|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. That actually did happen to a friend of my fathers. I mean, he paid him for it, but still it was weird. The guy actually had him move out with just his clothes and his computer. He had to leave his kids drawings still on the fridge.
|
# ¿ Jun 1, 2013 00:43 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:03 |
|
This week in LL101 ...is this relevant to a single freaking thing? Boy Scouts. "Dammit. Now that the Boy Scouts are forcing us to be tolerant of others, we have no CHOICE but to pull our kids out and never fund the organisation again. drat those Liberals, they've discovered our one weakness - we're complete shitheads." ....yoga? How do we improve a funny internet meme? Relentlessly shoe horn in our own paranoid rants and talking points! Months old rumor? Didn't ever happen in the first place? Centered around one instance of one show and ignoring the hundreds of counter arguments one can find on nearly every sitcom made in the last 50 years? ITS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!
|
# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 07:31 |
|
Not The Wendigo posted:A. cite First one is due to the relentless homophobia still persistent in our culture leading to a decreased satisfaction of life. Second and third are this rear end in a top hat thinking that prison behavior is indicative of all homosexual relationships (They start with the premise that everyone in prison is gay, and both follow from there). Fourth one is exclusively about Aids, and I bring out my counterargument that Lesbians contract STD's a hundredth the rate of heterosexual couples, and the Aids rate dropping to less than one five-thousandth. The second 4 have even less of a claim to reality, coming from insane ravings of dickheads. I swear, most of their arguments seem to come from the premise of "The people I oppress are just as vindictive and hateful as I am, so you see, I can't stop oppressing them, or they would oppress me!"
|
# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 22:25 |
|
LtStorm posted:I've been lurking this topic, and some insanity finally showed up on my wall that wasn't here already (that I could find); Due to the fact that we will be keeping scientific innovation, we will retain the Robotic Drone program, and use it on you, since no-one in Strawmannistan would object to a war with racist extremists. Then, after 2 weeks straight of drone strikes, you will be given the option to rejoin the union - at 10000% the taxes Conservatives paid before, and 1% the representation.
|
# ¿ Jun 4, 2013 03:56 |
|
the2ndgenesis posted:The crazy thing is that that image is kinda hosed up whether or not it's intended to be a joke. If USMC posted it as a joke then they're implicitly acknowledging that Jesus would never have espoused the extreme FYGM ideology that they love so much. The alternative is that they posted it seriously, which means that they're 100% okay with projecting that ideology on a man whom they claim to revere and worship. A man who, so they say, decried the excesses of the rich and extolled the virtues of charity to the poor. Wait wait wait wait wait. This thing isn't about trying to point out why GOP talking points are hosed up? I looked at that, and I thought it was a centrist thing, decrying the things talked about by the figurative Uncle Sames Misguided Children i.e the people who consider themselves patriots but have no consideration for what the founders actually meant. TURN IT OFF! posted:You seem very quick to dismiss those concerns because they are also shared by some people who have a poor understanding of biology/science. Broken clocks twice a day etc. Genetically modifying foods is the same basic property as cross breeding plants, or improving on our irrigation techniques - its just taking science to farming, to make agriculture. The only difference is there's a shitload less guesswork and trial & error involved. Monsanto using the science for evil does not make the science itself inherently evil. A Fancy 400 lbs posted:One thing to think about is that many socialists also pushed for guaranteed work for all people. Basically in the ideal socialist society in which He who does not work shall not eat would apply, the only people not working would be the one who voluntarily decided not to work. It also doesn't apply to those who are physically or mentally unable to work. As I recall, communist countries do not have the best record on accommodating those with individual needs.
|
# ¿ Jun 17, 2013 12:13 |
|
poo poo For Brains posted:Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. "Our rules", that you made up, with absolutely no agreement from a single rational human being. quote:Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. .....is she talking about slave owning? Like, is this a thing, that slavery damaged white peoples self esteem?
|
# ¿ Jun 17, 2013 14:49 |
|
vyelkin posted:No, it's talking about taxes. 'Taking someone's money for doing absolutely nothing' refers to the argument that 'I haven't done anything wrong, why are you taking all my money to pay for those lazy poors?' ....wait, if thats the case, what does it mean by "until recently"? If taxes are no longer a thing, why is she whining? And the sentence structure seems to indicate that its the person taking the money that is being demeaned, not the person losing money. gently caress me this persons writing is completely terrible. It shouldn't be this hard to figure out racist sociopathic ramblings.
|
# ¿ Jun 17, 2013 15:31 |
|
Zeitgueist posted:Oh poo poo, we're actually at the point where Liberal Logic makes coherent points. Bullshit they do - trying to say Bush only ever obtained "Known Al Quaeda Associates" records is grade A delusions to try and make their guy seems better. They are flat out lying to try and minimize the sins of their guy.
|
# ¿ Jun 21, 2013 03:34 |
|
Tibeerius posted:I mean, it would be one thing if that Liberal Logic pulled the old "Both sides are bad" card, but instead it blows right past that into "Obama worse than Bush" crazytown. botany posted:He's been extrajudicially killing American citizens, pretty sure that counts for something. Scratch Monkey posted:If Iraq has taught us anything it's that no rabble of men armed with rifles and improvised weapons can possibly stand against the mightiest military power the world has ever seen and not be instantly crushed. Difficult to hide in the mountains from a Rascal scooter. Even more difficult to blend into the population when demographic changes mean you're at least ten shades whiter than actual America. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jun 21, 2013 |
# ¿ Jun 21, 2013 22:54 |
|
TerminalSaint posted:She admits to using it 30 years ago while referring to a man who robbed her. She claims not to have used it when discussing the racist as gently caress wedding plans, and that's good enough for conservatives. I may have misread something, but I think she said thats the only time she ever used it negatively. Implying she's said it a bunch of times, but not in a way she thought was insulting.
|
# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 05:55 |
|
Sir Rolo posted:You know, considering there have been chemtrails as long as there have been airplanes, this seems like one of the slowest, least ineffective methods of mass-poisoning ever. In fact, I'm pretty sure the average lifespan has gone up considerably over the age of air travel. Because that's the Illuminati's plan by adding flouride to the drinking water. That's why neither have killed us yet - flouride and chemtrails actually cancel each other out. That's why we can never get rid of either, or we'll be helpless.
|
# ¿ Jun 25, 2013 05:47 |
|
Idiot Kicker posted:Conservatives should be excited since they won the Voting Rights review case. The cultural idealization of the female form as the height of beauty, and subsequently, the male form as the height of not. As such, any act of sex with more men than women is seen as dirty, and gay relationships, with an infinite ratio of guys to women, is seen as disgusting, and therefore easily opposable. Two women? Not so much. Opposition to gay relationships is a purely emotional response, with no possible factual argument against it. Therefore, those wishing to garner support will go with only the argument that elicits the right emotion - disgust. Hernce why freepers keep yelling about feces - it keeps the disgust levels up, which keeps the opposition going. This is also why whenever lesbians are depicted by those opposing gay marriage, they always look like butch, fat, hairy women, in contrast to the beautiful straight women. "These women are disgusting, do you want to think about them having sex together? No? Then help us stop them having sex" Countblanc posted:That one can involve a boy and a girl doing stuff to you, and dudes know some crazy good stuff dogg. Can we please keep from turning ourselves into strawmen liberals? Straight men don't want to have sex with guys. Not wanting to have sex with guys does not make you a bigot - only condemning two consenting men who love each other and want to have sex does that. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jun 27, 2013 |
# ¿ Jun 27, 2013 01:13 |
|
Sir Rolo posted:
"We don't hate gay people, or anything like that. We just think they're trying to insidiously erode our convictions, weaken our resolve, and destroy society, fueled by pure malice and spite - thats all."
|
# ¿ Jun 27, 2013 22:19 |
|
Gourd of Taste posted:This is pretty recent, and she clarified that she didn't mean it in a 'mean way.' So the incident 30 years ago - is that the only time she admits to using it in a 'mean way'? She's a horrible racist, but her defenders are in denial about that, saying the woman suing her is lying about the horrible poo poo she put her through. What did she do that so awful, even her supporters couldn't deny it?
|
# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 14:36 |
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'm increasingly of the opinion that pro-lifers are just really phenomenally dishonest, and one great example of that is that they paint the entire pro-choice movement as "pro-abortion," as though having the choice to carry the fetus to term and raise the resulting child isn't even on the table. I can't tell if its them being that dishonest, or the overuse of a false equivalency between the two groups, mixed with their seeing everything in absolutes, means they really do believe that poo poo. You remember that Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos impersonate Bill Clinton and Bob Dole? The two sides of the abortion debate were framed as "everyone gets an abortion" and "No abortions for anyone". Kodos was shown as coming up with a brilliant move by saying "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others". The debate was framed so that only those who want it can have abortions, is not the position of the pro-choice crowd. Ferroque posted:Yeah but gun control doesn't work and criminals will have free reign over guns and Despite the fact that, if assault weapons had their prices jacked up by the margin marijuana and cocaine are, just per weight, they'd cost somewhere north of $90,000 for a QBZ-95.
|
# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 23:06 |
|
seiferguy posted:As mentioned before, the 30-years ago thing is masking the bigger issue, which was her restaurant racially discriminating against black workers, by forcing them use the back door and whatnot. And that happened in 2007. And as asked before, what the hell happened 30 years ago, that was so terrible, not even the most racist Freeper or GOP shill could ignore it?
|
# ¿ Jun 29, 2013 09:55 |
|
Walter posted:Can't find anything on James Holmes. As I recall, someone did some actual investigative journalism, and found out that James Holmes may have been a Tea Partier. But the Tea Party got really publicly offended by this, so it was agreed to drop it. Then Tea Partiers decided to just say he was a Democrat. Because whats good for the goose is gently caress YOU FOR TRYING TO SLANDER HONORABLE CHRISTIAN WHITE FOLK!
|
# ¿ Jul 3, 2013 08:15 |
|
Batman: A sane, rational person whose ideas of normal human interactions and socialising should be emulated by others. As a reminder, Batman has, no less than twice, had plans to kill everyone he has ever cared about. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jul 5, 2013 |
# ¿ Jul 5, 2013 00:41 |
|
Blarghalt posted:Conservatives love the Nolan Batman movies. No idea why! Didn't Rush Limbaugh spend an episode whining that Dark Knight Rises was a liberal ploy by Obama, because Bane was used to make people think about Bain Capital? That was before we figured out there were far, far better reasons to whine about Dark Knight Rises
|
# ¿ Jul 5, 2013 01:10 |
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Yes, the reason Mohammed Morsi was removed from power is because he ignored the constitution that is so beloved by the Egyptian people, as it was signed into law by the countries great and noble founding father, Mohammed Morsi, in December. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 7, 2013 |
# ¿ Jul 7, 2013 23:53 |
|
aBagorn posted:Here's a new (to me) "government is bad" one: If he only raises sheep, how the hell is he a cowboy? gently caress you, lying narrator!
|
# ¿ Jul 9, 2013 10:20 |
|
ponzicar posted:It would be so easy to fit gay people into their system as well. Gay people can get married, they can only have sex after marriage, and they are encouraged to adopt as many kids as they can, since adoption is what they push as an alternative to abortion. Not that there's even the slightest chance of this ever happening. With Pope Francis around? I give it 5 years.
|
# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 09:18 |
|
1stGear posted:The Reagan debt was due to poor economic policies from Carter while the Clinton surplus was because of the majesty of trickle-down economics and the Bush deficit was because of Clinton's disastrous economic management and so on and so forth. And Bush Senior is explained how? I've heard this bullshit argument so many times, and this is always the thing that completely floors them.
|
# ¿ Jul 12, 2013 07:56 |
|
Mornacale posted:I think the big problem with this is the idea that those first five items on the list should have any bearing on our feelings about the death of a child. It is of course horrible and racist that people are out to slander a dead boy, but the fact of the matter is that this is a tragedy whether he was an honors student or a literal gang leader. I will bet real world money there is not a single African-American member of the Westboro Baptist church
|
# ¿ Jul 12, 2013 12:08 |
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Google says his GPA isn't publicly available. As far as we know, the image could have been made by a teacher, or a friend, or a relative - someone who did know. So thats not exactly a strike against it. Not saying its true, just that it could be true, we don't know. What am I looking at here?
|
# ¿ Jul 12, 2013 23:09 |
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Tell that to the Cathars, Spanish Jews, Mormons, Quakers, etc... Or the billion Hindu's, who outweigh all those groups by a fair bit. Funny how no-one pays attention to the worlds third largest religion. Poizen Jam posted:Better yet, go a step further and suggest that if this had not been the case, they'd probably would have grown up following a different religion- some European pagan tradition or perhaps Islam- and been just as bullheaded confident in that faith. To play devils advocate here, if I had grown up in Afghanistan, I would be a completely different person in every single way, with different cultural values, opinions, a different personality, a different sexuality, everything. So of course I would have chosen a different religion. You're saying that culture helps shape a persons religion without also talking about how it shapes personality, and said personality can go on to define the religious path a person will take.
|
# ¿ Jul 13, 2013 22:50 |
|
seiferguy posted:This is what I'm referring to earlier, posted by a former coworker of mine: I think this is the root of why racism is getting harder and harder to eradicate - shame of being an actual racist is dead, instead replaced by shame by oppressed minorities of being called "oversensitive".
|
# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 04:16 |
|
I do like their rationale behind Bill Clinton. "He made compromises and had consensual sex. DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER STAND FOR THAT!"
|
# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 05:58 |
|
Pope Guilty posted:Wait, what's supposed to be wrong with this? .....is it my imagination, or does the "bad cop" look Hispanic?
|
# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 12:49 |
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:
I hate it that this is a thing. That conservatives are half-assing repackaging Bush jokes. Of course, could be worse, they could try to come up with actual Obama jokes, where every punchline is friend of the family.
|
# ¿ Jul 16, 2013 00:31 |
|
Edit: Sorry, misread the responses.
|
# ¿ Jul 16, 2013 00:53 |
|
Magres posted:Also even if someone treated their slaves decently, THEY WERE STILL loving SLAVES. This is more or less how Republicans think Slavery went down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZQzyhp7g
|
# ¿ Jul 25, 2013 00:46 |
|
Nyarai posted:Gah, sometimes I hate the urge to research. At least, if the picture crops up again, you guys'll be able to refute it. So, the guy who posted it is so sure "This would have never happened with Reagan", and it happened with Reagan? THE GAYEST POSTER posted:I really do not understand people claiming Obama wasn't tough enough on Libya. He helped remove their dictator from power. Like I've said before, thats exactly what they want to pervert the narrative away from. Obama went to war with Libya for a real(ish) cause, it took 6 months, got absolutely no Americans killed, and cost less than a percent of what Iraq cost. That is why Benghazi is being played so hard - its not about impeachment, its not about ruining Hilary (if they can get those, great, but its not their aim), its because Libya shows that Democrats are better than Republicans at everything, on every single level - even deposing Middle Eastern dictators. They now have no factual credibility with anything, in any situation. So, they need to find the way to turn the positive into a negative - by playing up anything that goes wrong in the region as the worst thing that has ever happened, ever.
|
# ¿ Jul 26, 2013 00:57 |
|
VideoTapir posted:That isn't the point. Their goal is to provoke emotional responses via the visual resemblance to a viable baby. Then why do they make it look like a gummy bear thats been puked back up? If they're being that disingenuous, why not just whole hog it and use adorable 3 year old girls and claim thats exactly what a fetus look like? If they have no factual basis for what they say, why are they constraining themselves with attempts at credibility?
|
# ¿ Jul 28, 2013 12:27 |
|
HipGnosis posted:Nothing would guarantee gun control faster in America than a huge spike in gun sales among young black men. See Ronald Reagan's gun control measures.
|
# ¿ Jul 28, 2013 13:38 |
|
seiferguy posted:Hmm... I'm not quite sure what to make of this one.
|
# ¿ Jul 29, 2013 23:13 |
|
Armacham posted:Someone posted a snopes link in response: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/medicaldevice.asp So a sporting goods store defrauded its redneck customers, and then blamed the government. How is that possibly legal?
|
# ¿ Aug 2, 2013 01:26 |
|
Mitchicon posted:And then all of Democrats became Republicans! I love how the right conveniently forgets the Southern Strategy. Oh no, they remember a Southern Strategy. http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_strategy
|
# ¿ Aug 4, 2013 01:25 |
|
The only actual theory that gives any motive (beyond "Obama likes seeing Americans die") is that Obama organised the protests so that he could show the embassy security staff protecting the people (hence the "saving people when SGL"), which would make Obama look strong. Then, Al Quaeda hijacked the protest and escalated it violently out of hand extremely quickly, the embassy security was overwhelmed, and there was no nearby military backup or help. So, exactly what happened, but Obama ordered the initial protesters somehow. The most rational theory around just basically took exactly what happened, and inserted Obamas fault in.
|
# ¿ Aug 4, 2013 06:21 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:03 |
|
I think that its not that Obama made the racists more brazenly racists, I think it made the white people who don't see racism every day but knew it was there, think it had lessened. I'm not talking about the Republicans who justify restricting voting rights by saying Obama proves we're post racial, but more the white people who are insulated from the racism that keeps happening. From their perspective, yes, Obama has been elected, so a huge milestone for African Americans has been reached, so yes, racism is lesser now, so that prominent African American leaders are crying racist more now might be them slightly overreacting. So the racists capitalise on this by doing more and more racist poo poo.Zeroisanumber posted:I remember being surprised that a high-level member of Reagan's election team just came out and said that they used coded language to appeal to racist voters, but I wasn't particularly surprised by the tactic. What I was surprised by (being a worldly boy from suburban Minnesota) was the fact that a president in my lifetime decided that his election chances would be helped rather than hindered by pandering to crazy racists. A career of playing co-star to a chimp will do that to you, I suppose.
|
# ¿ Aug 8, 2013 15:38 |