|
Bonus vague  UN reference included in this one.quote:DID YOU KNOW... http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/homeinspections.asp I'm surprised that they haven't started saying that Christian children will be removed in order for them to receive the super secret Gay-Muslim-Athiest re-education before being released back into the wild.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
There's a provision in the constitution that if you really really don't like a law, it doesn't apply to you. It's detailed in the No Take-Backsies Clause (Article 58).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Oops, got busy this weekend. Here's the belated week in LL101: Obamacare.  Shutdown.  Gunbortions.  Shutdown.  Uh... Clinton I guess.  The Redskins.  Shutdown.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Obamacare was the compromise. We already loving had this argument, and we already agreed to compromise. The Republicans asked the Democrats to move and they did. Now the Republicans are saying that just compromising wasn't enough, and the Democrats need to give the Republicans everything they want, now, and in return they will receive nothing, and if they ignore this generous deal the Republicans are going to throw a screaming, stomping, six-year-old tantrum and shut everything down. Besides, everyone knows why they want the implementation delayed, and it's not so they can 'work out problems'. It's because the midterms are next year, and they want to be able to use Obamacare as an election talking point. If it remains in effect, they won't be able to sway votes by lying about the contents anymore - well, they can, but it won't be as effective. There's also the risk of people actually liking the new law, which will be devastating for the Republican Party. They don't want to 'work out' anything, they just want to hold it off as long as possible so they can milk it for as much political gain as they possibly can. Seriously, the compromise between 'no healthcare reform' and 'bigger, more far-reaching healthcare reform' is not 'no healthcare reform now, but maybe a small amount of it some indeterminate time in the future'. What they're offering isn't a loving compromise at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
This one is great just because it's trying so transparently hard to miss the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:This one is great just because it's trying so transparently hard to miss the point. I mean, I can at least understand the reasoning for using various Native American tribal names that reference historical tribes from the area (especially if given sanction from surviving tribal councils). Seminoles, Illini, Utes, etc. I might not necessarily agree with it, in the end, but at least it's an argument that has some rational basis. A team name that's literally a racial slur? The idea that anyone can actually defend that beggars belief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
A guy posted "I would be honored if a team was called The Italians!". I wanted to ask how he would feel if that team was called "The Grease Balls" and had a picture of an Italian on the side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:Hey guys, I remember a week or two ago there was a really good takedown of the whole "black men are 8% of the population but cause 51% of the murders!" poo poo with all of its nasty implications. Can someone repost it for me? Thanks. Of course, such a statement is intending to push the racial disparity, when the gender disparity is actually worse. The stats show black people committing murder at about 6.9 times the rate of whites, but they also show men committing murder at about 8.6 times the rate of women. People who focus on 'black men' do so with the intention of emphasizing the racial component, when the proportional disparity is really drawn even more from the sex component.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
I like the "just leave the attribution" on those) ll101 things. Like you could loving remove it if you wanted to
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:A guy posted "I would be honored if a team was called The Italians!". I wanted to ask how he would feel if that team was called "The Grease Balls" and had a picture of an Italian on the side. Better yet "The Dagos" or the "The Wops" or "The Guineas" (with bonus extra implicit racism)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Better yet "The Dagos" or the "The Wops" or "The Guineas" (with bonus extra implicit racism) And I don't think people understand that to a Native American the term Redskin is just as offensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Notre Dame "Fighting Micks"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
The Auburn Slavedrivers are dominating the SEC this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:09
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The Auburn Slavedrivers are dominating the SEC this year. Let's not act like that wouldn't be the most popular thing ever. Also, do in person stories work for this thread? Good friend of mine from Jacksonville, Florida told me she won't eat at Church's Chicken because it's owned by the NAACP and discriminates against white people in their hiring practices. WTF? Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
quote:Haha! A mentally ill woman died! Haha!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Woke up to this magnificent unironic title courtesy of Mom: plz make thread title imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
The WWII memorial: Self cleaning and vandalism proof.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:The WWII memorial: Self cleaning and vandalism proof. Just like our vets, the Greatest Generation!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
If you ever come across someone who says neither the Cleveland Indians or the Washington Redskins are racist names show them this:
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Tomahawk posted:Some idiot my friends know: That's a whole bunch of poo poo for a retard who wouldn't even be able to figure out a Half Life 2 physics puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Racism and the Redskins is deeply ingrained. The Redskins were the southernmost NFL team from approximately the 1950s until the late 70s. Their owner, George Marshall, wanted to make the Redskins the "team of the south." In the 1950s, this meant no black players. While segregation was common in the 1950s, Marshall was militant about it, straight up saying that blacks weren't worthy of being in the league. This was an embarrassment to the NFL, which tried begging Marshall to do at least some token desegregation to no avail. It wasn't until 1961, when the Redskins were planning to move onto what is now RFK stadium on federal land, that the Kennedy administration stepped in. They said that the Redskins would not be allowed to play in the new stadium unless they followed federal laws-i.e, no longer could they openly discriminate against blacks. Marshall relented, drafting a black player that year. Marshall traded him a week after the draft. Ironically, the Redskins' first super bowl would be won by a black quarterback. One of my favorite quotes from sports journalism was written by a Washington Post Redskins beat writer, who during this time period wrote "Jim Brown, born ineligible to play for the Redskins, integrated their end zone three times yesterday." On a related note, this racist history is one reason why the Cowboys and Redskins are considered to be major rivals. For the longest time they were the only NFL teams that could be considered "southern" The Redskins outspoken racism drove many southerners, especially black southerners, into Cowboys fandom. Emanuel Collective fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Say hello to the Pekin Chinks. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-12-05/news/1994339058_1_chinks-pekin-high-tribune
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:Woke up to this magnificent unironic title courtesy of Mom:
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Don't leave us hanging, what do your relatives think? "Dear [Jacobin], OK, now the fun begins. You are willing to allow 18% of your taxes/paycheck to go to UHC. How much additional are you allowing for public education, food stamps, aid to dependent children, national defense, national infrastructure, transportation, parks, and so on . . .? Looks to me as if you might possibly be nearing the 50% mark. So, you work your rear end off and give 50% to the government while the other guy sits at home and blows smoke? Yeah, sounds like a real incentive to work. I'm sure happy to be retired and drawing my legitimately earned Social Security. Ditto for Uncle Bill." That is one of them. Unironically. gently caress, Ive come to learn that if you really just hate some of your extended family and they are overseas and literally the only thing keeping you bound to them is some family name then you might as well just laugh at this poo poo and subtlety troll them
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Obamacare was the compromise. We already loving had this argument, and we already agreed to compromise. The Republicans asked the Democrats to move and they did. Now the Republicans are saying that just compromising wasn't enough, and the Democrats need to give the Republicans everything they want, now, and in return they will receive nothing, and if they ignore this generous deal the Republicans are going to throw a screaming, stomping, six-year-old tantrum and shut everything down. Not only that, they weren't even looking to "expand Obamacare". Just follow the scheduled implementation of it, which happened. So there's no reason to delay it, and if they did somehow manage to, they would be kicking people off their insurance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Canadian's Version of David Letterman's Top 10. This is Canada's Top Ten List of America's Stupidity. Of course we look like idiots because we are. 10) Only in America ... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event. 9) Only in America ... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black. 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics! Only in America ... could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes. 7) Only in America ... can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. 6) Only in America ... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens. 5) Only in America ... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists." 4) Only in America ... could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. 3) Only in America ... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike). 2) Only in America ... could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money. 1) Only in America ... could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
The usage of Canada in that just makes that list all the more inexplicable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
We're all laughing at your slide into socialism from our Randian paradise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Guacamayo posted:1) Only in America ... could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all. The people who pay 86% of the income taxes have more than 95% of the wealth, so strictly speaking, no, they are not paying their 'fair share'. A lot of people, especially the sort of people who share chain emails, really don't get how completely loving lopsided our income distribution is. Those rich people this list mentions really aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and it's mostly because they just have so loving much money. You would need a steeply graded progressive income tax with extremely high marginal rates for the top brackets in order to make taxation in America even close to fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
It also ignores the fact that (pretending for a second that the 86% statistic is real and not made up, I personally don't know) rich people are always going to make up the majority of taxes paid in the country because they make that much more money than everyone else. Even if everyone in the US only had to pay a 10% flat tax on their income, the majority of those taxes paid would still be from the rich. The person who wrote that list is either operating on some serious cognitive dissonance, or is intentionally throwing around big numbers to fool people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:The person who wrote that list is either operating on some serious cognitive dissonance, or is intentionally throwing around big numbers to fool people. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of unease that causes you to be UNABLE to hold contradictory positions; so they lack it. Also, I'm pretty sure cognitive dissonance only kicks in if you understand the things you're saying enough to recognize the contradiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Guacamayo posted:4) Only in America ... could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Guacamayo posted:10) Only in America ... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event. Also, Citizens United basically means that the people donating major hard cash to political causes aren't exactly complaining about the rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:The people who pay 86% of the income taxes have more than 95% of the wealth, so strictly speaking, no, they are not paying their 'fair share'. A lot of people, especially the sort of people who share chain emails, really don't get how completely loving lopsided our income distribution is. Those rich people this list mentions really aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and it's mostly because they just have so loving much money. You would need a steeply graded progressive income tax with extremely high marginal rates for the top brackets in order to make taxation in America even close to fair. Here are some images to help demonstrate that if you're ever actually discussing this with someone: First, Americans hate their own wealth distribution:  The overwhelming majority prefer a social democratic distribution like Sweden's, and a large majority actually prefer literally Communism with equal wealth for everyone over the current levels of inequality. (From here) Second, this wealth distribution has been a product of the last three decades. Thanks, Reagan!  And what was the result? The very wealthy got as much control over the economy as they had in the year right before the Great Depression, and as a result we got... the Great Recession. Thanks, rich people!  (P.S. there's plenty more of these kinds of images here)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Babies are some of the greediest people alive, yet they contribute nothing. WHY DON'T THE BABIES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:This is pretty much false, too. There are hard limits on contributions from individuals. While there are certain exceptions (contributions to a national party rather than an individual candidate), the bad press from a "$35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising event" wouldn't be worth it. The people who donate that kind of cash just send in a check and don't bother with the fundraising dinner. I have good news for you! The Supreme Court is (probably) going to remove that little roadblock!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Scrolling through Facebook I saw this and thought it was a critique of capitalism posted by a lefty friend but nope, it's Ron Paul guy complaining about taxes! Facebook is displaying the image weirdly so I copied the comments and the image separately. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:I have good news for you! The Supreme Court is (probably) going to remove that little roadblock! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:Scrolling through Facebook I saw this and thought it was a critique of capitalism posted by a lefty friend but nope, it's Ron Paul guy complaining about taxes! Facebook is displaying the image weirdly so I copied the comments and the image separately. I'd love to know which taxes he's seen raised on him for no reason, because the only thing in recent history was the payroll tax holiday expiring; and the democratic party wanted to extend it, but republicans held it hostage as part of the budget concessions that year if memory serves me correctly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
I can't believe people who whine about how they can't change the name of their racist-rear end  SPORTS TEAM actually exist. If you're pissed you can't call a sports team a racial slur, you are human garbage and lock yourself in a basement forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 15:58
|
|
