|
Monkey Fracas posted:Racism Is Over yaaaayyy Who the gently caress edits this? Is it still Tucker Carlson's digital rag? Sweet Jesus.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Zwabu posted:Who the gently caress edits this? Is it still Tucker Carlson's digital rag? Sweet Jesus. Carlson's obviously looking to gin up page views and controversy. I can only hope that his shitrag is about to collapse around his ears and he's getting desperate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:First thing that came to mind was this: This came from Grand Rapids, home of West Michigan's super-conservative Dutch Reformed crowd. Also, home of Amway!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:This came from Grand Rapids, home of West Michigan's super-conservative Dutch Reformed crowd. Also, home of Amway! Ugh, that explains it. gently caress everything west of Chelsea, sell it all to Indiana. (Except for the Air Zoo).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Fox News headline:  ObamaCare faces another delay, lawmaker calls implementation ‘train wreck’ Actual article: The agreements [between government and healthcare providers] were supposed to be signed between Sept. 5 and 9, but instead will be delayed until mid-September. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/obamacare-faces-another-delay-lawmaker-calls-implementation-train-wreck/?test=latestnews
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
It occurred to me that you could do a psych or media department study on Fox News. Take stills of the news anchor's facial expressions and strip away the context, and show them to people blinded to the context and ask if they are talking about the President, Democrats, Obama or Democratic policies or politicians, or their GOP counterparts (or something else entirely). See how often regular Fox viewers can get the answers right versus those who haven't watched much Fox. Then do the same study for other networks. I'd bet you could get something like 80 percent correct for the Fox anchors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:First thing that came to mind was this: "Killing Slopes is the most important thing."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:First thing that came to mind was this: Where's Spacedad? His comment got an interesting response: quote:The hippies are responsible for the destruction of what FDR built, the ascent of Reagan and today continue as the teaparty. Hmm... if you isolated this to just the hippies and not the SDC kids, then it's correct. The baby boomers certainly led to Reagan and the dismantling of FDR's legacy. (although probably not in the same way the commenter meant)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Something that I think gets forgotten about the baby boomers is that most of them actually weren't hippies, especially not in the politically committed sense. My parents were hippies and they have tons of stories about being harassed by people roughly their age over their clothes and hair. They also have tons of stories about hippies who didn't care a bit about any of that political stuff and were just there to party. Of course the way the 60's are portrayed in the media you'd think everyone between the age of 16 and 30 went to Woodstock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Guys, can we talk about rap music for a second? A shameful music Intel&Sebastian posted:Hahaha they're all so desperate to find analogues to all of GWB's gently caress ups. Uhhh, it was Gog and Magog, bro, get your facts straight. Liberals 
Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Guys, can we talk about rap music for a second? A shameful music Come on, they don't hate and look down on black people. They hate and look down on black people's CULTURE. That one word apparently lets you make all sorts of racist screeds, indistinguishable from racist drivel from the 60's, and for some reason very few high-profile people are willing to call this poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Roxors posted:Come on, they don't hate and look down on black people. They hate and look down on black people's CULTURE. That one word apparently lets you make all sorts of racist screeds, indistinguishable from racist drivel from the 60's, and for some reason very few high-profile people are willing to call this poo poo out. They've really gotten concern trolling down to a science.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Guys, can we talk about rap music for a second? A shameful music Also, FOX's other big chryon yesterday: "'I HAVE A DREAM' was not in the first draft of MLK's speech" - HE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN IT GUYS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Pander posted:They've really gotten concern trolling down to a science. It's all reddit will talk about when it comes to black people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Also, FOX's other big chryon yesterday: "'I HAVE A DREAM' was not in the first draft of MLK's speech" - HE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN IT GUYS. So we can go back to judging people based on the color of their skin? Bout loving time
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Also, FOX's other big chryon yesterday: "'I HAVE A DREAM' was not in the first draft of MLK's speech" - HE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN IT GUYS. MLK extemporized key lines of one of the greatest pieces of rhetoric in recorded history. What a sick burn, I guess he should have used a teleprompter and fully prepared remarks like all the truly great speakers. That is the Republican line on reading prepared remarks, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
It's easier to understand once you consider how often Republicans get into trouble for going off-script.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:06
|
|
cafel posted:MLK extemporized key lines of one of the greatest pieces of rhetoric in recorded history. What a sick burn, I guess he should have used a teleprompter and fully prepared remarks like all the truly great speakers. That is the Republican line on reading prepared remarks, right? the Republican line on any given thing, as presented in the format of the 3 Laws of Robotics 1. Advance corporate power, be a vote for eventual corporate rule. 2. Hit the Democrats and bring them pain, where doing so would not conflict with the first law. 3. Be reactionary and make life worse for as many as possible, unless a company or election against the Democrats demands otherwise.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Honestly? Can't fault that. Bottled water is a massive ripoff in most places in the US due to the water quality out of the tap. If you're not rolling in cash and want to buy beverages you may as well get something--even empty calories--for your money. Whats it like to live in a place where there is no concept of a convenience purchase? "And why the hell should I have to pay for a room to stay in when I'm in a different country? I can stay in my room back home for free. loving RIPOFF!" cafel posted:Everyone knows that Jefferson popularized every single staple dish in America. It kept him so busy that he had to split inventing every single commonly used home and office tools with Ben Franklin. Who in turn had to take time off from inventing all the good, old fashioned sex positions with french whores that America still uses to this day. Which is why them gays can't get married, because Ben Franklin never had time to mess around with the man-whores, and so any man-loving is against the Founders intentions.  Zwabu posted:It occurred to me that you could do a psych or media department study on Fox News. Take stills of the news anchor's facial expressions and strip away the context, and show them to people blinded to the context and ask if they are talking about the President, Democrats, Obama or Democratic policies or politicians, or their GOP counterparts (or something else entirely). See how often regular Fox viewers can get the answers right versus those who haven't watched much Fox. Then do the same study for other networks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Whats it like to live in a place where there is no concept of a convenience purchase? You are missing the point of his post so hard that I have to believe it's deliberate. He's not saying that he doesn't conceptually understand picking up a bottle of water to grab a drink outside of the house. He's saying that when you're grocery shopping, it's not a crazy choice to buy soda over water, since a lot of people have decent water at home anyway. That is, it's not crazy if you happen to like to drink soda.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Yeah, and the kid wasn't thirsty at home, he was thirsty in the Walmart. A liquid would be purchased to sate thirst - that you think it should be soda instead of water becaue you can get water at home is pretty drat stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, and the kid wasn't thirsty at home, he was thirsty in the Walmart. A liquid would be purchased to sate thirst - that you think it should be soda instead of water becaue you can get water at home is pretty drat stupid. You're tilting at windmills you crazy motherfucker. I didn't say that, and the guy you originally posted only ~kind of~ said that. You're getting pissed about a story you heard 3rd hand in a thread where it's not even really relevant. They were grocery shopping. If you don't have a lot of money, you might not be inclined to pay for poo poo you can get at home, even if you might feel like you need it at that moment. Maybe she was already planning on buying soda anyway, and didn't want to buy a water AND some soda. Have you ever seen a kid? They're always thirsty and always hungry, but some people can't afford to buy them a bottle of water and a lunchable every time they ask for one. You don't know enough about the circumstances of this situation to be getting as loving indignant about it as you are. Modern Day Hercules fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Well, in a perfect world, people would always choose water over soda, because soda is so blatantly unhealthy for us in the quantities we drink it. The drink purchase isn't about taste or novelty but about thirst, after all. Like he said, convenience purchase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, and the kid wasn't thirsty at home, he was thirsty in the Walmart. A liquid would be purchased to sate thirst - that you think it should be soda instead of water becaue you can get water at home is pretty drat stupid. I'd say buying water for home consumption is pretty drat stupid unless you have really lovely water at home and really most people in the western world don't. I remember a study a couple years back that I couldn't find quickly that showed that something like 80% of tap waters were more pure then the most bottled waters but a lot of people have the perception that water in bottle = clean while tap water = dirty, even if it's rarely true. Don't get me wrong, if you're thirsty and out and about, buying water is pretty great but if you drink it at home you would be much better served buying something like a brita water filter, it would save a ton of money and wasted plastic bottles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
I don't think anybody really disagrees that bottled water is a ridiculously wasteful venture in 99% of cases, but I also doubt that anyone would disagree that there is a legitimate use and market for it either. Kind of a silly slapfight going on here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, and the kid wasn't thirsty at home, he was thirsty in the Walmart. A liquid would be purchased to sate thirst - that you think it should be soda instead of water becaue you can get water at home is pretty drat stupid. Calm down guy. For most people, buying bottled water is a luxury purchase simply because a similar quality of water is available from the tap for free. The mother in the story was likely in that group, and would quite reasonable be thinking that if she was going to pay for a drink, she should be getting something more than overpriced, fancy-pants tap-water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, and the kid wasn't thirsty at home, he was thirsty in the Walmart. A liquid would be purchased to sate thirst - that you think it should be soda instead of water becaue you can get water at home is pretty drat stupid. Please tell me you get way madder about real issues than this, this is loving nuts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Sodapop, Parenting, Walmart, and Water Bottles - Right Wing Media, somehow???
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, and the kid wasn't thirsty at home, he was thirsty in the Walmart. A liquid would be purchased to sate thirst - that you think it should be soda instead of water becaue you can get water at home is pretty drat stupid. What the hell happened here, did you find a bottle of Arnold Palmer mix, mainline it, and decide it was time to LoGIc-BatTLe the liberals?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Could be, but uh it wasn't a friend of a friend it was my friend, and he called me as he was leaving the Wal-Mart. He needed to process. Pretty sure it happened. Fair enough. Objection withdrawn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
menino posted:What the hell happened here, did you find a bottle of Arnold Palmer mix, mainline it, and decide it was time to LoGIc-BatTLe the liberals? uh he is battling the conservatives defending the mother because soda is seriously unhealthy
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Is there a Wal-Mart in existence without a water fountain? I haven't seen one. It's always right up there next to the shitter, the Mart Karts and the no-doubt-very-qualified optometrist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:It's all reddit will talk about when it comes to black people. Well, there are also the blatantly racist posts in the "I'm going to hell for this" subreddit. And let's not forget r/n*****s. Really, when I think about it, I don't know why I even bother with reddit. It would be hard to find a website with more disgusting and soul-killing content.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
In addition to reddit is its little sister Imgur. It is pretty self-absorbed like most of the Internet. However, there are countless "As black person...." or "As a woman....." concern trolling posts. I was let down by them and that's about as close as I'll get to reddit. There is a fair amount of jingoism there as well. Its like humor + political references that isn't funny or smart. They went on and on about N. Korea. Then the NSA. Then Egypt. Now Syria. The same people reading Imgur would be the ones most affected by a war. Dick waving and flagging waving is the same family I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Man, I remember when Imgur wasn't full of hentai, porn, and Liberal Logic 101 memes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:He probably believes that if you make one cent over your tax bracket your entire earnings are taxed at the new rate. It really is stunning how many people don't understand how a progressive tax system functions. Everyone keeps saying everyone else doesn't understand how marginal tax brackets work. Can I get a quick explanation about how they do? I thought if your total income DID go into the next bracket you DID pay X% on your whole income? predicto posted:Sure, but you should see all the horrible photos of poor and messed up black people that white racists come up with to justify their racism. And then they add in stories about how they saw a fat Jemima just like that buying steaks and champagne with her EBT Card haw haw haw. My mother had this thing: Water was free so if she offered to buy a drink at the store you couldn't choose water. Because water was free and she was BUYING something nice for you. She's also literally crazy but the idea that a parent wouldn't buy bottled water over a soda isn't too surprising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Everyone keeps saying everyone else doesn't understand how marginal tax brackets work. Can I get a quick explanation about how they do? I thought if your total income DID go into the next bracket you DID pay X% on your whole income? You only pay the additional percentage on the income past the bracket cutoff. Example: Let's say there are two brackets, one at 10% for income below $100,000, one at 20% for income above that. You make $50,000 a year and pay 10% income tax. You get a promotion and are now making $110,000 per year. You pay 10% income tax on the first $100,000 you make and 20% income tax on the remaining $10,000 of income above the first bracket, for a total of ($10,000 + $2000) = $12000 yearly income tax due, for a net total income of 98k or so. Compare with the way everyone thinks it works, i.e., making 110k and you owe %20 on all income. That way you'd have to pay 22k income tax rather than the 12k you would actually owe -- which would put your net income at 88k/year. You'd be better off just taking a 99k/year salary (which would give you a net income of about 90k). Important thing here is this means there's no situation under the law as it stands where you can work more and earn less; the second scenario can't happen. If someone thinks it can they don't understand tax law. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Important thing here is this means there's no situation under the law as it stands where you can work more and earn less; the second scenario can't happen. If someone thinks it can they don't understand tax law. There are very specific circumstances involving poorly designed tax credits where it can happen. But that has little to do with the bracket structure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:There are very specific circumstances involving poorly designed tax credits where it can happen. But that has little to do with the bracket structure. Yeah, fair point. I shouldn't have made such a broad statement -- I was still thinking about the context of the example. What I should have said was "There's no way that the bracket structure can penalize you for earning more, and anyone who thinks they could be penalized like that probably doesn't understand tax law." That's not a condemnation -- most people don't understand tax law! But it does mean the state of public debate is pretty abysmal. Though we knew that just from all the people who think the deficit has been increasing. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
People just equate deficit with debt, because they're pretty similar ideas. Run a deficit, run up the debt. But of course we all know that the deficit really affects the rate of debt increase, but now we're talking fancy math and that's for those liberal elites with an education I disagree that the state of public debate is pretty abysmal - I think it basically, as far as the average person is concerned, doesn't exist at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:51
|
|
