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.

«‹›2805 »

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

What was essentially an email forward/Facebook post got printed in the letters section of my paper today, ugh. Won't type up the whole entire drat thing.

quote:

Lame duck session is dangerous

Our congressmen are busy at work during this lame duck session trying to pass as many things as possible. Please be aware of some dangerous things they want to pass.

Senate Bill SB510, The Food Safety Bill. This bill would make farmer's markets illegal as well. [lengthy and uninformed diatribe, including such phrases as "This massive expansion of government regulation of the food industry, completely unauthorized by the Constitution, would limit the right to produce, distribute, and consume the foods of one's labor and choice."]
...
HR4646. This is a House bill and will charge a fee for any type of banking transaction. This will be voted on by Dec. 23.

Please contact your legislators and tell them "no" on these bills along with the START Treaty that the Senate needs to ratify. Social networks are a great way to learn about these bills. If you would like to be updated on these types of notices please contact me at [yes she included her email] and I can then friend you on Facebook.

Anyone want her email to get updated on these notices?

# ? Nov 22, 2010 21:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 06:49

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

ljw1004 posted:

Gee I hate this attitude. I hate that people vote for their own interests. I think you should vote for the interests of the disadvantaged people in society.

If everyone voted for their own interests then our political system would be about a trillion times better than it is now. But thanks for the platitude.

# ? Nov 22, 2010 23:21

ljw1004: Jan 18, 2005; rum

Omerta posted:

If everyone voted for their own interests then our political system would be about a trillion times better than it is now. But thanks for the platitude.

Why do you think that? I disagree...

(1) If everyone voted for their own interests then there'd be no policy horizon longer than 80 years. For instance, keeping a healthy environment for future generations doesn't serve any voter's interests.

(2) Any party with a platform of the form "Take everything away from group X including their votes and give it to group Y" would win if Y had a majority and they all voted for their own interests. (In the next election, "take everything away from group Y1 and give it to group Y2" would also win...)

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:02

Habibi: Dec 8, 2004; We have the capability to make San Jose's first Cup Champion.

The Sharks could be that Champion.

ljw1004 posted:

Why do you think that? I disagree...

Probably because it would result in a system where people vote for their own interest, as opposed to what we have now, where people vote for the interests of various corporate groups and against the interest of themselves and the vast majority of their fellow citizens. It probably wouldn't be MUCH better, but it's hard to imagine such a system being in any way worse...

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:08

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

BMB5150 posted:

Had one lovely facebook status that made me . He's a really nice guy and always happy but he's way too christian for me to even bare.

Didn't bother to respond since it would just lead to bitchfest and I've had my many arguments with conservatives and every time I have them cornered on an argument, they change the subject, and still be hard headed, even though I gave them the proof I find.

Oh come on they're totally similar, here's some similarities:

But seriously what the gently caress is wrong with people?

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:37

Grem: Mar 29, 2004; It's how her species communicates

Saint Sputnik posted:

Social networks are a great way to learn about these bills.

Hahhaha, the newspaper actually printed that?

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:48

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

Someone correct me if I'm wrong:

The new START would lower the amount of nukes the US and Russia has in order to improve foreign relations. Why is this a bad thing? Why should they vote 'no'?

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:49

Nucleic Acids: Apr 10, 2007

crime fighting hog posted:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong:

The new START would lower the amount of nukes the US and Russia has in order to improve foreign relations. Why is this a bad thing? Why should they vote 'no'?

Because arms control doesn't work, and you need to have a big stick, and...

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:51

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

Grem posted:

Hahhaha, the newspaper actually printed that?

Yeah the paper butchered one of my articles the same day.

Well not butchered but they inserted a comma where it shouldn't have been, so close enough.

Oh they put the letter online; they're bad about matching online with print content.

Bonus cranky letter about a Halloween wedding.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 00:54

hey mom its 420: May 12, 2007

ljw1004 posted:

Why do you think that? I disagree...

(1) If everyone voted for their own interests then there'd be no policy horizon longer than 80 years. For instance, keeping a healthy environment for future generations doesn't serve any voter's interests.

(2) Any party with a platform of the form "Take everything away from group X including their votes and give it to group Y" would win if Y had a majority and they all voted for their own interests. (In the next election, "take everything away from group Y1 and give it to group Y2" would also win...)

The thing is that most people actively vote against their interests. They just don't know it. Sure, voting for the interests of the most disadvantaged would be ideal, but just having people vote for their own interests instead of the interests of the elite would be a huge step forward.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 01:01

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

Saint Sputnik posted:

Bonus cranky letter about a Halloween wedding.

Hey, Ruth? Bleeding hearts are for LIEberals, not Good Christians, dontchaknow? What are you, some kind of Commie?

# ? Nov 23, 2010 01:02

crime fighting hog: Jun 29, 2006; I only pray, Heaven knows when to lift you out

Saint Sputnik posted:

Yeah the paper butchered one of my articles the same day.

Well not butchered but they inserted a comma where it shouldn't have been, so close enough.

Wait till your editor misspells your headline for you. That was a fun day. "HEY CRIME, DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO SPELL BANANA? AHAHA"

# ? Nov 23, 2010 01:08

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

crime fighting hog posted:

Wait till your editor misspells your headline for you. That was a fun day. "HEY CRIME, DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO SPELL BANANA? AHAHA"

Never have to write my own headlines, and thank God coz I am no good at it.

I've been trying to look into the facts about the food safety bill but not finding explicit refutations. Only that they're considering exemptions for farmer's market type stuff, which is a big thing around here.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 01:13

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

ljw1004 posted:

Why do you think that? I disagree...

(1) If everyone voted for their own interests then there'd be no policy horizon longer than 80 years. For instance, keeping a healthy environment for future generations doesn't serve any voter's interests.

(2) Any party with a platform of the form "Take everything away from group X including their votes and give it to group Y" would win if Y had a majority and they all voted for their own interests. (In the next election, "take everything away from group Y1 and give it to group Y2" would also win...)

(1) Self-interest doesn't mean a purely hedonic short term viewpoint. You presume that people only have a destructive self-interest within their lifetime. I have an interest in preserving a high-quality environment for my children and future generations. I'm sure that sounds watery here, but providing a good future to a child is a very compelling motivation. Environmental issues like water shortages and air quality are going to start occurring with more frequency due to prior generations' activities. At least to some degree, environmental problems on a grand scale are going to occur within the next 80 years.

(2) This is a strawman of what I was saying. It's not a good idea to sequester large swathes of the population for very short term gains. See Iraqi history. What your prior post was advocating (implicitly) was "Take large amounts from group X (top 1% income earners) and give it to group Y (non-1%)." There is a fine philosophical difference between disenfranchise the rich and reduce their influence to a generally proportionate degree. My point was, to quote Steinbeck, that poor people in the United States view themselves not as the proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The vast majority of the U.S. desires a more egalitarian society that's not built on financial manipulation of assets that may or may not exist.

If people voted in their self interest, then the Republicans would never win a debate on fiscal policy. Ever. For example, the Bush tax cuts would expire by an overwhelming margin (about 1.5% in favor of maintaining the top tax break) instead of the current clusterfuck.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 01:17

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

Saint Sputnik posted:

Never have to write my own headlines, and thank God coz I am no good at it.

I've been trying to look into the facts about the food safety bill but not finding explicit refutations. Only that they're considering exemptions for farmer's market type stuff, which is a big thing around here.

I actually posted about this on the page before last [A Facebook friend was ranting about it]. Snopes has a good article on it.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 01:50

TGLT: Aug 14, 2009

crime fighting hog posted:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong:

The new START would lower the amount of nukes the US and Russia has in order to improve foreign relations. Why is this a bad thing? Why should they vote 'no'?

I think you fail to understand how important it is to throw money into an arsenal that could destroy the world many times over. This is a very important use of our money instead, say, healthcare or welfare.

Also Russians.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 02:37

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

crime fighting hog posted:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong:

The new START would lower the amount of nukes the US and Russia has in order to improve foreign relations. Why is this a bad thing? Why should they vote 'no'?

Well, to start with, Russia. It really comes down to this cold-war ideology that we have to have more nukes than anyone else, or else they'll launch nuclear winter. It's not grounded even remotely in reality, since just a few nukes could wipe out Russia, let alone the 1,200 we have.

FURTHER, and this is the one that'll shock the shorts off of any conservative you tell it to, but Russia has ALWAYS had more nukes than us, just about. To this day, we have 1,200, they have 1,400, last time I checked. Rough figures, but you get the idea.

Also, and this is just what I've heard, haven't actually read into it, but I think part of the new START thing is that Obama would get rid of our nukes... and then rebuild them with newer nukes, thus satisfying Russia because we technically got rid of them, AND the nutso conservatives.

However, nutso consevatives don't really care how much Obama does exactly what they want, they're still going to call him a terrorist Muslim because it's what Fox says to do.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 02:44

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

XyloJW posted:

FURTHER, and this is the one that'll shock the shorts off of any conservative you tell it to, but Russia has ALWAYS had more nukes than us, just about. To this day, we have 1,200, they have 1,400, last time I checked. Rough figures, but you get the idea.

I hope you don't actually tell them that...

# ? Nov 23, 2010 04:46

RogueTrick: Oct 27, 2006; Reverend to the Pirate Nation

Omerta posted:

(1) Self-interest doesn't mean a purely hedonic short term viewpoint. You presume that people only have a destructive self-interest within their lifetime. I have an interest in preserving a high-quality environment for my children and future generations. I'm sure that sounds watery here, but providing a good future to a child is a very compelling motivation. Environmental issues like water shortages and air quality are going to start occurring with more frequency due to prior generations' activities. At least to some degree, environmental problems on a grand scale are going to occur within the next 80 years.

(2) This is a strawman of what I was saying. It's not a good idea to sequester large swathes of the population for very short term gains. See Iraqi history. What your prior post was advocating (implicitly) was "Take large amounts from group X (top 1% income earners) and give it to group Y (non-1%)." There is a fine philosophical difference between disenfranchise the rich and reduce their influence to a generally proportionate degree. My point was, to quote Steinbeck, that poor people in the United States view themselves not as the proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The vast majority of the U.S. desires a more egalitarian society that's not built on financial manipulation of assets that may or may not exist.

If people voted in their self interest, then the Republicans would never win a debate on fiscal policy. Ever. For example, the Bush tax cuts would expire by an overwhelming margin (about 1.5% in favor of maintaining the top tax break) instead of the current clusterfuck.

Yeah, but pure self interest can be an argument for pure utilitarianism. And pure utilitarianism can lead to an argument for low scale, true slavery. So that's a pretty mixed bag argument.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 05:38

Angry Avocado: Jun 6, 2010

I think the major problem with democracy is the fact that the voters are uninformed and easily misguided, not whether or not they vote for their own interests - that's what democracy is about, majority rules.

It would also help if the majority did actually vote. IIRC the lower class is underrepresented with voter-turnout.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 08:04

York_M_Chan: Sep 11, 2003

^^^^ I actually disagree. I think a vast majority of voters don't believe the hype. They may not be as well-informed as they should be, but for the bullet-points that matter to them, they do pay attention and do the research. They also don't send their relatives e-mail violently expressing their stance, either.

I don't know if this is the same for everyone else, but I find that the few angry America #1 anti-communist hyper-christian friends that I have on FB are also the ones that post videos of elephants eating their own poo poo and guys getting hit in the balls with random objects.

York_M_Chan fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 23, 2010

# ? Nov 23, 2010 18:13

Habibi: Dec 8, 2004; We have the capability to make San Jose's first Cup Champion.

The Sharks could be that Champion.

York_M_Chan posted:

^^^^ I actually disagree. I think a vast majority of voters don't believe the hype. They may not be as well-informed as they should be, but for the bullet-points that matter to them, they do pay attention and do the research. They also don't send their relatives e-mail violently expressing their stance, either.

It seems to me that most voting statistics would disagree with this notion. I'd be surprised if the portion of voters who actually were well educated even on those 'bullet point' issues of critical important to them was larger than a small minority of the total.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 18:24

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

Facebook status making the rounds:

quote:

Dear Mr. President, I hear you would like to freeze US military pay rates, starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save much more money for our country? While you're at it, let's cut down each congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why would we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? Repost if you agree

This is in reference to the deficit commission draft report released by two of it's members, one D and one R.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 18:35

York_M_Chan: Sep 11, 2003

Habibi posted:

It seems to me that most voting statistics would disagree with this notion. I'd be surprised if the portion of voters who actually were well educated even on those 'bullet point' issues of critical important to them was larger than a small minority of the total.

Perhaps I give the public more credit than they are due. That is probably it. Wishful thinking I guess.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 18:43

Alastor_the_Stylish: Jul 25, 2006; WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

Zeitgueist posted:

Facebook status making the rounds:

This is in reference to the deficit commission draft report released by two of it's members, one D and one R.

We could just make the top .2% of the wealthy pay their fair share and then everyone in the military can get a raise!

# ? Nov 23, 2010 18:47

MrNemo: Aug 26, 2010; "I just love beeting off"

It's from Glenn Beck's call for all federal employees to be paid no more than the average US citizen (because all federal employees are useless government teat suckers and not hard working millionaires like him). Which as someone pointed out was also one of the big ideas to come out of the Paris commune so heavily praised by Marx and Lenin.

So if you guys want to have fun you can respond to those guys that if Lenin thought it was a good idea they must be on to something.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 18:51

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

MrNemo posted:

So if you guys want to have fun you can respond to those guys that if Lenin thought it was a good idea they must be on to something.

Got a link for that? It don't disbelieve you, but I like sources.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 19:07

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

Zeitgueist posted:

Got a link for that? It don't disbelieve you, but I like sources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/glenn-beck-promotes-socia_b_785797.html

# ? Nov 23, 2010 19:17

Angry Avocado: Jun 6, 2010

Yeah, equal pay for everyone is kind of a communist idea, you don't need sources to know that. It's kind of one of the main characteristics of communism. (Thanks for posting that link nonetheless, though

)

# ? Nov 23, 2010 19:54

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

It's not that I was not aware of the idea that government solidarity with labor wages was a socialist idea, it's that I wanted to actually see more about it.

Thanks for the link.

# ? Nov 23, 2010 20:00

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

MrNemo posted:

It's from Glenn Beck's call for all federal employees to be paid no more than the average US citizen (because all federal employees are useless government teat suckers and not hard working millionaires like him). Which as someone pointed out was also one of the big ideas to come out of the Paris commune so heavily praised by Marx and Lenin.

So if you guys want to have fun you can respond to those guys that if Lenin thought it was a good idea they must be on to something.

That is fun.

This is all part of making government dysfunction a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If they cut pay to the "average" US citizen for jobs that require much more skill and work than the average job, they will get the worst workers. Which will result in worse government. Which will prove that government sucks and the private sector is better.

# ? Nov 24, 2010 17:36

Deuce: Jun 18, 2004; Mile High Club

MrNemo posted:

It's from Glenn Beck's call for all federal employees to be paid no more than the average US citizen (because all federal employees are useless government teat suckers and not hard working millionaires like him). Which as someone pointed out was also one of the big ideas to come out of the Paris commune so heavily praised by Marx and Lenin.

So if you guys want to have fun you can respond to those guys that if Lenin thought it was a good idea they must be on to something.

Yes. Air traffic controllers at O'Hare should definitely make ~40k/year. That will definitely attract people qualified enough to handle the lives of hundreds of thousands of people per day!

# ? Nov 25, 2010 05:24

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Deuce posted:

Yes. Air traffic controllers at O'Hare should definitely make ~40k/year. That will definitely attract people qualified enough to handle the lives of hundreds of thousands of people per day!

Well surely the free market can handle it better and pay these people more if it is such a tough job. Don't you know anything about anything!

# ? Nov 25, 2010 15:17

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

Mooseontheloose posted:

Well surely the free market can handle it better and pay these people more if it is such a tough job. Don't you know anything about anything!

Airports that pay their air traffic controllers poorly will get poor air traffic controllers. Consumers will learn which airports have more aircraft mid-air collisions and avoid going to those destinations!

# ? Nov 25, 2010 17:02

chesh: Apr 19, 2004; That was terrible.

RagnarokAngel posted:

...augh.

I'm still catching up on this thread, but can anyone tell me where:

quote:

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean.
You may be a Muslim

loving comes from? I mean, seriously.

# ? Nov 26, 2010 09:47

AKA Pseudonym: May 16, 2004; A dashing and sophisticated young man; Doctor Rope

chesh posted:

I'm still catching up on this thread, but can anyone tell me where:

loving comes from? I mean, seriously.

In the absence of anything else Muslims traditionally use water and their left hand to wipe themselves. The Koran spells out a few guidelines for doing this and for avoiding the use of the left hand for other things.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness

"Amongst Muslims, and in some societies including Nepal and India, it is customary to use the left hand for cleaning oneself with water after defecating. The right hand is commonly known in contradistinction from the left, as the hand used for eating"

I would imagine that the practice has largely died out since toilet paper has been been made widely available.

# ? Nov 26, 2010 13:37

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

chesh posted:

I'm still catching up on this thread, but can anyone tell me where:

loving comes from? I mean, seriously.

Mainly it is from living in the desert where there aren't a lot of trees or leaves to wipe with.

# ? Nov 26, 2010 15:05

Patter Song: Mar 26, 2010; Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.; Fun Shoe

AKA Pseudonym posted:

In the absence of anything else Muslims traditionally use water and their left hand to wipe themselves. The Koran spells out a few guidelines for doing this and for avoiding the use of the left hand for other things.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness

"Amongst Muslims, and in some societies including Nepal and India, it is customary to use the left hand for cleaning oneself with water after defecating. The right hand is commonly known in contradistinction from the left, as the hand used for eating"

I would imagine that the practice has largely died out since toilet paper has been been made widely available.

I have several friends from the Arab world (including a very good friend from Syria) and she says that they mostly now use bidets over there.

# ? Nov 26, 2010 19:38

Imaduck: Apr 16, 2007; the magnetorotational instability turns me on

Because you know, there aren't any Muslims who live in the US or Europe or anything...

# ? Nov 26, 2010 22:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 06:49

BonoMan: Feb 20, 2002; Jade Ear Joe

Imaduck posted:

Because you know, there aren't any Muslims who live in the US or Europe or anything...

Those are called Terrorists. Duh.

# ? Nov 27, 2010 02:10

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

«‹›2805 »