|
He's a Democrat. That's literally it. Never mind that gun control hasn't been politically viable for a decade now and that Obama hasn't done a drat thing about gun control. Democrats want to take your guns. They also want to make you forever dependent on the government, destroy America, ban Christianity, and make abortion mandatory. Why? Nobody knows.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
ElmerTheWasabi posted:I got this great wall of text from a friend on Facebook: Holy poo poo sorry about your friend. Ask your friend if they would be happier had Obama repeatedly emphasized that said dead dudes could have made the choice at any time to abandon their fellows to the horde? Everybody just needs praise the military harder damnit. Every time you don't revere are troops sufficiently, an apache drops out of the sky. Also bullets don't work unless you beeeeeeeeeelieve they work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
katlington posted:Everybody just needs praise the military harder damnit. Every time you don't revere are troops sufficiently, an apache drops out of the sky. Yea, goons. No one licked my boot and gave me their virgin daughter today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Kat R. Waulin posted:I'm confused as to why everyone thinks Obama wants to confiscate their guns. If the NRA doesn't have someone to "fight" in an election year, contributions go way way way down. Between that and the 90s shoving pretty much anyone with any kind of social or fiscal liberal tendencies out of the organization has set up the situation that is currently happening. Ironically if something like an animal rights or environmental group did similar direct funding to candidates the right would flip their poo poo but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Kat R. Waulin posted:I'm confused as to why everyone thinks Obama wants to confiscate their guns. Well, the NRA does it to raise money. Why anyone else does? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
The NRA also thinks the UN wants to team up with The Lieberals and invade America with their UN army (which doesn't exist) and steal our guns and make everyone live in a socialist country (because the UN is dominantly financed by...socialists?).
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Schmeichy posted:I re-posted something from the D&D heathcare thread on Facebook, about how children already have to lawyer up to get treatment, and that less money for medicaid would lead to more sick kids. He replied something to the effect of "my wife works in a hospital and no one would refuse treatment to a kid. That wouldn't happen in the real world." Man is deluded. They wouldn't refuse treatment if they were brought into the ER because there are laws against that. What actually happens is that the ERs will just stabilize those people, including children, so that they aren't in danger of immediate death and discharge them along with giving them a bill for services rendered. There's no loving way a hospital is going to admit someone, even a child, for long-term and/or expensive care if they know the person and/or their family is incapable of paying for it. Hospitals don't pay for all your medical bills just because you come into the ER and plead poverty. They aren't going to pay for your chemo, organ transplant, dialysis, angioplasty, or any other medical procedure they don't absolutely have to. Parachute posted:Lemon Grab is right on the money with this one with his signature catch phrase. Also, suggesting doctors chose their profession entirely because they get paid high salaries is awesome. To be fair, many doctors pick their specialties based on comparative compensation rates. Sure, the pay isn't likely the primary reason they chose to be doctors in the first place, but it's certainly one of the reasons the US has a glut of high paid specialists (e.g. ortho, neuro, OBGYN, dermo, etc.) and a shrinking population of primary care doctors (e.g. family practice, peds, etc.). If this pattern doesn't get reversed we're in for some serious problems because primary care is responsible for much of the preventative care and early detection necessary to keep medical costs low and survival rates high. Schmeichy posted:Yeah, that last exchange from the previous conversation was when I stopped responding. I got pretty offended by the "good job using your brain". Another guy in the conversation said something like that too. I got either an anti-intellectual or a misogynist vibe from it, and I knew that I was going to start posting more angrily, which I prefer not to do on Facebook or with relatives. I debated whether or not I should try to get the last word in, but I opted not to. I can empathize. I really hate hearing the insane, racist, misogynist, and otherwise bigoted bullshit from some of my extended family, but I also don't want to start some kind of conflict that is going to ruin things. That poo poo already led to some of my extended family not speaking to each other for decades and I don't want to be part of that grudge-holding bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:The NRA also thinks the UN wants to team up with The Lieberals and invade America with their UN army (which doesn't exist) and steal our guns and make everyone live in a socialist country (because the UN is dominantly financed by...socialists?). Nah, I think myron cope has the right of it. The NRA doesn't actually believe that poo poo. They sell it so that they can remain relevant, wield influence, and make money. For all intents and purposes, they won. The gun control issue is effectively decided, no one is seriously pushing for heavy handed gun laws in this country. In large part, because even lots of people who vote Democratic love guns. This should mean the end of the NRA as a major player in politics, which they of course don't want. Which means they have to rely on fear-mongering for people to listen to them. I'm not sure that the people at the top really believe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Nah, I think myron cope has the right of it. The NRA doesn't actually believe that poo poo. They sell it so that they can remain relevant, wield influence, and make money. For all intents and purposes, they won. The gun control issue is effectively decided, no one is seriously pushing for heavy handed gun laws in this country. In large part, because even lots of people who vote Democratic love guns. I would agree with this if it weren't for the fact that there are a lot of Right-wing nut jobs that subscribe to the UN paranoia. Maybe the NRA leadership itself doesn't necessarily believe in this nonsense, but a lot of their members do. This is one of the reasons that, despite being a gun owner, I won't send them my cash moneys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
There's probably a racial element to gun politics too. Conservative reactions to the Fast and Furious affair seem, to me, to imply that they think that only white people should have guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:He's a Democrat. And then we have a Democratic candidate doing this poo poo. He does manage to murk up the waters by claiming his grandfather stopped a lynching. Though I'm not sure if many Georgians actually know what lynching is, it has to be odd for Republicans as: He's for guns, but ... he's for minorities. Strange to me, though, that John Barrow is running for reelection in Augusta, but I saw this ad today on an Albany station. They're 250 miles apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:What in the world? "Capitalism" isn't even, like, Marxist prose. It's a term everyone from every political party uses. I know this post is from a couple days ago but actually the term "capitalism" kind of is a marxist term, at least originally. It was mostly used by socialists and such as a term to describe the system they were criticizing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology_and_early_usage quote:According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term capitalism was first used by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray in 1854 in The Newcomes, where he meant "having ownership of capital".[23] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German-American socialist and abolitionist, used the term private capitalism in 1863. Obviously, that association is gone nowadays but it's still interesting to realize that the term was originally critical. Sarion posted:Nah, I think myron cope has the right of it. The NRA doesn't actually believe that poo poo. They sell it so that they can remain relevant, wield influence, and make money. For all intents and purposes, they won. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:I would agree with this if it weren't for the fact that there are a lot of Right-wing nut jobs that subscribe to the UN paranoia. Maybe the NRA leadership itself doesn't necessarily believe in this nonsense, but a lot of their members do. This is one of the reasons that, despite being a gun owner, I won't send them my cash moneys. So is there an organization that sane gun owners can join up with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
The French Foreign Legion? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:So is there an organization that sane gun owners can join up with? The Second Amendment Foundation is about a million times less racist and crazy than the NRA, and have actually been accomplishing useful things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Some more of my Republican buds are getting in on the fun.quote:friend B on Facebook: I've already replied to friend B about how it wasn't just an Obama administration decision to cut security, but it was voted on and supported by various Republicans(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/paul-ryan-embassy-attacks_n_1959951.html). I really don't understand where they're coming from saying the Obama administration is taking credit for anything or diminishing any sacrifices made. I also don't know of this administration downplaying any of the military's efforts at well, anything. Is there any record of this? I also don't know why he's telling me to respect others' opinions. I haven't said anything to imply that I think people shouldn't have their own opinions. I'm guessing he's just getting defensive since my opinion is differing from his. ElmerTheWasabi fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
99% of the time when someone who isn't an oppressed minority trying to defend their rights says "Respect my opinion" it means "Stop disagreeing with me".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:99% of the time when someone who isn't an oppressed minority trying to defend their rights says "Respect my opinion" it means "Stop disagreeing with me".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
This was Facebook'd by a Easter European, by the way Real Name Grover fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Not really a crazy forward, but a crazy news article. The guy who posted it is the retired guy I used to work with that once latched onto every crazy forward and blog post he could find, so there's hope if you're patient and persistent. He even confided in me last week that he's planning on voting for Obama despite being a lifelong republican, and thanked me for being patient with him and responding to his craziness with facts.Facebook posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Natasdog...looks like a successful save from crazytown!  Good job Sir.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
I've just defaulted to posting that Patton Oswalt joke where he says 'we absolutely don't have to 'respect' your opinion, we have to acknowledge it'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Just had this gem pop up in my news feed Hahah poor people are just so loving lazy right guys?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Papes posted:Just had this gem pop up in my news feed That bear is adorable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
I always enjoy that one. The main reason you shouldn't feed animals is that they cease to fear human beings and can then become a danger to themselves and to humans. If bears view people as a source of food they're more likely to enter campgrounds, etc. leading to more bear attacks. Don't feed the poor, they might cease fearing the rich and then what will happen?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Thanks for telling me how subhuman the poor are, BIG CITY COPS on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:That bear is adorable. Counter-point: it is black.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
A guy in the office asked us physicists about this forward from his mother he immediately deleted, just for the heck of it. It was about how the planets are going to align in December, which might cause three straight days of darkness. We told him that the only object normally capable of blocking the Sun is our own Moon, as Venus and Mercury are too small from this distance, and the rest are away from the Sun. The Moon is not going to be giving us three days of an eclipse without other serious ramifications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:A guy in the office asked us physicists about this forward from his mother he immediately deleted, just for the heck of it. It was about how the planets are going to align in December, which might cause three straight days of darkness. We told him that the only object normally capable of blocking the Sun is our own Moon, as Venus and Mercury are too small from this distance, and the rest are away from the Sun. The Moon is not going to be giving us three days of an eclipse without other serious ramifications. Also, this literally happened months ago with Venus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2012/jun/06/venus-transits-sun-timelapse-video Send the guys mom that so she can see what happens when the planets align. It IS amazing. I can only assume the thing is some 2012 doomsday tie-in malarkey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Papes posted:Just had this gem pop up in my news feed I love that they always claim that it's the Department of Agriculture that maintains the Parks Service. A quick look at the National Parks Service website corrects both of these stupid claims. 1) It's the Department of the Interior; it says so at the top of the website. 2) A search on their website for "feeding animals", pulls up warnings from lots of different parks. Such as this one: National Parks Service posted:
or this section from the one from Mt. Rainier: National Parks Service posted:What’s the problem? So yeah, the issue is that teaching wild animals that humans are an easy source of food has little, to nothing, to do with it making the animals "lazy" and has everything to do with putting both the animals and humans at risk. Also, why is the Department of Agriculture "pleased" to be handing out the most Food Stamps ever? I would love to see the news report from the USDA that says, "We're so happy that millions of Americans are so poor they need help to feed their families!" Sarion fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
The SARS Volta posted:This was Facebook'd by a Easter European, by the way This would almost be a good argument to not take a countries values at face and as a cautionary tale about how a culture might seem abhorrent holds an underlying stark difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
It was almost a comment about imperialism and our funding of fundamentalists to control nations, but then they include America and an organization with less than 100 people in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
quote:It was almost a comment about imperialism and our funding of fundamentalists to control nations, but then they include America and an organization with less than 100 people in it. I took it as "religion craps on things", which I think is reasonably backed by that set of pictures. It is kind of a silly way to argue though, especially when (as you mention) those pictures aren't very fair representations of the overall state of things at those times and places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
I think all the women in the first Afghanistan picture are western tourists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Papes posted:Just had this gem pop up in my news feed Someone on my facebook feed posted this, and I responded with "Humans aren't wild animals". Then they responded with "I didn't call them wild animals, you did. Guess you're the real racist." That conversation ended pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Kavak posted:I think all the women in the first Afghanistan picture are western tourists. Actually women's rights were a big deal in Afghanistan up till the 80's when the US-backed Taliban took up started taking control from the Soviet-backed government. In the 20's the King made all kinds of misogynistic practices illegal, although enforcement died out for it. When the socialists took control in the 70's, they began reinforcing women's rights. Afghanistan used to be a modern nation, until the Taliban took control and started rolling back all the progress made in the 20th Century, and then the Soviets and the UN spent 30 years leveling the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
I knew that, but that one picture looks like it's from a hotel yard or something. Sorry if it actually isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Someone on my facebook feed posted this, and I responded with "Humans aren't wild animals". Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Actually women's rights were a big deal in Afghanistan up till the 80's when the US-backed Taliban took up started taking control from the Soviet-backed government. The UN, destroying Afghanistan for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Someone on my facebook feed posted this, and I responded with "Humans aren't wild animals". If you just stop talking about by blatant hatred of lower social classes it'll go away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:48
|
|
