|
Sarion posted:Honestly, I have no idea why they limited themselves to only 4 scandals. They define scandal as anything they don't like the sound of when Rush explains it. So there are probably dozens of scandals. I did especially enjoy this: quote:7 - Valerie Plame!!! Clinton Administration: January 20, 1993 to September 10, 2001 Bush Administration: September 11, 2001 Obama Adminstration: September 12, 2001 to Present Exception: November 2, 2004 was part of the Bush Admin (silent majority/suck it libs!)
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 19:25 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:29 |
|
I was actually pretty amused/shock when I first saw anti-colonial being used in a negative connotation on tumblr for that 2016 film. Though I have to say, for being anti colonial, Obama sure as hell loves to bomb villages with drones.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 20:25 |
|
LAMB LESSONS posted:I think that what "CHARITY IS TO BE GIVEN NOT TAKEN" boils down to for a lot of these people is that they want people in need to receive aid, but they want that aid to be from charities funded by churches and corporations so that they can point at a donation receipt and say "Look, I did this!" and also so that it can create heroes who are Christians and businessmen rather than politicians. Take Romney, rather than talk about one of the good things he did as a politician (Romneycare), they'd rather talk about what they perceive him to have done as a businessman (JOB CREATOR). Actually, I think this talking point is simply the way that the Randian mania for property rights has been sold to people who care about social justice (esp. Christians). In order to cement the allegiance between religion and politics in America, conservatives had to shift the emphasis in "voluntary giving" from "giving" to "voluntary"; there is a very serious idea that somehow aid to the poor via taxes or the like doesn't count, and is therefore immoral because it's forced. Of course, it helps that this meme both feeds and threatens a superiority complex for American Christians*. First, it contributes to the narrative that Christians, particularly the most devout, are much more charitable than others: combined with misleading studies on the extent of charitable giving, it easily warps into the idea that liberals aren't willing to personally sacrifice to help others and just want to government to take responsibility. On the other hand, if paying taxes doesn't count as a real contribution to the community, then all that money represents a wasted chance to score points toward being righteous. Hence we see people saying we should slash Welfare and cut taxes and then they'd just donate that extra money to the poor themselves. Finally, of course, it's worth noting that the vast majority of charitable donations from religious people are given to religious charities. Agitating for less taxation and more charitable giving is a profitable business practice for such organizations. * To be clear, I am well aware not all American Christians give in to this.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 20:43 |
|
Amused to Death posted:I was actually pretty amused/shock when I first saw anti-colonial being used in a negative connotation on tumblr for that 2016 film. Though I have to say, for being anti colonial, Obama sure as hell loves to bomb villages with drones. The thought process was basically, "Alright, so maybe he wasn't born in Kenya, but he could consider himself a native Hawaiian and that's JUST AS BAD!! He hates British colonialism! So did the founders of the country, but nevermind that! He hates white people!"
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 20:43 |
|
Is there any place I can get a hold of "Dreams from My REAL Father" and "2016" DVDs without paying for them? It would make awesome coasters.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 20:54 |
|
Zwabu posted:Is there any place I can get a hold of "Dreams from My REAL Father" and "2016" DVDs without paying for them? It would make awesome coasters. Dreams of my Real Father is on netflix, no idea about 2016 beyond suggesting
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 22:02 |
|
Internet Webguy posted:The thought process was basically, "Alright, so maybe he wasn't born in Kenya, but he could consider himself a native Hawaiian and that's JUST AS BAD!! He hates British colonialism! So did the founders of the country, but nevermind that! He hates white people!" Yeah, this is the important thing. Anti-colonial is a dog-whistle for anti-white. It is another way of expressing the fear that Obama will be hostile to white supremacy.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 22:31 |
|
This isn't a forward, but I just received this from my grandfather, who made his money working for a now-defunct bank. Dear children and grandchildren, et al We have just finished a campaign for the president and so it goes. My feelings were summed up by a lifeguard at the Anacortes pool when she asked me in a plaintive voice; Why do we have such poor choices for president? Say what you will the one guy said he had women’s organizations give him “binders†full of women qualified to serve in his administration like he didn’t know any himself. And he put an elevator in the garage at his beach house during the campaign which is the current day equivalent of “Let them eat cakeâ€. Oops. The other guy has sort of acted during his first term like he did in the first debate. And he has not surrounded himself with people who know how to get things done. He needs some business people in his cabinet who know how the real world works. About twenty years ago when the demographers first started talking about the fact that ‘in the mid-2000s the majority in this country will no longer be white but will be black and Hispanic I thought about what that meant. Neither ethnic group has much of a share of the top1% nor of the top 10% nor the top 25%. I felt then that how they would vote would depend on whether they felt the government was well run. I don’t need to tell you that we have not done well in that department. I believe that the art of good government in a democracy is the art of good compromise. Some of you are libs and some fiscal conservatives. Neither is right and neither is wrong. We have some things foisted on the public by misguided government in the past. (By both parties.) Any fool knows we can’t afford Social Security and Medicare as they are now. If you think about the present retirement plans, IRAs and the like, they don’t work well because most people are paying substantial fees for help in investing. The compounded cost of those fees will reduce returns making it imposible to retire. Also the person who saved for his retirement is now getting a negative return is less than inflation. But those problems are there, and there are many others. Deal with them, don’t ignore them. So my advice is simply: recognize that preservation of any semblance of the country as we know it will require getting a government that the masses will perceive it to be working well and fairly. That means making the free market system work for the good of all. I am convinced that a thriving free market economy is essential. Socialism doesn’t work. So all of you libs figure out how we can rid ourselves of rules and programs that harm free market enterprise. You can’t take care of everybody all the time on everything. Business cannot survive or employ more workers unless it has capital to buy ‘machines’ for workers to use. Capital comes from reinvested profits or borrowing against future profits. So there must be profits. The house Republicans should have hearings right now on much it costs business to comply with the increased enforcement efforts of the administration. And how other things affect profits like huge salaries for executives and perhaps invite Mr. Senegal of Costco to testify. But they should be interviewers not prosecutors in their questioning. Let the facts speak for themselves. Republicans also should never mention abortion, gays, guns, embryos, rape, abstinence, creationism, 47%, Trump, or other peripheral distractions. How Republicans can complain about the deficit when they had two wars going and lowered taxes is idiotic. Maybe you could call it "Karl Rovian." My devilishness prompts me to also suggest that the House hold a hearing on what changes in the law might have prevented the schizophrenic shooter in New Mexico from getting a gun and ask the head of the NRA to testify. It would not cost them a single seat as what NRA guy would ever vote for any Democrat? As I am being devilish, why not ask a farmer from the Imperial Valley who raises carrots for the fresh market to testify on immigration. He probably can’t grow his crop without illegals. But, all of you conservatives get in the mood to work on how much socialism you can stand and keep a free market system viable ‘cause you can’t have it all your way either. To quote Tim Gunn: “Make it work.†Fixing the immediate dangers aint enough. Four years from now we need two good candidates .The GOP has to be vigorous and viable to get the balance in government that served us well for so many years. If this doesn’t happen, the Democrats will screw up the economy for lack of viable opposition and then, sooner or later, some demagogue will win and will raise taxes, redistribute the wealth and be a hero until the money runs out and then you will have wreckage like Argentina. And, at best, you will all live in shabby gentility. Good luck. You have maybe 12 years to get it done right. But you better start now. Remember everyone is cheated if there are not two good candidates for president. And, remember good government is the art of good compromise. ‘Ever thought of going to your Republican precinct caucus? They need all the help they can get and that’s where change starts you know. Take your friends and neighbors and any acquaintances you can get to go, and concerned passersby for that matter. Just get some reality injected into that party Love and good luck, yer Pop Sorry for the wall of text. He straight up called homosexuality, rape, and abortion minor distractions. What the gently caress.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 22:37 |
|
That's considerably less crazy than some of the stuff posted in here, since he has enough sense to realize that social issues aren't a winning game for the Republicans. At least he used paragraph breaks.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2012 22:54 |
|
Mornacale posted:Yeah, this is the important thing. Anti-colonial is a dog-whistle for anti-white. It is another way of expressing the fear that Obama will be hostile to white supremacy. I believe, at least this is the impression I get from it, that D'Souza's push here is that Obama is actively working to make amends for colonial history. Not so much that he is opposed to modern colonialism, but he thinks every nation which lags behind the "great powers" does so because it was a colony. D'Souza's theory then, from my understanding, is that modern powers which were colonial owe debts to their previous colonies and that paying them is going to bankrupt the previously colonial power. It took me a while to understand what he actually meant because, well, I don't understand how anyone in the modern world could really be pro-colonial - making assertions that we should have exploited colonies (though an argument could be made that we don't have political colonies, but economic ones now). It's a very tenuous position because he's trying to deduce intention behind what is - for lack of a better term - altruistic action. We (being The United States) aid other nations because we think it's our job. We have the ability to do so, and so we do. D'Souza wants to claim we make enormous sacrifices to do this and we do it because Obama want to destroy America because it is or was some colonial power. Ignore the fact that the "American Empire" is one of economic strength and not political power, but America's time as a political empire was miniscule and Obama shows no such disdain for legitimate colonial powers like say... Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands. In fact, these nations are frequently the target of right wing disdain for their socialistic leanings. It, like almost everything else D'Souza spews, is utter nonsense. The entire film is pure speculation. He attempts to weasel intent out from Presidential action - something that's very hard to do because few people understand what it's like to be in that position. Not to mention that, well, the President is often assisted in decision-making by any number of people - all of whom have their own bias and intent. He's trying to assign group decision to a single personage, and then further deglomerate that group decision into a single ideology. It's complete nonsense. He's not all right, obviously, but he's not completely wrong either. The main push of his monologue is that compromise is necessary for governance. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. He may disagree about where the compromise is, but at least it seems like he's a guy willing to discuss reality and not ideology. I think there's a distinction - and not knowing the man I can't judge if he did this on purpose - between what you term "minor distractions" and he terms "peripheral distractions." Social issue, in general, are peripheral to government function. While I, personally, believe that economic equality will come from social equality it's a road that obviously flows both ways. If policies are made such that people become economically equal, social equality will come in time. Not to mention, I think his primary push here is that social issues are losing issues for Republicans - now and in the future. The shift has started and it's not reversible. Gay marriage and reproductive rights aren't something that the People (big P) are going to compromise on. The overwhelming majority of citizens are either in favor of those things or are fiscal Republicans who simply don't care and want to move on to dollars and cents. Social conservatism is a dying niche - for the better of everyone - and your grandpa has the sense to realize it. Like the above poster said - at the very least he uses grammar and punctuation. He arranges his thoughts in a cohesive manner. He seems like someone you can dialog with... which is a huge step up from others. sicarius fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Nov 12, 2012 |
# ? Nov 12, 2012 23:02 |
|
As others have already said, it was actually a lot more reasonable than most of the stuff here. I think his only point about gays/abortion/etc is that the social conservative stances on those issues has played out and failed, and to stop shooting themselves in the foot by bringing it up. Not that those issues are irrelevant. But I may have misunderstood. This however was the best part:SEX HAVER 40000 posted:Neither ethnic group has much of a share of the top1% nor of the top 10% nor the top 25%. It's like he's so close, but then he shifts gears into "get rid of assistance programs and taxes so the free market can thrive"! But at least he acknowledges that those programs aren't ever going to vanish entirely. Even if it's a grudging, they're going to keep voting for them even if they're bad, sort of acceptance. If you want to really discuss this with him, I think the best bet is to focus on why those programs are actually critical to a thriving market, and not opposed to it: - UHC/Strong Safety Net encourage risk taking on innovative new businesses. - Access to food plays a vital role in educating children so that they can become useful employees later (teaching kids who are constantly hungry is pretty much futile). - TANF provides money for childcare so that single parents can actually work. - All that money, whether Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, Unemployment Insurance, etc; it doesn't just get thrown into a giant fire. It's all spent by people at the bottom on necessities. It injects money into grocery stores, convenience stores, doctor's offices, etc. And so on.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 00:10 |
|
SEX HAVER 40000 posted:This isn't a forward, but I just received this from my grandfather, who made his money working for a now-defunct bank. He sounds oddly like an old man I know here in the backwoods of Mississippi. Very reasonable old dude with some super backwards beliefs. He says he believes Obama's a socialist, but not a very good one, given his failure to enact any socialist policies; he says even though he's a conservative, all the conspiracy theories from the Right are insane and they need to shut up, accept that their guy lost fair and square, and the people have chosen their president, and they need to start treating the office of the president with the respect they would if it were a white man holding it. He also fully acknowledges that he's a dyed-in-the-wool racist and that that's a bad thing, but that he's too old to rewire the way he thinks. He hates niggers, but he keeps it to himself because "that has no place in the world anymore." He specifically let all his children and grandchildren have all the black friends they wanted and never let his feelings known to them, because "I don't want my kids growing up in a world, hating half of it like I do."
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 00:53 |
|
XyloJW posted:He sounds oddly like an old man I know here in the backwoods of Mississippi. Very reasonable old dude with some super backwards beliefs. He says he believes Obama's a socialist, but not a very good one, given his failure to enact any socialist policies; he says even though he's a conservative, all the conspiracy theories from the Right are insane and they need to shut up, accept that their guy lost fair and square, and the people have chosen their president, and they need to start treating the office of the president with the respect they would if it were a white man holding it. It's pretty rare for people, liberal or conservative, to have that little shred of objectivity with which they can even evaluate their own prejudices and attitudes like this guy, I like it, especially the part to which he keeps a lid on them so as not to taint his family with them, that's cool.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 00:57 |
|
XyloJW posted:He sounds oddly like an old man I know here in the backwoods of Mississippi. Very reasonable old dude with some super backwards beliefs. He says he believes Obama's a socialist, but not a very good one, given his failure to enact any socialist policies; he says even though he's a conservative, all the conspiracy theories from the Right are insane and they need to shut up, accept that their guy lost fair and square, and the people have chosen their president, and they need to start treating the office of the president with the respect they would if it were a white man holding it. It's really amazing to hear of someone being so lucidly self-critical.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 04:50 |
|
So this is being shared around by some Paul-fansquote:While I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, stuff like this is a perfect example of why he was never electable. Whether you believe it or not, you don't say stuff like this while people are still recovering from a 100 year storm. I'm really at a loss pillsburysoldier fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 13, 2012 |
# ? Nov 13, 2012 05:25 |
|
I had a very similar article in one of my economics textbooks back in college, and just as ethically repugnant. It's kind of sad how in the last fifty years liberty has mutated in definition to basically be a synonym for unrestrained greed. Blarghalt fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Nov 13, 2012 |
# ? Nov 13, 2012 05:51 |
|
Someone posted this on my facebook wall (with a "sigh... people these days"): Yeah, that'll sure show them
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 06:41 |
|
seiferguy posted:Someone posted this on my facebook wall (with a "sigh... people these days"): A place where I shoot posted a similar sign. I walked in and told them that they'd lost my business and I hadn't even voted for Obama. Told a couple of my friends this and now they've taken the sign down. I doubt it hurt their business all that much but a good number of the people I shoot with are either ex-military, politically uninformed, or pragmatists. Almost to a person the 20-ish people I talked to thought this was stupid since, well, they now own more guns than before Obama took office. Essentially, educated gun owners know that Obama has done nothing to harm their ability to shoot at poo poo. EDIT - Worth noting that these asshats (the ones in AZ, not the place I shoot) have run a podcast advocating secession from the United States. Does anyone else wish they'd let some of these states secede and then learn the harsh lesson that, in fact, Arizona wouldn't exist as a nation unto itself in any real world. sicarius fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Nov 13, 2012 |
# ? Nov 13, 2012 07:15 |
|
seiferguy posted:Someone posted this on my facebook wall (with a "sigh... people these days"): I wonder why Firearm is capitalized.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 12:15 |
|
If you don't know, it won't do any good telling you. Commie
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 13:35 |
|
Orange Devil posted:I wonder why Firearm is capitalized. You know how people capitalize God? I imagine it's something like that.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 14:46 |
|
sicarius posted:Does anyone else wish they'd let some of these states secede and then learn the harsh lesson that, in fact, Arizona wouldn't exist as a nation unto itself in any real world. I certainly understand the sentiment; but then I remember that it would involve thousands of people suffering, many of whom didn't even want it.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 15:28 |
|
pillsburysoldier posted:So this is being shared around by some Paul-fans There's a reason for laws against price gouging, and that reason is because in sudden unpredictable changes during a crisis the market is not capable of reliably responding regardless of price flexibility, so allowing large price increases only amounts to loving over the consumers as a result of a disaster. quote:As the northeastern United States continues to recover from Hurricane Sandy, we hear the usual outcry against individuals and companies who dare to charge market prices for goods such as gasoline. The normal market response of rising prices in the wake of a natural disaster and resulting supply disruptions is redefined as “price gouging.” The government claims that price gouging is the charging of ruinous or exploitative prices for goods in short supply in the wake of a disaster and is a heinous crime But does this reflect economic reality, or merely political posturing to capitalize on raw emotions? I want to address the first bolded portion here. This is an incorrect statement. The correct statement is "only those able to afford the price of gasoline would be able to purchase gasoline". This article is arguing that ability to pay is perfectly mirrored in need for a good or service, which isn't true. It's pretty obviously untrue, unless you're trying to make a defense of profiteering off of a disaster situation. Moving on to the second bolded portion: so what? If you're aiming for a fair distribution of needed goods among a populace during a disaster, quotas and first come first serve is about as fair as you're going to manage, and certainly fairer than divvying up the necessary supplies based on personally stored wealth. The author is arguing for business profits and exploiting consumers, and arguing that's better because of a flimsy premise of economic efficiency during a one-time jump in supply and demand inelasticity. quote:With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated. If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region. As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere? So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed. More supply would suddenly flood in? Not really, no. First of all emergency reserves are already flooding the region, disrupting our poor free market with much needed fuel. Additionally, because of the destruction and closure of a variety of shipping lanes and roadways, there's a limit to how much actual quantity can be transported into the region efficiently. But the thing that makes it ironic is that the author forgot his premise while arguing in favor of said premise. If gas stations are allowed to gouge their customers, why wouldn't suppliers gouge the gas stations as well? They won't bring in extraordinary supplies by magic, they'll just jack up their prices too because it's smart business to rake in massive profits when you can exploit a captive market. quote:Governments fail to understand that prices are not just random numbers. Prices perform an important role in providing information, coordinating supply and demand, and enabling economic calculation. When government interferes with the price mechanism, economic calamity ensues. Price controls on gasoline led to the infamous gas lines of the 1970s, yet politicians today repeat those same failed mistakes. Instituting price caps at a below-market price will always lead to shortages. No act of any legislature can reverse the laws of supply and demand. Here's a law of supply and demand for the author: when both supply and demand are inelastic due to a literal disaster, price increases don't result in increased supply availability or decreased demand. The author can pretend the market is some flawless distributor of needed goods to everyone, but these price gouging laws didn't emerge in a vacuum; they formed because letting companies exploit a disaster for huge profits does little to alleviate the suffering of the vast majority of disaster victims, and serves little purpose but to line the pockets of businesses already guaranteed to make huge quantity of sales. quote:History shows us that the quickest path to economic recovery is to abolish all price controls. If governments really want to aid recovery, they would abolish their “price-gouging” legislation and allow the free market to function. Citation needed, and not from some free mason website. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Nov 13, 2012 |
# ? Nov 13, 2012 16:29 |
|
quote:But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas. I like how people line up all day to get gas, and can sell it for $20 a gallon apparently... but then just waste it - as though the dollar price they paid is their only consideration in how they value it.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 16:52 |
|
myron cope posted:If we could reform just one thing about American politics, what would have the biggest impact?
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 17:01 |
|
So wait. This price gouge thing mean basicly. Prices should shoot up so fewer people can afford it therefore making lines smaller. The problem that we want to solve is not 'long lines' what the hell people. We want to solve 'get people gas'. Libertarians look at the world backwards. It's ok if most people cannot run generators as long as there's not long lines the free market fixed everything.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 17:22 |
|
From skimming it, I thought he was saying price gouging means other price gougers will hear about the opportunity, and move in, and compete themselves back down to normal levels, but fixing the supply problem. It's ludicrous, but I think that's the argument being made.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 17:29 |
|
I think they're even ok with long lines. They just want to be able to jack up rates to exorbitant amounts. They just assume that high prices means a shorter line. Which isn't guaranteed.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 17:31 |
|
XyloJW posted:From skimming it, I thought he was saying price gouging means other price gougers will hear about the opportunity, and move in, and compete themselves back down to normal levels, but fixing the supply problem. I see. Did they miss the part where the infrastructure was destroyed so you CAN'T have the normal level of competition? A temporary price freeze so people don't get hosed is the only moral thing to do. You can't magic in twice the supply. But them I'm arguing against libertarians here. So magic.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 17:53 |
|
pillsburysoldier posted:So this is being shared around by some Paul-fans "Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 18:01 |
|
My dad previously sent a message saying the ACA had the word "Dhimmitude" in it, and retracted it (to all the CCs) before I sent him the Snopes link. Today I get this, it's all abloo bloo about 'takers' and so on, with the added menace of, potentially, Jews not being welcome in the US (emphasis mine):Rabbi Pruzansky posted:Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog I'm already responding with David Frum's excellent piece but I'm still reading it to better respond. Fake edit: Oh holy poo poo this steams me. I stopped bolding the crap about halfway through. Apparently: the electorate are stupid; Obama "despises Netanyahu"; radical Islam has had a banner four years. It's just opinion and logical fallacies, all the way down. VVVV I don't really know, he does alright in sales, and my step-mom is partially disabled. I'm sure they get some benefits, likely though he doesn't get his entire witholding back. He sent me that straw man forward about Obama not going to the D-Day Memorial, and I replied that the only reason anyone would send that to him is to make him afraid. I don't expect him to change his mind, not really, but he's a very intelligent person who then, like most people, buys into arguments that reinforce his worldwiew/his team's worldview. Oddhair fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 13, 2012 |
# ? Nov 13, 2012 19:26 |
|
While I'm not sure about despise, to be fair, Obama and Netanyahu by all appearances don't particularly like each other, it doesn't mean Israel and America still aren't best friends for life though. Though apparently even Sarkozy didn't like Netanyahu, and that's coming from the position of a lot of people didn't really like Sarkozy. Netanyahu is just an abrasive man. Also is your dad part of the 47%? Because I mean statistically there's a 50/50 chance of it, especially since that number I believe is households that has anyone receiving any kind of government benefit. e: Doesn't matter if he is right now or isn't. Just about everyone will be part of the 47% at one point in their life, especially if they make it to retirement.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 19:33 |
|
I'm pretty sure the 47 percent number is people who don't pay federal income tax.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:15 |
|
Not a crazy forwarded email, but I can't believe actual "news" websites have stooped low enough to post such unimportant poo poo like this with such a misleading headline: Secession petitions filed in 20 states Yes, loony individual citizens with no political authority in a total of 20 states have petitioned the white house for secession in an online petition. To the presses!
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:20 |
|
This comes up at the tail end of a long discussion under a friend's post. She expressed her exasperation at being stigmatized for having to use food stamps.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:30 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Engineer spotted
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:34 |
|
Bee boop! I am a robot! Empathy is the enemy of logic!
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:35 |
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Engineer spotted Perfect response. I keep seeing cries of voter fraud among the internet, aka the only way a Democrat could ever win an election. Which makes me think though, all of these states, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, they all have Republican governors, Republican secretaries of state, and Republican controlled legislatures.(Minus Iowa). If we even take it on face value and say they're correct, it's just further proving the point Republicans are incapable of running a state since they can't even conduct a legitimate election.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:46 |
|
Oddhair posted:Obama "despises Netanyahu"; Goatman Sacks posted:Engineer spotted Hey, I personally know a lot of engineers who are nowhere near this sociopathic.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 21:52 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:29 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
People really don't think about the consequences of ideas like that, do they? Good lord. It reminds me of a popular question I've seen on OKC: "Would the world be a better place if stupid people weren't allowed to breed". The number of people who say "yes" without thinking about what a world of forced sterilization would be like...
|
# ? Nov 13, 2012 22:15 |