Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

Chorrax posted:

My Aunt (whose adorable chocolate lab is named Reagan) just posted this racist bullshit:

Most of the comments are versions of:

Christianity is a religion of peace
if you ignore the crusades, the inquisition, what they did to the americas, some poo poo in africa and uhm oh yea, pretty sure all abortion clinic bombers were christian.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 16:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 17:20

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Brennanite posted:

This has been making the rounds on my Facebook. I don't even know what to say, except that logic is losing.

quote:
Homosexuality is equal to incest and any other generically upsetting/evil thing that I can list

There's nothing to say. If people are going to use an entirely different countries legal ruling (without any context for the legal ruling) as the basis for a treatise on a subject and then compare that subject to another entirely unrelated subject without even trying to establish the comparison then they're not good faith argument.

The only attempt at comparison is that the German ruling cites "the abstract idea of protection of the family" as an illegitimate claim for banning something. Which isn't wrong. "Protecting the family" as a traditional ideal is so abstract as to be meaningless and should have no bearing on consenting adults. But the piece never makes any argument, much less a compelling one, that incest is the same as homosexuality despite clearly equating the two.

It's a juvenile attempt to slander homosexuals by tying them to the same post as incest (which is an entirely different can of worms). They do this in order to claim a legitimate slippery slope argument saying that they cannot allow homosexuals rights for fear of incest becoming...not legally forbidden which would still be an otherwise unenforceable statute? Except they fail to establish why they have to deny homosexuals rights when they could just as easily not "legalize" incest.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 16:47

sweart gliwere: Jul 5, 2005; _{better to die an evil wizard,

than to live as a grand one.}; Pillbug

Crain posted:

It's a juvenile attempt to slander homosexuals by tying them to the same post as incest (which is an entirely different can of worms). They do this in order to claim a legitimate slippery slope argument saying that they cannot allow homosexuals rights for fear of incest becoming...not legally forbidden which would still be an otherwise unenforceable statute? Except they fail to establish why they have to deny homosexuals rights when they could just as easily not "legalize" incest.

Yeah, I could understand their angle if the gay-rights movement here was actually in favor of gay incest (rebranded as wincest - no chance of flipper babies!), but pretty much nobody is in favor of any incest. It's a slightly more plausible variant of "What if Kevin wants to marry a turtle"

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:02

Thesaurus: Oct 3, 2004

What I like about these arguments is the implication that only the fact that incest is illegal has been preventing people from marrying their siblings. The floodgates are open, people!

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:14

letthereberock: Sep 4, 2004

sweart gliwere posted:

Yeah, I could understand their angle if the gay-rights movement here was actually in favor of gay incest (rebranded as wincest - no chance of flipper babies!), but pretty much nobody is in favor of any incest. It's a slightly more plausible variant of "What if Kevin wants to marry a turtle"

I'm actually a little taken aback that they are giving liberals the benefit of the doubt in saying they are unwittingly paving the way for legalized incest. By this point I was sure it was an article of faith among conservatives that liberals WANT an increase in incest and beastiality and all forms of depravity.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:27

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Doctor Butts posted:

Christianity is a religion of peace
if you ignore the crusades, the inquisition, what they did to the americas, some poo poo in africa and uhm oh yea, pretty sure all abortion clinic bombers were christian.

Umm those weren't real Christians. Now let me tell you how if a muslim middle class family in America doesn't constantly say how much they hate radical Islam they are just as bad as terrorists.

Thesaurus posted:

What I like about these arguments is the implication that only the fact that incest is illegal has been preventing people from marrying their siblings. The floodgates are open, people!

I've given up giving the benefit of the doubt and now just assume that anyone complaining that once religion is removed from whatever part of society is trendy to complain about the floodgates are open and people will start being gay, pedophiles, murderers, adulterers, etc that it's just self projection and that person desperately wants to do those things.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:30

Scruff McGruff: Feb 13, 2007; Jesus, kid, you're almost a detective. All you need now is a gun, a gut, and three ex-wives.

I got two good posts from a Libertarian/MRA guy on my facebook regarding California's "Yes Means Yes" thing.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:40

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Tell him to test it. Tell him to test it by driving off a cliff.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:48

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

iajanus posted:

Yeah, I'm not sure how the conversation goes once I put my opinion in that they shouldn't have the right to roll the dice with their children's (and a bunch of other people's) health. At the very least there should be strict banning of unvaccinated kids from schools/public settings (except for the cases when they physically can't get vaccinated).

What you have to remember is that children in the U.S. are treated as something more akin to chattel property than people. We won't even sign the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, because it prevents us from killing kids.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 18:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thanatosian posted:

We won't even sign the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, because it prevents us from killing kids.

We did sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we didn't ratify it because it likely conflicts with a whole bunch of constitutional elements, not just the execution ban. More generally, the US generally avoids ratifying IL documents of this sort because their language tends to be vague and overbroad, and it's historically been leveraged against us by folks like Russia.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 18:07

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

quote:

How liberals are unwittingly paving the way for the legalization of adult incest

But some types of adult incest have been legal for years. About half of the US allows cousins to marry, some with conditions, some with no restrictions at all. And these laws have been around for at least a hundred years.

Unless...of course! Time travel!

# ? Sep 30, 2014 18:27

turn it up TURN ME ON: Mar 19, 2012; In the Grim Darkness of the Future, there is only war.

...and delicious ice cream.

quote:

Responding in love certainly also means that there�s no room for the follower of Jesus to help spread the lie that because you �feel deeply internally� that you are a girl makes you a girl when God fearfully and wonderfully made you a boy in His own image (Psalm 139:14)!

God made you while in abject terror. I appreciate this mental image. Fear me, God.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 18:36

Dr.Tree: May 7, 2007; Sure there are goons in local government. But there are goons in national government too

Scruff McGruff posted:

I got two good posts from a Libertarian/MRA guy on my facebook regarding California's "Yes Means Yes" thing.

That's a lot of vitriol and twisted logic there. Might want to sever before he's wearing your skin or something.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 18:53

ZorajitZorajit: Sep 15, 2013; No static at all...

I've seen some discussion of the Yes Means Yes law criticizing it for not going far enough. The argument being that it enables coercion when Yes means No and that the allowance for "non-verbal consent" defangs its ability to prosecute. Also that any standard that places the burden of proof on the victim fundamentally fails to provide solvency. One of my friends even arguing that "innocent until proven guilty" is an unworkable standard in rape cases. I want to be on the right side of history on this, because holy hell the MRAs are obviously wrong in every way a person can be wrong. Is rhetoric like this approaching extremism are my friends just making their case badly, am I not understanding the critique?

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'd need to see the text of the actual law to have an opinion- got a link? Although I favor an affirmative consent law, it'd need to be really freaking carefully worded- consent in private settings (i.e. sex) is a very difficult subject for the law to properly address. If this is a CA state law there's a more than decent chance that, like many CA laws, the motive is good and the drafting is freaking atrocious.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:11

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

ZorajitZorajit posted:

I've seen some discussion of the Yes Means Yes law criticizing it for not going far enough. The argument being that it enables coercion when Yes means No and that the allowance for "non-verbal consent" defangs its ability to prosecute. Also that any standard that places the burden of proof on the victim fundamentally fails to provide solvency. One of my friends even arguing that "innocent until proven guilty" is an unworkable standard in rape cases. I want to be on the right side of history on this, because holy hell the MRAs are obviously wrong in every way a person can be wrong. Is rhetoric like this approaching extremism are my friends just making their case badly, am I not understanding the critique?

Rape is a really loving complex issue. The main problem you run into with it is that consent isn't really a viable defense for most crimes; generally speaking, no one is really going to believe that the victim of a burglary consented to be burglarized, or that a murder victim consented to be murdered (well... there are some very limited exceptions there, but it's still murder). But "this person agreed to have sex with me" is frequently believable, which makes the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" very difficult to prove.

To add to that, it's bad enough having cops invading your home after something like a burglary, but the sort of interrogation that generally follows a crime feels even more invasive after a rape, as does having to deal with the rest of the bureaucracy.

On the flip side, making rape easier to convict people of creates a perverse incentive for false accusations. I don't know that that's how things would actually pan out, but the game theory is certainly there. It's an issue with no good answer, and I think the MRAs sort of touch on some real issues, but I think the California bill is a good first step.

Discendo Vox posted:

I'd need to see the text of the actual law to have an opinion- got a link? Although I favor an affirmative consent law, it'd need to be really freaking carefully worded- consent in private settings (i.e. sex) is a very difficult subject for the law to properly address. If this is a CA state law there's a more than decent chance that, like many CA laws, the motive is good and the drafting is freaking atrocious.

That's a much bigger concern with referenda than it is with legislation drafted by the legislature.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Looking through the law, it seems quite good-maybe a dual interpretation of consciousness problem, but that's unlikely to come up. The only real problems I see going forward are that 1. it only applies to the colleges, not to everyone (someday...), and 2. Implementation funding and institution-level enforcement will, ofc, be a potential sticking area, as always with this sort of thing.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Sep 30, 2014

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:19

Scruff McGruff: Feb 13, 2007; Jesus, kid, you're almost a detective. All you need now is a gun, a gut, and three ex-wives.

Dr.Tree posted:

That's a lot of vitriol and twisted logic there. Might want to sever before he's wearing your skin or something.

Oh I severed a while back, we hashed it out a couple of years ago to the point where we both agreed we weren't going to change the other's opinions because we fundamentally differed on the fact that I care about others and he does not (he said that directly). I just keep him around for content for this thread.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:27

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Here's a good one I just saw. This is the brother of a guy who thinks the Redskins name isn't racist because no one would have used a racist name for a sports team. QED.

What if the illegals left posted:

What if the illegals left?

Somebody really did their homework on this one. Best on the subject to present date.

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?

I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament."

I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "Illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"

Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?

So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.

It's a good question... it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grandchilds would move back "home," mostly to Mexico. That would save Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's 4% unem ployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home,' the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt. $8.7 trillion debt!!!

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country - brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America's new 'Third World' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonials. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally annually, more than all other countries combined. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.

It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

Interesting Statistics!

Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:

1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens (that's Billion with a 'B')

3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English!

5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year.

7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in t he US.

11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border.

12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!

Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR !

Just to jump to the easiest to refute bullshit: Colorado's public school have roughly 800~900k students (854,265 in the 2011-2012 school year). The budget is ~5.5 billion. So I'm supposed to believe that Colorado's public school system is 62.5% illegal immigrant and removing that number of students only saves 36% of the total budget?

EDIT: Sorry, 300k school aged kids. So 35% of the school population.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 20:00

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

I like how the entire population of Chicago is apparently illegal immigrants

# ? Sep 30, 2014 20:09

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Amused to Death posted:

I like how the entire population of Chicago is apparently illegal immigrants

Oh man I missed that. Honestly didn't bother reading past the clearly made up public school numbers.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 20:25

StealthArcher: Jan 10, 2010

ZorajitZorajit posted:

One of my friends even arguing that "innocent until proven guilty" is an unworkable standard

I am all for the law that was passed and believe rape cases need a hell of a lot more work done, given their general state and the amount of ostracization given to victims, but anyone who says these words is gonna lose me.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 20:31

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

Discendo Vox posted:

I'd need to see the text of the actual law to have an opinion- got a link? Although I favor an affirmative consent law, it'd need to be really freaking carefully worded- consent in private settings (i.e. sex) is a very difficult subject for the law to properly address. If this is a CA state law there's a more than decent chance that, like many CA laws, the motive is good and the drafting is freaking atrocious.

From what I've read it more or less criminalizes sex that is forced onto someone by "the implication" and date rape. Puts sex via coercion in the same league as extortion.

Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Sep 30, 2014

# ? Sep 30, 2014 20:34

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

Man, where in California is English not the dominant language? Like I shop at a Hispanic grocery store because it tends to be cheaper and I only understand a smattering of Spanish and can barely speak any of it and yet I never have any problems. The worst it's ever gotten is using a few common Spanish and English phrases and hand gestures to communicate with someone and that's happened like twice in my entire 20+ years of living in an area with a significant Hispanic population. Who could get bent out of shape by that? (Yes, I know, I know, racists could.)

# ? Sep 30, 2014 21:04

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

Man, where in California is English not the dominant language? Like I shop at a Hispanic grocery store because it tends to be cheaper and I only understand a smattering of Spanish and can barely speak any of it and yet I never have any problems. The worst it's ever gotten is using a few common Spanish and English phrases and hand gestures to communicate with someone and that's happened like twice in my entire 20+ years of living in an area with a significant Hispanic population. Who could get bent out of shape by that? (Yes, I know, I know, racists could.)

That and apparently the only ones who speak spanish as a primary language are illegals. If they leave then everyone defaults to english.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 21:09

Duke Igthorn: Oct 11, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

ErIog posted:

So which is it? Are they in private accommodations or are they mixed in with all the other students? These 2 points contradict each other.

Both. Each transgendered student has the legal right to barge into any non-transgendered student's room and demand cuddles but no non-transgendered student can barge into a transgendered student's room.

I love this insult cause it's so true, I mean I know I can't name anything else Obama did other than "Community Organizer"

# ? Sep 30, 2014 21:26

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

ZorajitZorajit posted:

Is rhetoric like this approaching extremism are my friends just making their case badly, am I not understanding the critique?

I think the point of the law is that it tries to catch young adults arguably under state scrutiny and impress upon them that, even though they are in the most sexually exciting and liberated stage of their life, they need to be respectful of their potential sexual partner and think of them as a person with agency, not a piece of meat. This infuriates MRAs because it contradicts their masculine ideal of alpha maledom being a ticket to a sociopathic sex buffet. Any attempt to deflate that idea is going to be viewed negatively, and then collect canned critiques about false rape accusations and slutty girls etc.

quote:

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Illegals work for illegal wages! Americans should be working those illegally low paying jobs!

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Sep 30, 2014

# ? Sep 30, 2014 21:29

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

Duke Igthorn posted:

Both. Each transgendered student has the legal right to barge into any non-transgendered student's room and demand cuddles but no non-transgendered student can barge into a transgendered student's room.

I love this insult cause it's so true, I mean I know I can't name anything else Obama did other than "Community Organizer"

Ahaha, that's hilarious. I have even less credentials than that try hard Carson, clearly they should elect my folksy rear end instead.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 21:35

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Scruff McGruff posted:

I got two good posts from a Libertarian/MRA guy on my facebook regarding California's "Yes Means Yes" thing.

Reply asking why he keeps objectifiying men and trying to reduce them down to the level of unthinking machines.

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

Man, where in California is English not the dominant language? Like I shop at a Hispanic grocery store because it tends to be cheaper and I only understand a smattering of Spanish and can barely speak any of it and yet I never have any problems. The worst it's ever gotten is using a few common Spanish and English phrases and hand gestures to communicate with someone and that's happened like twice in my entire 20+ years of living in an area with a significant Hispanic population. Who could get bent out of shape by that? (Yes, I know, I know, racists could.)

Conservatives are also gigantic egotists with really thin skin. When they hear people talking in spanish, or any foreign language for that matter, they automatically assume they're talking about them and making fun of them. Here's Rush demonstrating this attitude towards Hu Jintao. Just imagine it being said in an appallingly racist way.

A pig that learned to stand on its hind legs posted:

I have to admit I'm amused by this. Probably very few other people are, but I am. During our obscene profit time-out, I'm watching the news conference between President Obama and the Chinese ChiCom leader Hu Jintao, and I've not seen this before. Hu Jintao is speaking, and speaking, and speaking with no translator. They wait 'til he finishes, and then they read what he says in toto -- and of course we don't know. Translator could be making it all up. Hu Jintao could be telling us... Who knows what he could be saying to us? The translators is sitting there saying, "We want to work together, two countries in the world. China is developing country; America developed country...but not for long!"

He didn't say that.

But I'm fascinated. I listen to this and (laughing) I found myself trying to write down what Hu Jintao was saying in Chinese. Phonetically so I could repeat it to you. (interruption) Well, it looks like chicken scrawls! (laughing) I said, "I wonder what... I wonder, to the people that can't speak English, what does it sounds like to them?" Because when I hear Chinese or Japanese, it sounds like all the same word, and I can't comprehend of anybody understanding it. Of course that's silly. But he's sitting there, (speaking phonetic Chinese). I couldn't write down anymore. I was losing track of it, 'cause I'm looking up as he's saying all this, and they cut to Obama looking intently as though he understands every word of it (which, what would you expect from the Ruling Class?)

Why yes, this is exactly the mindset of a sixteen year old girl.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 22:03

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

All of this overt religious bigotry and hatred is gross and scary I can't take it

# ? Sep 30, 2014 22:33

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

Yes, when my Chinese Mother in Law speaks to me I just dawdle around, clean my fingernails, tie my shoes, adjust my belt. Anything to not convey to her that I'm paying attention to her crazy ching chong language.

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

Ahaha, that's hilarious. I have even less credentials than that try hard Carson, clearly they should elect my folksy rear end instead.

I remember just a few short years ago the GOP had a problem with an unqualified, Affirmative Action supporting, insurance reform pushing, Black Man as President. How things change!

# ? Sep 30, 2014 22:38

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

Here's the answer to Rush's question about English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZXcRqFmFa8

# ? Sep 30, 2014 22:58

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

Scruff McGruff posted:

I got two good posts from a Libertarian/MRA guy on my facebook regarding California's "Yes Means Yes" thing.

In cases like this I get really uncomfortable because is just sounds like the dude is upset he might not be able to rape someone and get away with it as easily.

These are people I unfriend.

I can tolerate all manner of different opinions, political philosophies, and elsewise. But if you're an intellectually dishonest fuckwit guided by hatred and vitriol I just don't want you in my life in any capacity. Double so if they're rapey.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 23:31

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Fulchrum posted:

Conservatives are also gigantic egotists with really thin skin. When they hear people talking in spanish, or any foreign language for that matter, they automatically assume they're talking about them and making fun of them.

There were a lot of people on my campus speaking languages other than English, especially Chinese, and a sentiment I heard whispered a lot was "what do you think they're saying about us? 'these americans are so stupid'??"

It's a little like "those gay people want to have sex...with me?!"

# ? Oct 1, 2014 00:08

Lemniscate Blue: Apr 21, 2006; Here we go again.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Here's the answer to Rush's question about English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZXcRqFmFa8

I love this song, and will listen to it repeatedly every time it's posted. Although it turned up in a car commercial of all places the other day, which was weird.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 00:31

ZorajitZorajit: Sep 15, 2013; No static at all...

Continuing the theme of "someone please tell me I'm wrong," I was linked a video today of a woman wearing a fat suit being mistreated by men on a blind date. I want to be able to that it's a shock video meant to manufacture controversy, heck if I were the conspiratorial type I'd call it a stunt by MRAs. I find it sort of unreasonable to shame someone for not being interested in pursuing a romantic relationship if, upon meeting, they are not physically attracted. But I can't argue with the politics of the video without coming into the orbit of a writhing mass of terrible people. (I guess? Certainly there has to be some space between 'unreasonable standard of beauty' and 'reasonable standard of healthy lifestyle.') Is this the sort of ideological purity that wrecks movements from the inside out? Or should I sign up to be castrated to ensure I rid the world of at least one agent of the patriarchy?

# ? Oct 1, 2014 02:03

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 47 hours!

Twelve by Pies posted:

But some types of adult incest have been legal for years. About half of the US allows cousins to marry, some with conditions, some with no restrictions at all. And these laws have been around for at least a hundred years.

Unless...of course! Time travel!

The judge in Indiana's gay marriage case took particular relish in pointing out this little quirk:

quote:

Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can�t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can�t produce children. The state�s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a �model of family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women� is impossible to take seriously.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 02:04

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

BatteredFeltFedora posted:

I love this song, and will listen to it repeatedly every time it's posted. Although it turned up in a car commercial of all places the other day, which was weird.

I don't understand why it says that that's what American English sounds like to non-English speakers, because it sure as hell sounds like American English to me, too.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 02:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 17:20

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

ZorajitZorajit posted:

Continuing the theme of "someone please tell me I'm wrong," I was linked a video today of a woman wearing a fat suit being mistreated by men on a blind date. I want to be able to that it's a shock video meant to manufacture controversy, heck if I were the conspiratorial type I'd call it a stunt by MRAs. I find it sort of unreasonable to shame someone for not being interested in pursuing a romantic relationship if, upon meeting, they are not physically attracted. But I can't argue with the politics of the video without coming into the orbit of a writhing mass of terrible people. (I guess? Certainly there has to be some space between 'unreasonable standard of beauty' and 'reasonable standard of healthy lifestyle.') Is this the sort of ideological purity that wrecks movements from the inside out? Or should I sign up to be castrated to ensure I rid the world of at least one agent of the patriarchy?

If you're not physically attracted to someone you don't pursue a relationship. But you don't mistreat someone for you not being physically attracted to them. This is because you shouldn't mistreat people.

I've not seen the video but don't be an rear end in a top hat? Seems like pretty straightforward life advice.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 02:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »