KKKLIP ART posted:A wild post came in! Quick, someone make one that says "If you support the right to carry, you should support the right to [smoke pot/patronize prostitutes/build a mosque at Ground Zero]. Civil rights for all!" I've been up for, like, 30 hours and I'd just botch the job.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:35 |
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:No, that guy to the right is obviously a job creator. He's being taxed so gosh darn much that his family often has to literally go hungry on occasion. There's no such thing as a difficult minimum wage job because the world is just. My first thought was, "Guy on the right can afford to eat out." I don't see a downtrodden taxpayer, I see a guy who is too loving lazy to cook and has the bankroll to just eat out whenever he's hungry.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 06:55
|
|
Ramadu posted:I was listening to NPR a while back and they had on Science Friday a researcher who was seeing positive reversal of the damage caused by Alzheimers and was hopeful for a cure to be synthesized.........if the cure wasn't using heavy metals and was incredibly toxic to humans and would kill you and did kill the rats. But it's progress! Alzheimer's, and the somewhat related Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, leave literal holes in your brain. It's not like having a cold where, once you rid yourself of the problem organism, you get better. Anytime someone claims to be fixing holes in the human brain, I get pretty skeptical.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 07:55
|
|
McDowell posted:Speaking of Bush here's something topical. I'm half Slovenian, and I barely know where Slovenia is. I think most Slovenians hardly knew where Slovenia was for much of the last century. My grandfather is from Slovenia. My grandfather and his two brothers were all born in the same house, in three different countries. Given Bush's vast array of actual faults, I don't think not knowing where Slovenia is rates as particularly noteworthy. Edit: Spangly A posted:Now if you tried an outright ban or removing my cigarettes, I know it's a good idea in theory, but I'm pretty sure I'd flip the gently caress out. No, it's a horrible idea both in theory and in practice. Regulation has flaws, but prohibition is a loving calamity. You'd think we'd have figured that out, by now, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 15:24
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Guess we better ban cigarettes, then. After all, a parent's alcohol use has never harmed their children. You must be awfully strong to move those big, heavy goalposts so quickly. Why would you even bother with such an asinine and obviously worthless argument? "Well, B is bad, so let's make a mocking comparison to A." It would have been easier to just say, "Good point, that little rant of mine was kid of stupid."
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 03:42
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:The last time I heard someone say "taxation is theft" I straight up replied "Yeah, so?" This of course prompted "B-but don't you care? Theft is bad!" I responded that just like killing someone is not bad in all situations (such as self-defense) so too is theft not bad in all situations. Then they got mad and called me a statist idiot, which was pretty much going to happen no matter what I said, so it saved me a lot of time and energy. Oh, man, I like (a modified version) of this idea. "Taxation is theft." "Capital punishment is murder." Then watch the contortions as they try to explain why theft is not OK, but murder is. Twelve by Pies posted:... I was dogpiled on by multiple people who said that there is absolutely nothing racist about someone saying "The UK should close off its borders because the foreigners are taking our jobs and destroying our culture." There's not; that is clearly xenophobic.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 10:54
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Were the assassins black? Muslims? Black muslims? Redundant in many American minds.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:They're biceps dude. Big manly biceps. Then they need more veins.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 12:28
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:it came from facebook Sometimes, I really wonder if some of those posts are just expert trolls stirring up poo poo with the Freepers. I mean, "This well-dressed black woman offered to do odd jobs for me, so I called the police in fear for my life," is just so ludicrous that it's difficult to take at face value. I'm reminded also of the guy from a couple of weeks back who posted a story that boiled down to, "I parked between two other cars who were there before me and considered setting my dogs loose/opening fire on the occupants of the other two vehicles because they were sort of young." These can't all be real, can they? (They can  )
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 16:50
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:I've met the guy in question and can assure you he's 100% in earnest. I wonder how many of these people are walking around in a bubble of fear that everyone who doesn't look like them, or speaks a different language, is out to get them, and how many are walking around in a bubble of fantasy, imagining themselves as untested heroes, waiting for the opportunity to thwart evildoers and bask in the glory and appreciation of the populace. Dave Barry once wrote a funny (of course) essay about the humor-impaired individuals he deals with as a professional humor writer. He included a "test," wherein in he made a joke about Nixon, then asked you to observe your reaction: "Did you think: 'Ha ha! That Nixon sure is a geek, all right!' Or did you think: 'This is offensive, cheap, crude and vicious humor, making fun of a former president of the United States, a major public figure, an internationally recognized elder statesman, just because he is a geek.'" The point was, if you had either of those reactions, you're not humor-impaired, because you at least recognize that it's supposed to be a joke. The number of Freepers who both fail to recognize humor in the statements of others, and fail to recognize the pure ridiculousness of their own statements us staggering. It reminds of Tobias Funke's homosexual innuendo on Arrested Development: how the hell are they not hearing it?
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I love how they pretend "accept a lower profit margin" is not an option. As if, every business has a set amount of profit that they are entitled to, and and going from a 14% profit margin to a 12% profit margin is going to cause business owners to just walk away en masse. Especially considering that employee wages are only about 18% of retail operating costs. I couldn't find anything on bakeries, in particular, but most manufacturing gigs were in the 20ish percent range. Dr. Arbitrary posted:Best case scenario, your boss is understanding and offers a small increase to offset the price increase, maybe a few more dollars a day at best. What's most likely to happen is that they'll laugh and say that it's your problem, not theirs. The bootstrap crowd accepts that argument for literally every cost of business except employee compensation. Your suppliers jacked up their prices? Too bad, if you close up shop some other, better businessman will step into your space. The landlord tripled your rent, and you can't afford it? Tough poo poo, it's his land and if you can't afford to pay the price set by the market, someone else will. Walmart opened up in your neighborhood and your mom-and-pop hardware store is going under? Oh, well, Sam Walton was a genius, and it's your own fault if you can't compete. Your employees want to earn enough money to eat every single day of the week and maybe even have a roof over their heads? HOLY gently caress, IT'S SOME SORT OF LIBERAL NAZI FASCIST COMMIE MUSLIM PLOT TO DESTROY WEALTH BECAUSE LIEBERALS HATE RICH PEOPLE OH JESUS IT'S NOT FAIR THE PRICE OF BIG MACS WILL GO UP BY A QUARTER THOSE POOR FRANCHISE OWNER PRODUCERS WHO DRIVE THE GREATEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD WON'T BE ABLE TO SURVIVE BECAUSE THE POORS WHO DON'T DO ANYTHING BUT PUT PICKLES ON BUNS ARE DEMANDING OUTRAGEOUS COMPENSATION THAT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE FIRST WORLD ALREADY FORCES THOSE SAME EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE BUT IT WON'T WORK HERE BECAUSE REASONS AND OBUMMER AND AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH, AMEN.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 23:15
|
|
1stGear posted:Very few people these days realize that the Watergate scandal went beyond Nixon ordered some people to burgle a hotel room. As if a sitting president ordering the burgling of his opponent's property is not enough in and of itself. I hear the whole Watergate thing downplayed by conservatives pretty regularly, usually followed by mention of some (actually) minor, or wholly invented, issue from either Clinton's or Obama's administration. There's absolutely no sense of perspective. "All Nixon did was personally order a little bit of burglary, and possible had G. Gordon Liddy murder political opponents. Obama's IRS targeted conservative political groups and stopped them from falsely obtaining 501(c) tax exempt status, THAT'S the real crime!!!!1!" It's like conservative can look at a super-tanker and a bathtub toy boat and say, "Eh, they're about the same size." toanoradian posted:What do all those people complaining about Obama taking vacations and using taxpayer money to fund his massive spending addiction want with Obama? Do they want Obama to not take vacations unless the vacation aims toward solving US problems? Is Obama only allowed to spend the riches he had obtained before he became a President if he's not spending it towards solving the national debt? This one gets stale so fast. I have a conservative friend who is still harping on this. At one point - I swear - he quoted to me that Obama had spent something like forty-two billion dollars on vacations. I asked him where he had heard such a fantastically stupid number and walked him through the math sowing that Obama would have to have spent $30,000,000 per day on vacationing for every day of his presidency at the time for that to be true. I don't understand how anyone could swallow such an obvious falsehood about anything without his bullshit detector going nuts. I mean, it's just not within the realm of possibility, no matter how much you dislike the guy. He no longer quotes actual numbers, just continually tells me that Obama has spent more days on vacation than any other president in the history of our country.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 05:12
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I think I'd just rub his nose in the $42B every time he has an opinion. "Hey, remember when you were an idiot for believing that $42 billion thing? You still haven't fixed the problem." He's a pretty good friend and I'd like to keep him. Also, I still hold out hope for a conversion, or at least a lessening of his more ignorant beliefs, and when you continually poo poo on a person, all you do is guarantee that he digs in his heels.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 14:57
|
|
menino posted:Has anyone tried to teach the new method? Can it be done within a reasonable timeframe versus the old method? Parents Against Common Core just go I don't know anything about this "new" method, and the bit I saw earlier in the thread looked pretty loving stupid to me, but I know enough to know that I don't know poo poo about how to teach math to kids. One of the most glaring flaws in Freepers seems to be that they have no idea exactly it is they don't know. On top of that, is their bizarre inability to see that just because something was done some particular way in 19xx does not mean that it should continue to be that way for the rest of eternity. It's so bizarre to watch how they totally flip out at nearly every societal change of any kind, yet they don't seem to be in a hurry to give up their plasma televisions, cell phones, and SUVs. I don't think "conservative" is accurate. I think the proper term is somewhere between "stationary" and "regressive."
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 14:58
|
|
over anything that's remotely new for ARE CHILDRENS, but I can see a 2nd grade teacher with a 80% reduced-lunch class looking at that and going 'gently caress this'
borkencode posted:My motivation for engaging the crazies I know on facebook is to provide a second voice to be heard by everyone else. I know I'm not likely to change the minds of most people, but if I can make a well reasoned argument hopefully someone on the sidelines will get the message. Thank you for posting this, because it is a good point and one that is easy to forget. It's tempting to say, "gently caress it, I can't change his mind," and move on, but that just allows misinformation to spread unchecked. If one viewpoint dominates the debate, it gains apparent legitimacy by pure volume.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 14:54
|
|
inkblot posted:Don't bother actually bringing up facts, they won't take. Dave Ramsey, who is generally OK to listen to when he sticks to investment advice and keeps his trap shut about politics, went apeshit a few months back over a study published in some journal or another by some professor of something or other. The data gathered by the study showed that although hard work, and good planning, and all those things help maximize your chances for success (measured by wealth), the single biggest factor in going from zero to wealthy was simple luck. I don't remember the specific breakdowns, now, but when starting personal wealth, family wealth, and other such factors were taken into account, the gap between failure and wild success came down largely to factors that are simply beyond your control, like accidentally stepping on the foot of some guy at Starbucks who turns out to be an angel investor who goes wild for your idea, which has already been rejected by the other thousand venture capitalists you approached. This study did not in any way imply that luck was the only factor, it just showed what everybody with any sense already knows, which is that economic success is not a simple matter of "work harder = more money." Anyway, Dave just ranted and raved about how "stupid," the study was, his entire argument coming down to, "Obviously this study is bullshit." At no point did Ramsey address a single actual claim from the study (except to say its basic conclusion was stupid/wrong/retarded), or refute a single data point presented by the study, or even question the methodology; he just declared the study "wrong." I've heard him do this a few times, seemingly whenever there's hard data that disagrees with the view he wants to push. Dave Ramsey always spouts off about how many years he's been doing his financial gig, and questions the study publisher's expertise in economics, or investment counseling, or whatever place he thinks it is vulnerable. Ramsey's audience practically worships him, and he may have strict call screening, because never once have I heard anybody get on the air and ask, "What do you know about conducting, correcting, and analyzing studies involving thousands of data sources and hundreds of variables?" Ramsey often implies that the author of any study, article, or paper he disagrees with is wrong because the author doesn't have enough knowledge of Ramsey's field, but he never addresses his own expertise, or lack thereof, that qualifies him to judge the studies he is poo-pooing.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 18:03
|
|
Sardine Wit posted:Can you imagine how much right wing blogs would poo poo themselves if Obama introduced a compulsory universal ID card. That was one of my first thoughts, as well. The Federal government is one whiff of brimstone shy of being Satan according to much of the right, so how can they seriously use the Mexican ID card as an example of something good? Also: Mexico. Does the conservative community actually believe Mexico is an example of democracy done right, and fraud contained? Actually, given Mexico's reputation for letting the rich buy their way out of everything from traffic tickets to murder charges (money makes right), maybe that is exactly what they think. I've stopped more than one ID argument cold by agreeing, yes, we absolutely should require valid ID to vote, and that valid ID and all documents necessary to obtain said ID, should be provided free of charge. That's pretty much a show-stopper, because my opponent is never going to admit that the real reason his side wants to require ID is to stop poor minorities from voting.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 03:00
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't understand why "oh, so a business run by Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to forbid their employees' health insurance from covering blood transfusions" doesn't end the debate. Here's why: If you want birth control, don't work for Catholics, and if you want blood transfusions, don't work for Jehovah's Witnesses. Edit: skipThings posted:Yeah, like Buddhist countries don't have armies. Do you actually misunderstand the argument so badly that you think that's relevant, or do you just like to make dismissive comments? Or, maybe I need a McBain image, here. Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 20:01
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's very likely a legal requirement, and it's probably also a legal requirement that notice be given of the policy. Bear in mind that the substances in question are likely to effect fetal development. It's not specifically targeting poor folks or anything, it's a child protective policy. I actually don't see much objectionable about it. So, the part where this is likely to be a deterrent to the mother and fetus receiving proper prenatal care is not objectionable to you? The developing babies who need care the most will be least likely to receive it, creating an even more tragic situation, to little or no benefit. If you think this will deter substance abuse, you lack a basic understanding of addiction. If you think expectant parents will just say, "gently caress it, it's only our child," you lack a basic understanding of human beings.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 05:57
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Pre-natal care seems meaningless if you know the child is being constantly poisoned thoughout the pregnancy. Except, it's not. Whatever the danger to the baby, that danger is worse without proper medical care. You wouldn't say, "Well, with AIDS ravaging your body, medical treatment seems meaningless," because a lack of proper care makes the situation worse, even if it's bad to start with.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 07:16
|
|
borkencode posted:I like the top comment on it though: Yes, and when you exit your house, you leave the fire extinguisher hanging on the wall where it belongs. When you're out in public, you leave the firefighting to the professionals we pay to handle it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 18:02
|
|
KodiakRS posted:
Wow, that line about "an uppity black woman" is amazing. If there's a political party that has a reputation for sexism and racism, it's definitely the Democrats. It's not like the Republican party has a history of embracing extremist nationalist and separatist groups, and gonzo caricature racist politicians. After all, David Duke and Strom Thurmond were Democrats. You know, until they realized they could never be successful crazy racists as Democrats and jumped ship to the Republican party, where they stayed. It's funny, by which I mean disgusting and pathetic, the way the Republicans pretend the parties exist as they did pre-1948 whenever they want to show how much they love minorities. If you have to keep referring to things as they were sixty years ago to defend your current positions, you may want to ask why you don't have anything a little more recent to point to.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 08:36
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
Conservatives are 100% fine with this exact type of "choice" when it's "They can work 80 hours per week for $2 per hour or they can starve."
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 15:23
|
|
VideoTapir posted:It's spite that makes me want no one to have the power to buy legislators (for instance)? If you are suffering from cancer or some other horrible disease, you may very well envy people for their lack of cancer. If you come home to a terrible spouse whose actions make your life miserable, you may envy your unmarried neighbors. If you are being crushed under a mountain of debt... well, you get the picture.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 15:37
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"Nobody at all, including me, should have enough money that it gives them the ability to rig the system" isn't envy. While there are those that are, in fact, envious of the rich not everybody speaking out against the hoarding of vast fortunes is envious. Meanwhile, "I would like my job to pay enough that I can eat well and have a place to live" isn't envious. We live in a country where the minimum wage is not a living wage. The obscenely rich are using their wealth to pillage the country and gently caress everybody else over. Generally speaking, people aren't talking about envy in this case but rather "I would very much like to not starve to death, thanks." I don't disagree with anything in your post, and I am not sure how what I wrote could be interpreted to mean that I do. I disagree that human beings cannot be envious of the lack of a possession or quality, so I dropped a couple of examples.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 17:46
|
|
Mornacale posted:Because if you are not in danger of starving to death there's no motivation to have a life that's better than chattel slavery! Unless you are exceptionally wealthy, at which point taking anything away from you kills your motivation to excel and produce wealth.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 22:22
|
|
Badera posted:And got this in return: This would be true if it weren't completely false. The "job creator" did not put one bit of effort into creating jobs. He put a ton of effort (maybe) into obtaining wealth for himself, which he almost certainly would not share with anyone if he had the choice, and a side-effect of that is job creation. Why is job creation a side effect of people making themselves rich? Because becoming wealthy cannot happen without the skills and labor of others. If he had his way, he'd be paying me $.50 an hour. Stop acting like he's doing me some kind of goddamn favor, he needs me. Saying some business owner worked to create jobs is like saying someone filling up at a gas station is paying $4 per gallon to heat his tires. The two are linked, but that's not why you're doing what you're doing.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:15
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:OP is some girl I knew in High School. We should put together a goon audio theater troupe to do dramatic readings of these Facebook arguments.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
It's a good thing conservatives have long been opposed to a system that allows businesses to fire employees at any time for any reason with no compensation and no recourse. Otherwise, it would be sort of hypocritical for them to complain about things like this.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 22:37
|
|
SedanChair posted:Has there ever been a poll asking people "does the first amendment protect people from being fired for expressing their opinion?" Probably dozens, but it doesn't matter. Polls are only accurate when they say what you already believe. Otherwise, they are biased, or the people who answered are idiots.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
zeroprime posted:If 70K a year isn't enough, her husband could just choose other jobs, other careers, other lifestyles. It sounds like it's really easy from what she said about people who work at walmart. Yeah, I don't understand this complaint at all. The only thing keeping them at their lousy $70k income is their own lack of ambition. If they really want more money, all they need to do is get higher-paying jobs. Edit: Accidentally mixed two charts from the IRS site. They would actually bring home about 500% of their lower income, not 660%. Still not even REMOTELY close to losing money by earning more. Oh, wait, that doesn't make sense. It must be those lousy poors stopping these people from moving out of their double-wide. Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 08:31 on May 10, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 03:19
|
|
Dystram posted:It really sucks that almost no one knows how progressive/graduated income tax works. It does, and it leads to a lot of whining about "losing" money by "producing" more. However, I screwed up by reading two different things from the IRS site in the post you quoted. The couple would actually bring home a bit under 500% of their current income by moving up the $400,000. Edit: ^^ It should also be noted that these are income tax numbers. People earning half a million bucks per year are probably a teeny bit less likely to be collecting most of that through paychecks. I know income tax covers more than paychecks from your employer, before anyone gets upset with me. Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 08:42 on May 10, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 08:33
|
|
Spangly A posted:"A Texas family values organization has reported this ordinance will have all the following effects: This leapt out at me, too. These men, who your political party trusts with unfettered access to firearms, cannot be trusted to not turn unisex bathrooms into carnival tents of rape and child molestation. Also, last time I checked, children already use adult bathrooms, even men's rooms. How does this become more dangerous under the new ordinance? Finally, what exactly is stopping these rapist pedophiles from entering women's bathrooms, now? Is there an actual law on the books in Houston? If so, do people who are willing to attack women and children in public restrooms have some weird code that stops them from violating bathroom ordinances?
|
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 04:02
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It took the 2008 crash to shake me out of my libertarianism. Watching the champions of "freeing markets from overbearing regulation" and "getting government out of the way" run blubbering to Congress to bail out the companies they tanked through their own incompetence and greed, and them somehow shift the entire popuist anger onto a mortgage bailout of the poor that never even loving happened dynamited my entire worldview. I have a friend who has described himself as libertarian for as long as I've known him. To be fair to him, he always seemed to believe FYGM attitudes on a large scale were good for society, but did not conduct his personal life in that manner. He's not the type to pay for dinner, or loan you money, but he's taken in more friends who needed help than anyone else I know. He and his wife are currently raising someone else's son. He and I haven't spoken much in the last year or so. I was at his house, recently, and we started talking a little politics. I started a sentence with, "I know you're a libertarian ..." After I finish, he proceeds to tell me how his views have changed, recently. Some of it is due to events in his personal life (he's out of work, yet again, and not because he doesn't work hard), and some of it may just be seeing the continuous failure of the ideals he thought were so good at self-regulation. Whatever the root causes, when I outright stated that, yes, I do believe it is the responsibility of a government, especially one that supposedly presides over the greatest nation on the planet, to provide health care for its citizens, he not only didn't argue with me, he seemed to agree. I felt kind of warm and fuzzy.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 07:28
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This was me also. Objectivism gets some unfair (mostly well-deserved of course, but sometimes unfair) criticism as the "be an rear end in a top hat" philosophy. I genuinely believed that private charity should bridge the gap for those who are in dire straits through no fault of their own (you know, people who deserved it, and of course the money-havers have the wisdom to decide who deserves it, as money is proof of their virtue I don't know what the ratio is, overall, but of the people I personally know, it's at least 4:1 selfish assholes:misguided good guys. The assholes aren't really the problem, though. You expect selfish assholes to behave like selfish assholes, and you'll never make them change. It's the misguided-but-essentially-good folks that can tip the balance. It was a pleasant experience for me to see someone I consider to be basically a good guy shed at least some of the misconceptions he'd been holding onto for so long. The thing that really rubs me the wrong way about the people I know who hate Obamacare, hate governmental regulation, and hate [insert ridiculous right-wing boogeyman, here], is that every single one of them is wasting energy hating things that are objectively in their best interest. I have a friend who is so anti-ACA that it's nuts, but pre-ACA, he'd never had a job that provided him with any kind of health care and could never have afforded any kind of coverage on his own. He has back problems, anxiety issues, possible depression, and more, and they've gone mostly untreated since he became too old to be on his parents' health insurance. Despite that, he revels in what he considers the ACA's failures, and constantly quotes statistics about how Americans hate the ACA and want it repealed. This same friend bitches about unions, despite the fact that he lived on a death benefit provided by his deceased father's union for years, not to mention that his father's union went to bat to get the father taken care of when he was hurt and could no longer work. This friend complains about taxes burdening the "producers" and thinks social programs are nothing but honeypots for massive abuse, but when he hurt himself on the job last year, and his non-health-care-providing employer refused any and all responsibility, he was taken care of by workers' comp, which is straight Marxist. This same employer fired him with no notice about two weeks ago, and he feels abused and unfairly treated, and laments his lack of recourse, but sees no irony in the fact that he's been making "the producers'" case for them for years. He's not the only one. This poo poo is endemic among the people I know who oppose unions, socialized health care, meat inspection, or whatever. They hate the government "interference" that they benefit from, and bitch about the consequences of the regulations (or lack of) that hurt them, but never seem to consider changing the way they vote, or even reexamining their opinions.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 09:21
|
|
).
Thanatosian posted:Wearing a U.S. flag pin on your lapel is a form of gay signalling. OK, now I desperately want the leaders of the Gay Cabal to hold an emergency meeting and adopt the Gadsden Flag and other right-wing rallying symbols as their own.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 05:06
|
|
Angry Tiny Man posted:So this article's been making the rounds from my Facebook friends as of late: http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/05/11/310708342/recall-that-ice-cream-truck-song-we-have-unpleasant-news-for-you That tune is old as poo poo, and very few people younger than about 100 would ever know that someone once attached those lovely lyrics to it without Theodore R. Johnson, III telling us about it. This just seems like someone getting pointlessly involved with some obscure racist poo poo when there are plenty of real race relations problems that need addressing. It's not like those lyrics are part of the original song, and it's not like those lyrics are even the best known use of that melody. I grew up hearing it in old cartoons, and in my head the only lyrics I hear are, "The dirt is finished, but the finish is fine," because Murphy's Oil Soap used that melody and those lyrics in their ads for about a thousand years. I'd keep an eye on the comments. Given how many occurrences of the word "friend of the family" search engines are going to see on that page, the discussion could get very interesting.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 10:20
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:This came up on my pinterest board, it works sort of as a counter FWD FWD FWD: The Z-snap is great. Is that A Thing, or is it original to this image?
|
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 10:43
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The right wing meme of "Obama is Urkel" is one that conservatives use a lot, because ur-fascism requires that the enemy also be seen as stupid, foolish and nonthreatening, and Urkel remains the least threatening black person any Republican can think of. I am watching The Wolf of Wall Street for the first time, right now. Leo just got his Swiss bank account. Now I feel like I need to skip around looking for Urkel. Edit: Ah-ha, Urkel spotted. It's actually Urkel, I was expecting a grown-up Jaleel White. Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 17, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:35 |
|
ArgonHarvester posted:Do you think they actually watched Family Matters? I figured it was cultural osmosis more than anything. Dr. Jinx: Your parents didn't let you watch The Cosby Show when you was comin' up? Mac: Oh, my parents would never have let me watch something like that.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 16:23
|
|