantly confiscated and given to make lazy people rich!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Actually, if you remove the "or succeed" from that shirt, it's pretty accurate. I'm willing to debate the whole "least able to lead", but nobody can deny that the government these days is run by Wall Street and Big Business, a group of people who can't make a sandwich never mind a car, and they definitely couldn't support themselves whilst maintaining their positions in the ruling class, so they support themselves by taking money from the poor workers who build everything that makes America great. Almost a good shirt.Sarion posted:Oh, those poor hard working "producers". Why can't they have a say in how our government is run? If only wealth was flowing into their pockets, as God intended, instead of being constantly confiscated and given to make lazy people rich!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Actually, if you remove the "or succeed" from that shirt, it's pretty accurate. I'm willing to debate the whole "least able to lead", but nobody can deny that the government these days is run by Wall Street and Big Business, a group of people who can't make a sandwich never mind a car, and they definitely couldn't support themselves whilst maintaining their positions in the ruling class, so they support themselves by taking money from the poor workers who build everything that makes America great. Almost a good shirt. Yeah, it would be good if it weren't clearly against those on benefits and for 'wealth creators'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Cahal posted:Yeah, it would be good if it weren't clearly against those on benefits and for 'wealth creators'. Agreed. It could be read as saying the wealthy are leaching from labor, who are the real producers. But that's not how most people will read it. They'll see it as benefits for the poor being taken from the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Or like this
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Except the division is kind of diagonal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Except the division is kind of diagonal. Was just about to say, the second graph is only slightly more accurate in that it acknowledges the existence of non-evil rich folk and non-rich parasites. Still, there are a drat sight fewer welfare queens than rich leeches, and they hold significantly less money than the evil rich folk, so the first graph is still more truthful. Tangent: I can testify to the existence of welfare queens, I had to help take care of one last year. Woman lived the life of luxury in a crap-rear end trailer in an uncivilized part of the world, with a state-provided driver to take her to Wal-Mart since she was unable to drive herself. On the other hand she was an evil-tempered bitch with no friends whose only means of support, AFAICT, was her welfare checks. Given that welfare was the only reason she hadn't starved to death before then, her example really doesn't justify abolishing welfare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:Or like this *Unshown panel* Both A and B.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I can testify to the existence of welfare queens, I had to help take care of one last year. Woman lived the life of luxury in a crap-rear end trailer in an uncivilized part of the world, with a state-provided driver to take her to Wal-Mart since she was unable to drive herself. It sounds like you consider every person on welfare a welfare "queen".
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:I don't understand how you think living in a crap-rear end trailer with no friends in an uncivilized part of the world is living the "life of luxury". Can you help me understand? I think he was being sarcastic
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
Cahal posted:I think he was being sarcastic
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
It seems unlikely that TANF was her only means of income, especially if she had no dependents. She may have been on some kind of disability payments (Social Security or Employer, or both) and food stamps as well. If she really was on TANF though, she'll be in trouble when it runs out in a couple years. But if she's unable to drive herself, that really kind of screams disability. Which of course begs the question, what was the source of her disability? In any case, she's really more of an example against welfare queens. You have these people driving around with the whole "Work Hard. Millions on Welfare are Depending on You." bumper stickers; and I just want to take those people to women like this in her crap-rear end trailer in the middle of nowhere, unable to even drive herself around, possibly living in constant pain, with no friends or human interaction and ask them if they'd like to trade lives with her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Yes, it was sarcasm. Didn't think I needed to mark it as such, but Poe's Law.Sarion posted:It seems unlikely that TANF was her only means of income, especially if she had no dependents. She may have been on some kind of disability payments (Social Security or Employer, or both) and food stamps as well. If she really was on TANF though, she'll be in trouble when it runs out in a couple years. But if she's unable to drive herself, that really kind of screams disability. Which of course begs the question, what was the source of her disability? I'm pretty sure she was diabetic, or at least overweight to the point where she had trouble walking from one end of the trailer to the other, and she may have been drawing Social Security as well. Don't know her exact situation, just that she wasn't working and probably didn't have a trust fund or anything to draw on, so probably disability or something from the state. And yeah, she's probably the best example I can think of to counter the idea of welfare queens living an actual life of luxury. Poor old woman in a trailer park in Carson, no way for her to get around, no friends or family, just TV and a state-paid caretaker. She actually has neighbors close by, it's a fairly nice trailer park; she just has no friends because she's a cantankerous bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Big props to whichever Goon wrote this rock-climbing analogy; just used it in a FB "debate"Some Goon posted:Say you go out rock-climbing with a friend, nice big mountain, but you've both spent a decent number of years practicing and doing this, so nothing insurmountable. Now suppose your friend's rope starts wearing out because he can't really afford to always spend money on new climbing gear. Now, you, as a successful person, have enough money that you always have a few extra ropes handy, even though the one you're using is in great shape as is. As a friend, at the worst you'd let him/her borrow one of your spares before starting the climb, or as a good friend for whom money's not an issue, you'd just let him have it, and not think a thing of it, because your friend getting hurt or killed because you didn't want to let them have a better rope is unthinkable. Completely unconscionable. edit: there's just no arguing with some people, I guess. The dude responded This loving idiot posted:I don't see it as two people scaling a mountain, I see it as one person scaling a mountain with another person on his back. Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
It's not a forward or Facebook post, but my mom always harps on the people who have been on SSI (or similar) their entire life. She always brings up her friend whose husband died 20 years ago, and the lady gets a check every month*, and got additional checks until her kids turned 18, and continues to get the check. And she's been with some other guy for like 10 years or whatever, but never married him (because she'd lose the check) and never got a real job (because she'd lose the check). My mom thinks that those payments should be for 5 years or so and then stop. I try pointing out things like 1)it can't be a lot of money that she's getting, SSI checks or whatever don't work like that 2)just because she knows people that are abusing the system doesn't mean everyone does, but those don't seem to sway her at all. Our political talks aren't contentious, we generally agree on things. But talking about the latest Republican attacks on the poor always leads to that conversation. *I'm not sure why she gets a check, if her husband was on disability or something else. She's only 50-60, so I don't think her husband 20 years ago was already collecting social security.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Directorman posted:Big props to whichever Goon wrote this rock-climbing analogy; just used it in a FB "debate" It's cool that he didn't answer the question. Real good stuff. e: so in his hypothetical, is he suggesting that he bucks the person off his back and lets them fall to their death? myron cope posted:But talking about the latest Republican attacks on the poor always leads to that conversation. For a huge amount of the US population, poverty is a moral failing. It knows no party lines. My dad is an extremely socially liberal person, but even he grits his teeth when I talk about my gender studies degree with him, knowing full well that it makes me happy but would put me solidly middle class (if I'm extremely lucky). Being rich is the American Ideal, which means people who aren't rich or actively striving toward it simply aren't American enough. Countblanc fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:It's cool that he didn't answer the question. Real good stuff. To be perfectly fair, I wouldn't answer the question either if I disagreed with the premise. edit: Holy poo poo, fast edit. Maybe he's saying they shouldn't have been climbing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
They should have gone to climbing school so they could climb on their own. Not his fault if he tosses them to their deaths because they couldn't afford climbing school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:To be perfectly fair, I wouldn't answer the question either if I disagreed with the premise. Yeah that's fair. Though even with your hypothetical answer (which is just about the most generous response I could give him) it more or less translates to "let them die/suffer," since "climbing" is synonymous to "living" here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Directorman posted:The dude responded See, he doesn't have a problem with helping the ones who deserve it, it's just an unfortunate fact that none of them deserve it! myron cope posted:*I'm not sure why she gets a check, if her husband was on disability or something else. She's only 50-60, so I don't think her husband 20 years ago was already collecting social security. Social Security also works like life insurance; it pays out survivor's benefits to your dependents/spouse. http://www.ssa.gov/survivorplan/index.htm From the sound of it, and the way it works, she probably got SS checks for the kids initially, and now she presumably gets her own checks cause she's over 60 (or over 50 but has a disability). If she remarries after 60 (50 if disabled) she won't lose the check, she'll continue to collect. Also, the working thing is stupid. The first $14,640 she earns has no effect on her SS payments. After that, she loses $1 from SS, for every $2 she earns working. So she could work part time, bring in an extra $20,000 a year and only lose $2,700 a year in benefits. Getting a job always pays better than being on benefits alone. I don't know why people can't understand that the system is setup this way. The idea that people just don't work cause they'll lose their benefits is silly; if they could work, they'd be better off for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
There's two of the usual typical conservative errors in there: - He vastly overestimates his own contribution to society. If he's earning a usual wage he's probably paying something between $5k and $10k in taxes. Perform the usual expenditure split on that and his contribution towards poor people is going to be nowhere near enough to even "carry" one person on his back. It's more like him and 6 other guys together pay enough money to finance a single welfare recipients. - The typical conservative "I busted my rear end to get to where I am". He profited from dozens of different government programs to get where he is now, but now that his life is somewhat self-running he of course got there all on his own without any assistance whatsoever. No conservative ever wants to admit that on the first few hundred meters of the climb that is his life, he got plenty of free ropes _and_ carrying from a lot of other people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Also, the working thing is stupid. The first $14,640 she earns has no effect on her SS payments. After that, she loses $1 from SS, for every $2 she earns working. So she could work part time, bring in an extra $20,000 a year and only lose $2,700 a year in benefits. drat, where do you live that you can make $20,000/year with a part-time job? I have a full-time job and my gross annual income is less than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:drat, where do you live that you can make $20,000/year with a part-time job? I have a full-time job and my gross annual income is less than that. Yeah especially as a retiree re-entering the workforce. In this scenario grandma's more likely to get a job at mcdonalds and clear an extra 10k a year max. Still no incentive not to do it if she can because SS benefits are not enough by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Good point, I didn't do the math. Working ~25 hours a week would require making $15-17/hour to make $20k a year. I can't think of any job in that pay range that would hire someone part time. They probably exist out there, but not in any amount to make it easy to say "just go get a job here". Especially for a senior re-entering the workforce after years or possibly decades of not working. This only makes the original argument more stupid though. Since even if the lady worked full time, she probably wouldn't cross much over $15k. Which means she could work full time and still keep her full (or close) benefits. So the idea that she's refusing to work to leach off the government is even sillier. peak debt posted:There's two of the usual typical conservative errors in there: Both very true; but I would expand the second. Even now he still massively benefits from government spending. Safe food/water, relatively low crime rates, employees/co-workers/customers that are only possible thanks to public education, roads to carry both himself and goods that he purchases, research that makes things like the internet and chemotherapy possible, etc. Also, this is the guy who was in the military, right? So he probably still gets VA health benefits and such?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 00:43
|
|