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.

«‹›16 »

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Cacatua posted:

I've noticed that a lot of right wingers and libertarians really hate the fact that there are environmental and safety standards for industry in North America. It's weird - they must really have no clue what things are like in countries with poor industrial standards.

All the conservative types I know, which may not be a representative sample, accept the necessity of a court system to uphold the rule of law, a military to keep us from being invaded, possibly police, but gut the regulatory bureaus because they don't help us. I always want to know why it's good that the government keeps people safe from contract violation, or mugging, but it's bad that they keep my food/water/air/pills clean and pure-ish.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2011 01:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 09:40

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Finally I've got material for this thread. Not email, from a forum I occasionally visit:

quote:

It�s been a week of discovery and revelation. Thanks to the idealists at Occupy Sydney and at other Occupy sites throughout Australia and the world, we have been made aware of many troubling facts about modern society.

Let�s humbly review all the things we�ve learned so far from these global gatherings and how we may address the issues raised:

1. Despite living in the greatest city on earth during a period of unprecedented wealth, abundance and freedom, there are a small number amongst us in Sydney who feel that absolutely everything is wrong and who wish to dismantle every structure underpinning Australian achievement.

Contrast these people with those who demonstrate against the carbon tax and wish for only one thing: an election. The latter group seeks a democratic means of maintaining and building upon our wealth. The former group is insane.

Suggested action: water cannons.

2. The appearance in our midst of a few dozen whiners with piercings and dreadlocks in lieu of any coherent political philosophy or even a clearly-explained list of grievances prompts expressions of solidarity and concern from certain media outlets. Apparently, according to these outlets, we have something to learn from rich kids who think dressing like herdsmen is an economic argument.

Suggested action: plastic wrist restraints.

3. Despite many of the protesters coming from universities and other advanced centres of learning, their spelling and grammar is abysmal. One young woman appeared at Occupy Melbourne with a sign that spelled �silent� incorrectly. She believed it was spelled �scilent�. The kids at Occupation Tallahassee in the US set the benchmark here, contributing �marrige�, �evoulution�, �survivle�, �fitess� and �glutonoues�.
Attention paid to the poor spelling of Occupy activists frustrated one Occupant at Occupy Los Angeles, who fired in this online response: �Spelling concern�s REALLY?!
I have seen So many post�s regarding spelling & grammar that seem to be an attempt to cloud the original message. I have even seen a few who criticize other�s for their spelling, while having misspelled words in their own post�s, WTF!�
WTF, by the way, is an abbreviation of �Wasted Tertiary Funding�.

Suggested action: Tasers.

4. The basic economic belief of the protesters is that wealth is finite, and that someone having money means that another person is necessarily denied money. This is not the case. Wealth isn�t distributed from a common pool; instead, it grows, depending on where the opportunities for that growth exist and where people are prepared to work for it.
To test this theory, the geniuses at Occupy Sydney ought to try an experiment. First, gather up all your bank balances and work out the total. Then, a day or so later, return to the nearest ATMs and get an updated amount. Unless Centrelink is paying out, the amount will be identical.
In the meantime, businesses and individuals across the nation will have increased their own wealth by many millions. Not one cent of it came from an Occupant�s pocket.

Suggested action: pressure point grips.

5. General knowledge is a problem for Occupants. Asked if the US government spends more military or on health care and pensions, 94 per cent of Occupy Wall Street respondents identified the former. Wrong. Military spending in 2010 was less than half that spent on health and pensions.

Suggested action: waterboarding.

6. The gap between rich and poor, economic inequality, income disparity � call it what you like, but these terms all refer to an elemental jealousy. Someone has more stuff than you and it�s just so unfair.
Sydney�s Occupants claim to represent 99 per cent of the human population. Maybe they should consider the fact that they are richer, healthier and more liberated than 99 per cent of people who have existed in the entirety of human history. Would an Occupant trade places with Louis XV, ruler of France from 1715 to 1774? Not unless he wanted to give up air travel, penicillin, the internet and pain-free surgery. In real terms, who�s richer?

Suggested action: Wicker Man.

7. The extent of meetings, the establishment of committees and working groups and the management of activities at any event occurs in inverse proportion to that event�s value. At Occupy Sydney, the initial meeting to establish basic pointless aims ran for three hours. Around 24 committees and working groups were set up, or one group for every two people who were arrested on Sunday at Occupy Sydney�s Martin Place camp.
On Saturday, Occupants debated for one whole hour whether they should go for a walking tour of Sydney�s various corporate headquarters. They never reached an actual decision, leading to this bizarre comment from an Occupy organiser:?"If you feel frustration with having to discuss and debate things, recognise that that frustration is an indication that we are doing this right.�

Suggested action: deployment of helicopter gunships.

8. Left to themselves, Occupy groups will inevitably dissolve into warring Labor-like factions. New Yorkmagazine reported on the weekend that Occupy Wall Street, the hub of the worldwide movement, was in conflict over proposed limits on drumming. �They�re imposing a structure on the natural flow of music,� said Occupant and drummer Seth Harper. �I wanted to introduce a different proposal, but a big black organizer chick with an Afro said I couldn�t.�

That sounds like racism.

There was trouble, too, when Occupy Wall Street leaders tried to gather up tents and tarpaulins so that their park site could be cleaned. As the magazine told it: �A bearded man began to gather up a tarp and an occupier emerged from beneath, screaming: �You�re going to break my loving tent, get that poo poo off!� Near the front of the park, two men in hoodies staged a meta-sit-in, fearful that their belongings would be lost or appropriated.�

Suggested action: chemical defoliants.

9. Victorian police are better than NSW police. This is deeply disappointing. The Victorian authorities moved in on Occupy Melbourne�s crusty collective on Friday, a full two days before NSW police cleared out Occupy Sydney. Also, they did it in daylight, allowing better opportunities for photographers. Sydney�s police belatedly pounced at 5am, limiting the chance to properly document Occupant justice.

Suggested action: royal commission.

My response was that:
1. Oversimplified and/or wrong.
2 and 3. Ad hominem attack against apparent disunity, unkempt appearances, and poor spelling.
4. Correct, but not entirely relevant.
5. Correct, but either irrelevant or ad hominem.
6. "Suck it up, there're people worse off than you". Additionally, the problem is not merely "he's got a better house than I do", it's "I have to decide to eat a rat or my child, while he's debating which Ivy League school to send his kid to", it's "he makes more in a goddamned week than I'll ever see".
7 and 8. Disunity and disorganization at a protest? Well I never!
9. Whose side should I be on here?
As far as the suggested actions go, 1-3 are excessive, but acceptable, 4 is police brutality, and 5-8 are just evidence of psychopathy. A royal commission might be justified if the police are using waterboarding, gunships, and defoliants against protesters.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2011 15:46

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

modig posted:

What I learned is that if someone is wrong about spending facts, like say they thought we spent a large fraction of the US budget on foreign aid, when in fact it is a small fraction, the proper response is to waterboard them.

That's what I told him. Likewise, the proper response to disunity in protest camps is to deploy the loving gunships.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2011 16:00

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Sarion posted:

It's true that wealth can grow, but the example he used isn't entirely correct. The protesters bank accounts may have remained unchanged (though they probably didn't), but all across the country millions of other people's accounts went down as they bought food, consumer products, paid bills, etc. The rise in the bank accounts of the wealthy were in fact caused by the lowered balances of millions of other accounts.

Entirely correct, and I had forgotten that. Contrariwise, the bank accounts of the wealthy were lowered by the amount they pay their employees; I'm uncertain just why the Defenders of the Status Quo keep forgetting this. Still, the bank accounts of the wealthy increase more than the bank accounts of the impoverished, and the degree of increase is an injustice.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2011 16:47

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

VideoTapir posted:

The ones festooned with crying eagles usually show no signs of ever having been used for any of these things. Trucks are a fetish associated with a cultural identity originally based upon doing the kind of work that required a truck. But many of the fetishists no longer do that kind of work.

Furthermore it is possible to do most of these things with any vehicle.

How do you propose moving a refrigerator in a sedan? Trucks are not exclusively associated with that cultural fetish; sometimes they're associated with people who do do that work. My family's used several trucks, and the only placards, bumper stickers, and other decals those trucks have born is the "Coexist" sticker on the current truck, and possibly "Visualize whirled peas".

Mind you, I agree, there are a lot of Murricans out there who love their trucks nearly as much as their dogs; just please don't paint all truck-owners with the same brush.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2011 05:58

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

VideoTapir posted:

This is something I did not know and would never have considered if you had not come along to enlighten me. Thank you.

Always happy to help. If you require further insights, such as the blueness of the sky, or the wetness of water, please, you have but to ask.

quote:

If you'd taken a quarter the time to read what I wrote that you did to write your response you'd see I didn't.

From your post:

quote:

Trucks are a fetish associated with a cultural identity originally based upon doing the kind of work that required a truck. But many of the fetishists no longer do that kind of work.

I read this as "ALL truck owners are red-state Murricans who fetishize being working manly men, even if they aren't", and got defensive, as I believed was appropriate; my family are liberals who do work and put our truck to regular and appropriate use. Not all truck owners are Murricans who love their trucks more than their dogs, and I firmly agree that those that are are not the best sort of people.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2011 18:12

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

He's obviously talking about people who treat truck owning as a sort of culture, not everyone who owns a truck. There are legit reasons to own trucks, just like there are legit reasons to own SUVs. The people who use them for legit reasons tend to form a culture around the reasons though, instead of the type of vehicle. For instance, my dad has an SUV to tow his ATV to races. He doesn't obsess over SUVs though, and if he didn't use it to tow, he wouldn't have one. We're also planning on saving up for a trophy truck for rallying together, but again, rally is the culture that decision is based on, not trucks. That's the difference, at least IMO.

I've gathered as much. We here have a truck, so we can carry a ton of firewood back to the house, branches to the burn piles, furniture and trash wherever they're needed, and tow the chicken tractor around. If we did not do this, we would not have the truck. Thus, we are not part of this truck-fetishizing culture.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2011 18:24

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

mintskoal posted:

Can anyone explain just what in the hell this is? From a relative:

I suspect that's a combination of "GOLD!!11!" madness and somebody discovering the magic of fiat money. I was unaware it was "monetized debt", though I can conceive of it now. As far as the bill goes, the only sources I've been able to find are madness, and one relatively sane dude asking where he can find the actual text of HJR 192.

quote:

June 5, 1933 [H.J.Res. 192]
To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States.
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision in contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. (b) As used in this resolution, the term "obligation" means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the Untied States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. SEC. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes", approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows: "All coins and currencies of the United States (included Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight." Approved, June 5, 1933,

In other words, it's an attempt by the government to get away with paying its debts in paper money, rather than gold, so that it's easier for the government to maintain and control the value of the dollar. It did cause some problems with the Liberty Bonds, but it shouldn't cause problems for anybody today, because it was repealed due to being outside Congress's jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court posted:

We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.
�Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Perry v United States, 294 US 330 (1935), Page 294 U. S. 354

Edit: Goddammit I'm slow.

Edit2: I'm a bit surprised more people aren't worried about Executive Order 6102, considering the whole "GOLD!!11one" madness. A bill that lets the gummint seize your gold, at an unfair rate of exchange? It's the Obamalypse, break out the guns.

darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Nov 16, 2011

# ¿ Nov 16, 2011 08:49

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

De Nomolos posted:

I worked as an a/v tech at a college a few years ago that had chalk still and that stuff's dust will kill your computer.

What goes through the heads of people like this when they're formatting their emails?:

I feel obliged to ask, what's so wrong with "stark black and white"? The truth is black and white, so why shouldn't justice be the same? :smug:

As far as the quote goes, I don't care enough to look, but there is almost certainly something similar by Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or some other founder.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2011 05:23

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

I remember getting a run through of the major world religions in high school and possibly earlier, and this was in a small school in the middle of nowhere, in a county which is mostly Protestant except for the Catholics. It does happen, even in rural parts.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2011 07:32

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Shasta Orange Soda posted:

Respond with this. Ask them why they aren't thanking the Soviets several times for every American they thank:

Just noticed something else, which is probably better, for people like that; for every 4 Americans they thank, they should thank 5 Frenchmen and 40 Chinese for protecting their right to badmouth the cheese-eating surrender monkeys and our job-stealing owners.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2011 19:41

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

mearn posted:

How can the Muppets be so anti-capitalist if they are guided by invisible hands?

Nicely done.

Also, I feel obliged to note that the US Marines are separate and distinct from the US Army, and fall under the Department of the Navy, having evolved conceptually from the marine infantry carried on ships for boarding and amphibious actions.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2011 08:52

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

I'm always pleased to see that the God of kindness and mercy, who gave humanity free will to do as they will, is so willing to kill his children and followers when they don't do just what he wants just how he wants. That's the way to win converts and followers, alright.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2011 06:44

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Nuclearmonkee posted:

Fastest way to get a conservative to stop quoting Einstein and forever shun him; Link his article submitted to the Monthly Review.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

If that doesn't work, some conservative crazies may be dissuaded by his views on patriotism. Apologize for the blog post, couldn't find a better source offhand.

quote:

�When I look into the home of a good, normal citizen I see a softly lighted room. In one corner stands a well-cared-for shrine, of which the man of the house is very proud and to which the attention of every visitor is drawn in a loud voice. On it, in large letters, the word �Patriotism� is inscribed.

�However, opening this shrine is normally forbidden. Yes, even the man of the house knows hardly, or not at all, that this shrine holds the moral requisites of animal hatred and mass murder that, in case of war, he obediently takes out for his service.

�This shrine, dear reader, you will not find in my room, and I would rejoice if you came to the viewpoint that in that corner of your room a piano or a small bookcase would be more appropriate than such a piece of furniture which you find tolerable because, from your youth, you have become used to it.�

# ¿ Jan 4, 2012 03:40

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Mo_Steel posted:

This also holds for things like evolution, or really all of science. Can you even fathom how famous a scientist would be if they could demonstrate through evidence and testing that they have a better explanatory theory for the variety of life on the planet? Who wouldn't want to be the next Charles Darwin or Einstein or Newton?

Agreed. You don't make your name by proving Newton right, you do it by proving him wrong. If there really was this great irrefutable proof that anthropogenic climate change was so much hogwash, if it was really so easy to disprove, where are the papers saying otherwise? Where are the suspicious deaths of anti-climate change scientists? Where are the large cash payments to climate change scientists? What reason is there to believe this is a conspiracy of some sort?

# ¿ Jan 6, 2012 00:27

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

SmuglyDismissed posted:

I propose we install an electronic monitor that tracks enzymes and chemicals in the bodies of all people who receive government aid. If we detect that they may be experiencing happiness, love, excitement or anything like that we can terminate their benefits instantly. If they take MY TAX DOLLARS, they need to feed sad, hopeless and ashamed.

And perhaps give a similar device to the 1%, so that any time they are feeling at all down about having to drive a Benz instead of a Bentley they get an instant tax cut and a shot of cocaine? We must appease the job creators after all.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2012 22:12

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

The Rokstar posted:

Yeah but those are government jobs and those don't count. In fact not only do they not count but every government job (except in the DoD) is worth -1*(a private sector job).

FTFY.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2012 18:14

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Leon Einstein posted:

Give a man a meal and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Providing their basic needs doesn't teach them anything. They just have to suck it up and work hard.

drat straight! Let's expand welfare to provide education benefits as well, so these people can actually get a job that pays enough to get them out of the hole. Hell, let's start making jobs, or provide tax breaks for companies that employ poor folk to get them off welfare.

# ¿ Feb 29, 2012 23:04

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

andrew smash posted:

isn't arizona completely bankrupt? I thought I read something about how they had sold their capitol building to a private contractor then leased it back for some obscene rent and have now run through all the cash they got for it in the first place.

May be late, but they also decided to cut spending by dismantling most of their tax system, at a savings of $200K or so; they also lost $100M in taxes by doing so. And because that's not bad enough, they tried, and possibly succeeded, to ban unions and collective bargaining; those savings, I believe, helped buy back their capital. I'm going to have to pay more attention to Arizona politics, it oughta be quite a show when they finally melt down.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2012 03:12

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

quote:

Thatcher being terrible

Mock the Week on the plans for her funeral. Marvelous.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2012 23:33

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

<snip conservative fucktardery>
What people does this guy hang out with?

I'm kinda inclined to do a point-by-point, but I don't care enough to research every point. Still-

quote:

You are sure that all of your opinions are enshrined in the Constitution.
You believe that a little vote fraud from time to time isn't really a bad thing, if it advances the enlightened candidates and progressive programs you support.
You�re a big fan of the First Amendment, as long as you can ban anything you disagree with as �hate speech.�

quote:

You think the Law of Supply and Demand should be declared unconstitutional, because it is so clearly anti-progressive and hurts your quest for �Social Justice.� Maybe gravity, too.

Since I'm certain this dude is a free market whackaloon, Supply and Demand would mean no more subsidies to Big Business.

quote:

You believe that the US taxpayers should finance both countries that want to destroy us and the UN, which they use to undermine our freedom.

I didn't know we were financing anti-American countries, and even if we are, why shouldn't the US try to make more friends?

quote:

You no longer debate opposing points of view, because it�s easier and more fun to dismiss them as �liberal,� �anti-Christian,� or part of a �War on Freedom.� Or whatever the smear of the day.

You are willing to overlook any number of murders, oppression and terror by foreign despots as long as they hate Communism sufficiently.

FTFY.

quote:

You are ready to save the planet...short of personal sacrifice. But you are always okay with making others sacrifice for your goals.

This, quite honestly, is the only one I agree with. Down with slacktivists everywhere, let's get out and do something about it. OTOH, the dude making this point in the email probably supports ending welfare for everybody except him and lowering taxes for his demographic.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2012 17:13

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

ThePeteEffect posted:

Please, everyone knows conservatives don't engage in vote fraud; only mass disenfranchisement, election fraud, registration fraud, and voter intimidation.

Aye. Liberals cheat by controlling who counts the votes, and conservatives cheat by controlling who makes the votes. Everybody's a cheater.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2012 18:00

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

ThePeteEffect posted:

Nice false equivalence, in both senses of "false". Google "Kathy Nicklaus" to see why.

And election fraud has a much bigger effect on elections than any vote fraud.

I think you mean "Kathy Nickolaus", "Kathy Nicklaus" gets fairly useless results. Still, point taken, conservatives commit election fraud as well.

TBH, aside from the ACORN controversy, I haven't heard of liberals committing any kind of vote fraud, and that was drummed up to discredit evil liberals.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2012 21:22

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

One small point that I like from the Boortz bull: this is supposed to be a commencement speech, given at a university graduation, and it includes that marvelous hatred of intellectuals. "You know these people behind me, who asked me here to instill some wisdom and common sense into you young people, just going out into the world? They're a bunch of idiots who should be dumped out on their asses because academia and education is a waste of time, and you shouldn't have gone to school, you should have just gotten a job and bootstrapped your way to success." And he wonders why he never gets invited to give these sort of speeches.

# ¿ May 27, 2012 16:47

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

ultimateforce posted:

It's just so loving typical. We need to sort out the budget that means the poors have to starve. The very IDEA of taxation on the rich isn't even on the table.

We can't raise taxes on anybody, that'd ruin the economy, and we especially can't raise taxes on the rich, that'd be punishing success. Why do you hate freedom?

Y'know, if we're entitled to some kind of groveling thanks from people who take welfare (I worked hard for everything you've got, you're welcome :smug:

), then I want a letter of thanks and apology from A) every baby boomer drawing Social Security, and B) every major corporation that gets subsidies. I'm paying their salaries and benefits, after all. :smug:

VV Only moral entitlements are my entitlements and those of our ~~penis extension~~ defense forces.

# ¿ May 27, 2012 18:50

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Oxford Comma posted:

"Sheeple" but that seems to come from the Libertarians, usually preceded with the phrase "Wake up".

It always amuses me that nobody actually came up with the term sheeple themselves, they always heard about it from somebody else.

# ¿ May 28, 2012 02:06

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Dr Snofeld posted:

I heard that joke when it was about the Pope, a boy scout, and GWB. It wasn't all that funny then either.

Heard a different version of the joke that was more generic:
The president, the Pope, and the generalissimo of San Salvador are on a plane which catches fire, and there's only one parachute. President claims that he should get the parachute, as leader of the free world. Pope claims he should get it, as God's representative on Earth. Generalissimo suggests they do it democratically, each man voting for who should get the chute. The other two agree, and the generalissimo grabs the chute and jumps out, saying "I win, 16 votes to 2!"

ETA: Of course, these days Obama would beat el generalissimo to the punch, what with ACORN and all.

darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 02:12 on May 31, 2012

# ¿ May 31, 2012 02:07

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Dr Snofeld posted:

A Scotsman, Englishman, Welshman and Irishman are on a plane when one of its engines gets destroyed, and the pilot tells them that three people will have to jump out so the plane can stay in the air and the others can live.

The Irishman says "For Ireland!" and jumps out.

The Welshman says "For Wales!" and jumps out.

The Scotsman says "For Scotland!" and kicks the Englishman out.

A Californian, a Texan, and an Oregonian are trekking through the desert. Texan pulls a bottle of whisky out of his bag, takes a long drink, then throws the bottle in the air and shoots it before it hits the ground. His companions ask him why he did that, and he explains "We've got so much whiskey in Texas, we can afford to waste it." Californian, not to be outdone, takes a bottle of wine from his pack, drains most of it, then throws the bottle up and shoots it in the air. "We've got so much wine," he says. Oregonian pulls a can of Pepsi from his pack, drains it, then puts the can in his pack and shoots the Californian. "We've got so many Californians, but the can's worth a nickel".

Edit: Scotsman, Irishman, and Englishman are out walking when they find a lamp, they rub it, and a genie comes out, offers them each a wish. Irishman asks for a bottle that always has whiskey in it. Genie waves his hands, and the Irishman has an everfull bottle of whiskey, so he goes off happy. Englishman asks for a wall all around England, to keep her safe from outside threats. Genie waves his hands and POOF, giant wall around England. Englishman goes off happy. Scotsman asks the genie, "This wall, how tall is it? And how thick?" Genie answers "150 feet tall, 20 feet thick, quite marvelously impervious to everything." Scotsman says, "Fill it with water."

darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 02:45 on May 31, 2012

# ¿ May 31, 2012 02:25

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

closeted republican posted:

That's pretty much the biggest flaw with libertarian and neoliberal economics. They base their entire system on something that does not and will not exist. People will willingly go against their rational interest all the time. poo poo, even the rich will happily torch the entire economic system just to get a few extra billion dollars (see 2008). It's like they saw a hypothetical example about an utopian economic system by a few economists and thought "drat, that sounds perfect because it sounds smart!" and adopted it as the cornerstone of their economic views without reading anything else.

It amazes me that people still legitimately believe that even one rational person exists.

Of course rational people exist. Me, for starters. :spergin:

The thing that always gets me about the whole "rational homo economicus" is the idea of rational interest, what constitutes the best interests of each person. Is it not, after all, in the best interests of Wall Street to torch the economy and kill/impoverish thousands of people so they can have lots of hookers and blow? That's the greatest gain they can make, there-bloody-fore that's the rational course of action.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2012 19:14

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Sarion posted:

Except all those actions are only "rational" in the short term, because in the long view the damage they cause is bad, even for the Wall Street types and Corporations. But they do them anyways because they aren't rational.

Sez you. Those actions are perfectly rational, because they'll OD on blow or screw themselves to death well before they'd suffer the consequences of their actions, and that's assuming any consequences would ever come to pass. Massive gain, no loss, how can you get more rational than that?

-OR-

Entirely correct, that's the point.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2012 00:31

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

nm posted:

Running a small business is in no way similar to running a government. Often cutting "the fat" is cutting what government should be doing, like providing mental health care to the indigent.

I've got the inkling of an idea that helping people like that is actually good for the economy, because sane citizens spend more money and produce more wealth than mad homeless people, but I'm not sure how best to put it, especially since that argument can also be applied to the bridge to nowhere.

quote:

Also, most small businesses succeed because of luck. There's plenty of small business where the owners worked had and had a good idea that failed miserably. Which is why small businesses should support a safety net, yet they all think they will be the next Sam Walton.

I still want an explanation of that "make your problems become other peoples problems" line, but I agree. Don't remember just where it was or what the study was called, but Scandinavia, with their high taxes and wide social safety nets, actually has more/better entrepreneurs than the US, because the consequences of a failed business are much less severe.

And of course, temporarily embarrassed millionaires etc.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2012 22:30

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Actually, if you remove the "or succeed" from that shirt, it's pretty accurate. I'm willing to debate the whole "least able to lead", but nobody can deny that the government these days is run by Wall Street and Big Business, a group of people who can't make a sandwich never mind a car, and they definitely couldn't support themselves whilst maintaining their positions in the ruling class, so they support themselves by taking money from the poor workers who build everything that makes America great. Almost a good shirt.

Sarion posted:

Oh, those poor hard working "producers". Why can't they have a say in how our government is run? If only wealth was flowing into their pockets, as God intended, instead of being constantly confiscated and given to make lazy people rich!

This, but unironically.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2012 20:10

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

VideoTapir posted:

Except the division is kind of diagonal.

Was just about to say, the second graph is only slightly more accurate in that it acknowledges the existence of non-evil rich folk and non-rich parasites. Still, there are a drat sight fewer welfare queens than rich leeches, and they hold significantly less money than the evil rich folk, so the first graph is still more truthful.

Tangent: I can testify to the existence of welfare queens, I had to help take care of one last year. Woman lived the life of luxury in a crap-rear end trailer in an uncivilized part of the world, with a state-provided driver to take her to Wal-Mart since she was unable to drive herself. On the other hand she was an evil-tempered bitch with no friends whose only means of support, AFAICT, was her welfare checks. Given that welfare was the only reason she hadn't starved to death before then, her example really doesn't justify abolishing welfare.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 04:15

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Yes, it was sarcasm. Didn't think I needed to mark it as such, but Poe's Law.

Sarion posted:

It seems unlikely that TANF was her only means of income, especially if she had no dependents. She may have been on some kind of disability payments (Social Security or Employer, or both) and food stamps as well. If she really was on TANF though, she'll be in trouble when it runs out in a couple years. But if she's unable to drive herself, that really kind of screams disability. Which of course begs the question, what was the source of her disability?

In any case, she's really more of an example against welfare queens. You have these people driving around with the whole "Work Hard. Millions on Welfare are Depending on You." bumper stickers; and I just want to take those people to women like this in her crap-rear end trailer in the middle of nowhere, unable to even drive herself around, possibly living in constant pain, with no friends or human interaction and ask them if they'd like to trade lives with her.

I'm pretty sure she was diabetic, or at least overweight to the point where she had trouble walking from one end of the trailer to the other, and she may have been drawing Social Security as well. Don't know her exact situation, just that she wasn't working and probably didn't have a trust fund or anything to draw on, so probably disability or something from the state.

And yeah, she's probably the best example I can think of to counter the idea of welfare queens living an actual life of luxury. Poor old woman in a trailer park in Carson, no way for her to get around, no friends or family, just TV and a state-paid caretaker. She actually has neighbors close by, it's a fairly nice trailer park; she just has no friends because she's a cantankerous bitch.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 20:18

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

myron cope posted:

When a comment is prefaced with "I normally try to avoid political statements," is that supposed to make you think the person is deep and thoughtful and only speaks about politics when it's "important"?

Considering that I've always seen it followed by "but this is just too much", yeah, that'd be it. Of course, considering they're fighting a war for Christmas/family values/their rights, it's always important.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 01:00

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Armyman25 posted:

Aren't they leaving out the fact that inflation is a good thing if you owe money? If I have to pay off a $10,000 loan, it helps me a bunch when that $10K isn't worth as much as it used to.

Only if inflation is higher than the interest on the loan, and lenders have a lot of very clever people working hard to keep interest close to inflation.

To counteract the madness of that image, here's a better explanation: from Mint.com

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 20:41

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

What worries me is that they're simply projecting and that they assume that gays would rape men if given the opportunity because they themselves would (or do) rape women if they had the opportunity.

You're probably right about this; I recall a lot of people saying that God's wrath is the only reason they follow any kind of morality. Were it not for God they probably would rape anything they liked the look of, because God is the only morality, and atheism is just another word for Satanism.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2012 06:57

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

prom candy posted:

I wish that if you wrote an article that worried openly about the standing of white people in general you automatically woke up black and gay the next day.

"God, white people are being treated so UNFAIRLY!" - A dumb person

I've got an idea for a reality show about some Libtard or conservative who has to live on welfare/the streets long enough to either show that welfare queens aren't really a thing, or to bootstrap their way into making 30K a year from nothing. Could never be done, between the impracticalities of filming a "homeless person", and the fact that an actual temporarily embarrassed millionaire would have a head start compared to an actual lower-class individual, but it's an interesting idea.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 06:29

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Boxman posted:

This probably isn't quite the right thread for it, but as long as we're talking horrible reality TV shows....

If there's a more obvious, ridiculous example of the 1% running propaganda to show how benevolent they are even while they destroy the mechanisms that may actually help people, I can't think of it. If there's any sort of societal restructuring as a result of the meltdown of the financial system (and that's a big "if") future people are going to look back on this show with absolute disgust.

I hate it all the more because that last paragraph sounds completely .

As a matter of fact, there is a more obvious piece of propaganda, Secret Millionaire. A millionaire has to live in a low-income community for a week or so, making their way with none of the usual luxury, and seeing just how the little people really live, before outing themselves and doling out cash to worthy recipients. To make it more obvious just how propagandic this is, S3E1 in Britain starred a dude who'd made his bank investing in subprime markets and being a bastard at work.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 19:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 09:40

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

Less than 2% are picking crops but companies profited 2.36 trillion dollars off their labor? So 2% of illegal immigrants can do enough work to create 2.36 trillion dollars?

Why aren't we using this to its full potential?!

Because that's not what they're saying. Companies whose employee rosters include illegals at some level have profited by $2.3T, including but by no means limited to the well-known work of illegals in agriculture. Really, most of those profits were the result of white people's labours, not the shiftless Mexicans who're overpaid at $1 a day.

Unless you're as serious as I am, in which case I need to get my sarcasm meter fixed.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2012 08:15

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

«‹›16 »