Onion Story Gets Blown Out of Proportion

Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook? by Rogerborg · 2010-07-21 04:29 · Score: 5, Funny

SOTP TEH PRESSAS!!!!1!

I think this is the very definition of a Slow News Day.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Internet Stupidity Test by s73v3r · 2010-07-21 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny

There should be a law. If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.

Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:32 · Score: 0

You meant "too fucking stupid", are you fucking stupid?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by marika · 2010-07-21 04:33 · Score: 1

And you also lose your rights to vote.

--
This is totally insecure, but very convenient.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by gurps_npc · 2010-07-21 04:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Forget about commenting. Any idiot that saw this and thought it was true without checking up on the named Senator/Congressman (they gave a false name and false state) should be declared too stupid to be allowed to live outside an assisted living facility. At the very least, they need a legally appointed guardian to prevent them from giving their entire life savings away to the first con man that talks to them.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Fnkmaster · 2010-07-21 04:41 · Score: 0

That is definitely true, but the video itself seems to have had any reference to "The Onion" stripped out. Unless you click through to the YouTube page and read the fine print attribution, you won't see the word "Onion" anywhere.
So yeah, still they are idiots for accepting something so ridiculous as this as fact, and for failing to have any innate sense of skepticism about random shit on the internet that doesn't come from at least a moderately vetted news source, but you can't blame people for not knowing what The Onion is when the video says nothing about "The Onion" and most people probably clicked on it in an embedded form from Facebook or other websites.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by cvtan · 2010-07-21 04:45 · Score: 1

Sorry. That's on a need to know basis...

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by aliddell · 2010-07-21 04:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Did you not see the Onion-Span in the bottom right corner?

--
What do you think, sirs?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Dragon+on+a+Mountain · 2010-07-21 04:47 · Score: 1

look on the bottom right of the video, onion-span
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by toleraen · 2010-07-21 04:48 · Score: 1

Or the "America's Wild Goats, A Disappearing Nuisance" slide at the end. God I love The Onion.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Stele · 2010-07-21 04:48 · Score: 3, Funny

If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
I'd say the same about people who don't know when to use the word "to", "too", or "two".
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by PPH · 2010-07-21 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

And we turn your name over to the health care death panel.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by JWyner · 2010-07-21 04:54 · Score: 1

but the video itself seems to have had any reference to "The Onion" stripped out. Unless you click through to the YouTube page and read the fine print attribution, you won't see the word "Onion" anywhere.
You mean aside from the giant "Onion-SPAN" logo at the bottom right corner throughout the entire video?

--
"Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by pugugly · 2010-07-21 04:56 · Score: 1

That is definitely true, but the video itself seems to have had any reference to "The Onion" stripped out.
I'm presuming you mean, besides the 'onion' motif replacing the standard C in C-Span?
Because I'm not particularly observant and I caught it.
Pug

--
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:58 · Score: 0

Hey...quit calling my sister stupid.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-21 04:59 · Score: 5, Informative

So what do we say about the idiots that saw the faked Shirley Sharrod video up on breitbart.com and rushed to denounce her and the NAACP as racist, when in fact the original video shows the exact opposite? And by idiots, I mean both the smug race baiting liars that put this up, the Obama administration that pressured for her resignation, and the NAACP itself for falling for a breitbart/Faux news lie in the first place and denouncing her. Brietbart is the guy who destroyed ACORN with false accusations and edited video, it's what he does, and yet, the idiots in the Obama administration and the NAACP fell for it. They walked right into his trap. See, if it never came out that the video was faked, it's a win if the administration and the NAACP do not react. But since they did react, why, simply reveal the video was fake and denounce them as idiots for falling for your trap.
People will believe anything. If we had to appoint guardians for every nut-job that believed a patently obvious lie, there wouldn't be enough non-nut-job guardians to go around.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by iONiUM · 2010-07-21 05:00 · Score: 1

Even if they don't know what the onion is (and as other replies say, there is a logo in the bottom right, but that doesn't mean they know what it means), the end of the video shows the upcoming debate is about "America's wild goats, the disappearing nuisance." Presumably, as soon as they see that, they should probably know it's a satire.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Dhalka226 · 2010-07-21 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Even if that were true (and it's not -- see some of the other replies to you) the complete lack of critical thinking skills displayed by anybody who believes this remains... disturbing to say the least. (You have no idea how tempted I was to say "classified" there.)
I mean honestly. "Classified flesh-eating?" Do these idiots truly believe that the people would leave a term like flesh-eating in there next to something classified? It's both the worst and the most descriptive term in the sentence! "A new Bill of Rights will be drafted" is silly enough on its own, but just gets worse when paired with "to be approved by classified."
I know our own history is funny enough that none of this is IMPOSSIBLE (it basically happened), but to anybody with a handful of functioning brain cells it should be more than enough to throw up red flags and start looking into things -- starting, perhaps, with the fake congressman. But instead morons treat it as a reason to start running their mouths about their terribly ill-informed opinions on fake news stories. Bravo, morons, for continuously proving why the right to speak is not bundled with the right to be listened to.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Fnkmaster · 2010-07-21 05:08 · Score: 1

A) That rather looked like the letter "D" in a script font to me, so I would have thought it said "D-Span". It certainly doesn't say "Onion-Span", and the association with the Onion logo is only obvious if you already know or suspect it's from the Onion.
B) That part of the video was partially obscured for much of the video by Google ads over the lower bar of the screen.
Obviously none of this changes the fact that it was obviously a spoof to anybody with a brain, but the fortuitous combination of YouTube's Google ad placement with an small, not-completely obvious logo means that the sourcing, while clear if you already know it's from the Onion, isn't necessarily obvious at a glance.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Ephemeriis · 2010-07-21 05:08 · Score: 1

That is definitely true, but the video itself seems to have had any reference to "The Onion" stripped out. Unless you click through to the YouTube page and read the fine print attribution, you won't see the word "Onion" anywhere.
So yeah, still they are idiots for accepting something so ridiculous as this as fact, and for failing to have any innate sense of skepticism about random shit on the internet that doesn't come from at least a moderately vetted news source, but you can't blame people for not knowing what The Onion is when the video says nothing about "The Onion" and most people probably clicked on it in an embedded form from Facebook or other websites.
But... That's kind of the problem.
I mean, I can post pretty much any random thing I want - doesn't make it true.
If you see something horrifying or upsetting on teh interwebs, it's generally a good idea to check the source before you run screaming for the hills.
In this case, they really ought to have followed it back to the YouTube page and read the attribution. And then checked to see what "The Onion" is.

--
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:10 · Score: 0

Totally. You should have to speak english too, otherwise you can't vote. And you should have to own your own home. And be white. And a man.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by DWIM · 2010-07-21 05:27 · Score: 1

There should be a law. If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
Actually, there should be a law that if you do not have sufficient critical thinking skills to suspect that something like that video might be a hoax or at least have some level of suspicion that it is not exactly what it appears to be, you don't get to comment on politics.
Also, we need another law. If you want to call out others as being stupid, you must be able to correctly distinguish between and use correctly the words "to," "too" and "two."
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by aliddell · 2010-07-21 05:32 · Score: 1

A) I apologize for not having an onion key, nor being able to find that particular symbol in my character map. It doesn't look like a D to me, but I guess that's a Rorschach thing.
B) I didn't see any ads. Not once.

Anyway, there's your reference to the Onion. Not, actually, stripped out at all. Maybe partially obscured, maybe not entirely obvious, but definitely not stripped out.

--
What do you think, sirs?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Fnkmaster · 2010-07-21 05:35 · Score: 1

Yes, I believe I said that if they didn't realize it was satirical simply based on the content, they are idiots.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Lumpy · 2010-07-21 05:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

I had a paper copy of the onion, with ONION printed in bold on the top for the cover story that Congress makes a law banning Metallica. I placed it on a metallica fan's desk here at work and he went ape crazy for an hour until someone told him to read all of the paper carefully.
I love my subscription to the Onion... it works great for screwing with people...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Fnkmaster · 2010-07-21 05:38 · Score: 1

The word Onion is *not* there. There is a -SPAN emblem in the lower right corner. If you don't already know the video is from the Onion, that logo being the Onion logo is not immediately obvious, even if you've heard of the Onion before and know that it's a humor publication. Especially when it's covered by advertising.
Of course, the satirical nature of the content is obvious to anybody with a brain though.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by AkkarAnadyr · 2010-07-21 05:42 · Score: 3, Funny

NEVER! The death panels should remain in corporate hands! We have so much data showing how well that has worked out - please don't fiddle with our gravy train^W^W^W a good thing!

--
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by bonch · 2010-07-21 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what do we say about the idiots that saw the faked Shirley Sharrod video up on breitbart.com and rushed to denounce her and the NAACP as racist, when in fact the original video shows the exact opposite?
We say that the NAACP now understands what it's like to be unfairly accused of racism, lose your job, and have nobody listen to your side of the story.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:47 · Score: 0

So if a white guy was speaking in a Klan meeting on how how he referred an uppity black farmer to a black lawyer who just took the farmers money and they all laughed - that would not be racist?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:48 · Score: 0

You mean like the unfounded accusations of Congressmen being spit on, called names, and other racial BS that the news networks routinely get away with?
The Onion used be pretty clear cut humor & satire. How close they're getting to actual events is kinda creepy.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:49 · Score: 0

Pennsylvania is a false state? Pray tell then where are Pittsburgh and Philadelphia located?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-21 05:49 · Score: 1

Huh? Who was unfairly accused of racism, lost their job, and had no one listen to their story besides this lady?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by dwiget001 · 2010-07-21 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow! Careful what you do with that "blinding truth" thing, some people just won't see it.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:54 · Score: 0

+1 Morans
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-21 05:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Idiot. She was explaining how we all have racial biases, and how class is more important than race, how she and that poor white farmer had more in common than she does with a rich black guy, how she overcame her racial biases and helped the guy out after the white lawyer she sent him to screwed up, and how the farmer and his wife are now friends of hers. The wife even went on air to defend the lady.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by AshtangiMan · 2010-07-21 05:58 · Score: 1

Of course, the satirical nature of the content is obvious to anybody with a brain though.

How I wish you were talking about Fox News.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Volante3192 · 2010-07-21 06:01 · Score: 1

Oh, if only their was a way four spell checkers two pick up awn homophones. It wood make every comment cite nicer...
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:02 · Score: 0

We call you out on making a bad analogy?
The video wasn't "faked" it was creatively edited... yes, that was REALLY Shirley Sharrod saying those things. Now, of course it was deliberately edited to mislead (probably maliciously) and the racist angle wasn't appropriate, but it was a REAL video of a REAL person.... and not hosted by A FUCKING SATIRICAL "NEWS" SITE. If you seriously think being duped by actual journalists misrepresenting actual footage is the same as believing a COMEDY video, you're nuts.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Monchanger · 2010-07-21 06:12 · Score: 1

Any idiot that saw this and thought it was true without checking up on the named Senator/Congressman
You really don't have to go to "all that trouble". Once you hear the part about the Air Force taking on aliens, you should be pretty clued in to the obvious fact it's fake.
I loved the part (1:13) where the actor goes ".... Jesus.... ah... that's classified, far surpassing our darkest nightmares." Classic Onion exaggeration.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by bonch · 2010-07-21 06:13 · Score: 0, Troll

Other than countless examples in the past, from regular people to celebrities to businesses who have been attacked by the likes of Jesse Jackson, the big reason this is a bit of karmic retribution is the NAACP's recent declaration that the entire Tea Party is a racist organization. There is no official Tea Party organization--it's a bunch of local groups using the same moniker. There have been a few racist individuals who attached themselves to the movement, but they have been distanced. It's really just a group of anti-government, anti-tax people. Obama has even stated he doesn't believe the group is racist.
Disagreeing with the Tea Party is one thing, but playing the race card in 2010 is a cop-out and nothing more than a political play to try to drum up minority support going into the November elections. It's the same reason Obama is suddenly talking about immigration reform even though he knows it won't pass--it's to appeal to Hispanics by making it look like he fought for it but was foiled by Congress. Never mind that he didn't pursue it all when he had the 60 guaranteed votes.
I didn't think it was possible, but Obama has made me even more cynical about politicians than Bush. But now we're going way off-topic, and it's not like we'd sway each other anyway. :)
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by ptbarnett · 2010-07-21 06:15 · Score: 1, Flamebait

So what do we say about the idiots that saw the faked Shirley Sharrod video up on breitbart.com and rushed to denounce her and the NAACP as racist, when in fact the original video shows the exact opposite?
You are falling for the diversion.
The video wasn't faked, and it wasn't an attack on Sherrod. It was intended to show the NAACP audience's reaction as she is telling the story. They are nodding their heads and offering other signs of agreement as she tells what she did -- long before she explains that she realized it was wrong.
Now, that it's out there, the NAACP and everyone else is scrambling to make Sherrod into a victim, so that you don't notice that the NAACP is guilty of exactly what they are accusing others: tacitly supporting racist behavior.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:29 · Score: 0

So that way the appointed guardian gets the life savings, legally, instead of the con man.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-21 06:30 · Score: 1

How long ago was the video taken? Any idea? It was taken in 1986. So, what does a 24 year old video tell us about the NAACP of today?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-21 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

The NAACP never said the entire Tea Party was racist. They said that the Tea Party has never denounced the racists in their midst. The NAACP has, for instance, denounced the New Black Panther Party. And, when it looked as though Shirley Sherrod might be racist against white people, they denounced her. So, you are flat out wrong.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:34 · Score: 0

God, your all idiots.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by ptbarnett · 2010-07-21 06:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

How long ago was the video taken? Any idea? It was taken in 1986. So, what does a 24 year old video tell us about the NAACP of today?
spun, I suggest that you check your facts before getting off into one of your rants. It might prevent you from making a bigger fool of yourself than usual.
The video was taken on March 27, 2010, after Sherrod was appointed to the USDA (interestingly, after she and her husband received a substantial settlement from the USDA for a complaint about racism). However, the incident that she described took place back in the 1980's.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:43 · Score: 0

Not a hoax. What you meant to say was SATIRE.
The difference is critical, please learn it.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by bonch · 2010-07-21 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The NAACP passed a resolution to "condemn racist elements in the Tea Party." It is an accusation that the group is grounded on racist ideals. The NAACP is also planning a march on October 2, closer to the election, to try to drive momentum against the Tea Party movement. They've called the group a "threat to democracy and a threat to human rights."
They were pressured to denounce Shirley Sherrod by the White House. You may or may not be aware that they're currently in emergency mode because of a massive drop in support among whites going into the mid-term elections.
They did not denounce the New Black Panthers and have in fact been tied to the dismissal of their voter intimidation case, and they also didn't denounce Harry Reid for his "negro dialect" comment. You tell me why.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Ogive17 · 2010-07-21 07:04 · Score: 1

There are some stupid people out there doing stupid things.... based on true stories I've seen on tv and/or read about, I can see how some The Onion articles could be construed as being true.

If you happened to catch 1 or 2 'believeable' stories prior to this one (disclaimer, I didn't read this one) maybe you would think it was very outlandish.

Many years ago I sent a funny article from The Onion to a friend, his response was along the lines of "no way?!?!?! is that real?". He also happens to be my most liberal friend (and not stupid, but maybe a bit gullible)

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:16 · Score: 0

well, i have good and bad news on that topic. the [classified] upon [classified] where within ensuing [classified] internet though [classified] via [classified]. [classified]. we hope this will [classified] the public with [classified].
at least the will be future different but then again [classified] bodies [classified].
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by gandhi_2 · 2010-07-21 07:17 · Score: 1

That video wasn't faked. It was edited. But she did state that she discriminated against the white farmer while in the execution of her public service duty. Then she backtracked.
You can actually hear in the crowd....it got kinda quiet. I'll bet more than a couple black people thought she was wrong for that.

--
THL phish sticks
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:19 · Score: 0

Ah, good ol' Pennsylvania: the False State.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:45 · Score: 0

So what do we say about the idiots that saw the faked Shirley Sharrod video up on breitbart.com and rushed to denounce her and the NAACP as racist, when in fact the original video shows the exact opposite?
We say pretty much the same thing, since it's the SAME PEOPLE. The same mouth-breathing, teabag-loving, Faux-News-watching, chain-letter-forwarding racist redneck assholes as it always is...
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by multipartmixed · 2010-07-21 07:55 · Score: 2, Funny

> (they gave a false name and false state)
I'm pretty sure Pennsylvania is a real state.

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by darthdavid · 2010-07-21 07:58 · Score: 0, Troll

The Tea Party is a bunch of racists. Half the signs at any given Tea Bagger rally are racist and the whole sham is nothing more than a bunch of fat rednecks who had no problem with running up a massive deficit as long as it was a white, republican president doing it to blow up brown people. The second it's a black, democratic president running up a deficit to keep the economy from collapsing and maybe raise the standard of living in this country they all suddenly found their fiscal conservatism. It's fucking disgusting is what it is. The only good thing about those ball-sucking retards [they called themselves the Teabaggers, I almost feel bad about picking on someone that fucking stupid, almost ;) ] is that they're driving a wedge into the republican base and ensuring that they'll lose the next election...
Not ACing it because I have karma to burn and I'm not going to hide when I've got nothing to say but the truth!
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2010-07-21 08:00 · Score: 1

I can't find the faked Shirley Sharrod video you refer to. I can't even find an edited one. I can find a short excerpt, which is a meaningfully different animal from a faked or edited video, and different even from a segment taken out of context, intentionally or not. However, I can also find the full speech, posted as the top link on biggovernment.com, which is Breitbart's habit whenever complete versions of something are or become available & there's any question about the context of the piece.
Ditto with the ACORN vids. Yes, I heard the phrase "heavily edited" and "deceptively edited" (literally!) precede "videos" in every mention of the story on NPR, but that's just laziness on their part -- or maybe excessive discord with their governing narrative. Yes, Breitbart and BigGovernment published juicy excerpts (or salient ones, depending on your viewpoint), the same way news organizations include sound bytes instead of entire speeches in their reporting. But BG also published the complete version of every one of them, and showed the context of the excerpts to be clearly faithful to the whole in most of them, and arguably so in the rest.

--
Pi Ran Out
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by ptbarnett · 2010-07-21 08:05 · Score: 1, Offtopic
The NAACP never said the entire Tea Party was racist. They said that the Tea Party has never denounced the racists in their midst.
The NAACP then went on to cite several incidents that have not been corroborated, or were not reported completely. From the press release:
Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the "N" word and openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was called an ugly anti-gay slur.
The NAACP can't even get their accusations straight.
- John Lewis claimed he heard someone yelling a racial epithet. Despite a substantial financial reward being offered and someone following immediately behind him with a recording device, no one has publicly offered a recording that substantiates it.
- Emanuel Cleaver initially accused someone of spitting on him. But after apparently reviewing several videos of the incident, he admitted that he was simply "sprayed" by an over-enthusiastic protester. He subsequently retracted his accusation.
- The slur hurled at Barney Frank did happen. But left unreported by almost every media outlet was that the perpetrator was immediately admonished by the other protesters, and he quickly left.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by evilpenguin · 2010-07-21 08:15 · Score: 1

Why? I have always believed it is morally wrong to allow stupid people to keep their money.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 08:36 · Score: 1

How is the parent flamebait?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 08:38 · Score: 1

How can proof that the grandparent is wrong be considered offtopic when the grandparent is rated insightful?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by aliddell · 2010-07-21 08:52 · Score: 1

This is definitely "-1 Doesn't Share My Beliefs".

--
What do you think, sirs?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by ConceptJunkie · 2010-07-21 08:54 · Score: 1

The problem is that these people not only get to comment about politics, but they vote.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by jewishbaconzombies · 2010-07-21 08:55 · Score: 1

You can't call stupid wrong. No point trying.

Just push them down the nearest flight of stairs.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by khallow · 2010-07-21 08:58 · Score: 1

The NAACP never said the entire Tea Party was racist. They said that the Tea Party has never denounced the racists in their midst.
If someone that I am associated with is openly racist and I do not denounce them, does that make me a racist too? They are claiming that the Tea Party movement has both tolerance for racism and hasn't acted to denounce racism in their midst, which as I see it, implies all of the Tea Party people are racist as well. Also, keep in mind that an earlier version of the resolution did broadly tar the "Tea Party" movement with the racism brush.

I might add here that I have some tolerance for racism, both among my associates and even among parties that are hostile to my ethnic group. As long as such proclivities do not lead to physical harm or criminal activity, I simply do not see the need to stamp it out.

The reason is because someone can be good in one area and bad in another. If we simply and ruthlessly ostracize people for particular categories of flaws (especially when the criteria is subjectively and capriciously applied and the flaw isn't that serious) without considering their merits as well, we lose both a perspective on reality and the benefits of that person's positive attributes.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by scot4875 · 2010-07-21 09:09 · Score: 1

Oh, if only their was a way four spell checkers two pick up awn homophones. It wood make every comment cite nicer...
Eye think ewe mean "weigh".
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Nadaka · 2010-07-21 09:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was actually watching fox news when the correction came out.
It took them about 15 seconds to go from "She is a racist" to "Now she advocates class warfare" with unwavering vitriol and disgust on the anchors faces.
You just can not win against the propaganda machine.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by angus77 · 2010-07-21 10:11 · Score: 1

I don't know any native speaker who doesn't know how to use the words "to", "too", or "two".
Spelling, however, is another issue.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by dbug78 · 2010-07-21 10:37 · Score: 1

(they gave a false name and false state)
Actually, Pennsylvania is a real state; you're thinking of Wyoming (a Cheyenne word meaning 'dark void').
Ignoring that, I pretty much agree with you.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by dangitman · 2010-07-21 10:49 · Score: 1

(they gave a false name and false state)
Last time I checked, Pennsylvania was a real state. Or have we been pranked this whole time?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 11:06 · Score: 0

Speaking of "stupid," I believe you meant "too."

While on the topic of stupid, perhaps you should learn to differentiate between "intelligence" and "knowledge." The latter may assist you in achieving the former.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 11:29 · Score: 0

The U.S. already has death panels, they are called an H.M.O.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 12:19 · Score: 0

As Dr Johnson almost said, a black intellectual is like a dog walking on its hind legs: it’s not done well, but you’re surprised to find it done at all. One of Britain’s most prominent black intellectuals is Trevor Phillips, the Chair of the Commission for Triangular Squares and Flying Pigs – better known as the Commission for Racial Equality. If Phillips’ intelligence matched his self-regard and self-righteousness, he’d be pushing back the frontiers of physics or computer science somewhere. But he’s black and it doesn’t, which means that he sometimes says more than he means to.
He recently wrote an article for The Independent, one of Britain’s two big liberal newspapers, arguing for the economic benefits of mass immigration and describing a recent trip he had made to the United States and Canada. One city he visited was failing, another was flourishing, and he explained the difference using immigration. The failing city hadn’t been blessed by it, the flourishing city had. This is how he put it – see if you can spot the blatantly racist conclusion he drew without realizing it:
Immigration in North America is really about economics. I spent much of last week there, starting on the banks of the Mississippi. In the small, African-American district of East St Louis, the only businesses that thrive are fast-food outlets and beauty parlours; the tax base is so low that 80 per cent of the city’s education spending comes from federal handouts. By contrast the city in which I ended my trip, Vancouver, lies at the heart of a dazzling growth surge in western Canada. One thing above all accounts for the transformation of this Pacific coast backwater into an economic success story: immigration. Nearly half of those who live in the city centre are immigrants, among them over 300,000 Chinese and 200,000 Indians.
Did you spot it? That’s right: Trevor Phillips, black head of the British Commission for Racial Equality, was complaining in one of Britain’s big liberal newspapers about lazy, dumb, good-fer-nothing niggers. A city with lots of blacks fails, because blacks are lazy and stupid and just want to fill their guts fast and look good so they can get sex. But a city with lots of Chinese and Indians flourishes, according to Phillips, because they’re clever and materialistic and work hard for themselves and for their children. And what would happen if East St Louis got lots of Chinese and Indian immigrants? The blacks would still be lazy and stupid, but now they’d have two new groups to feel envy and resentment towards, and two new groups would learn to hate and despise blacks. Something similar will already be happening in Canada: Vancouver’s surface glitter will hide a lot of racial tension, and when that glitter fades, as it inevitably will, the racial tension is going to turn nasty.
That’s a part of why White nations don’t need Chinese and Indian immigrants. Even if they “help the economy” in the short term, it’s better to be poor and racially healthy than rich and racially diseased. We can survive on our own; we cannot survive in company with other races. What Phillips and other blacks are asking us to do is build our own funeral pyre, soak it in kerosene, and then hand them the matches. Phillips & Co are on the funeral pyre too and they’re going to go up with us when they strike the match, but they’re dumb niggers and don’t quite get that part.
The people pulling their strings aren’t dumb though. White nations never voted for mass immigration and with the exception of greedy, selfish businessmen, never wanted it. Only the small Jewish minority wanted it, but Jews aren’t stupid and they got what they wanted.
You can see them regularly gloating over their success in The Independent and The Guardian, the other big liberal paper in Britain. In the latter, one David Aaronovitch wrote of “the Joys of Diversity” and how he p
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 12:26 · Score: 0

But the NAACP hasn't denounced Farrakhan yet have they?
Perhaps Shirley Sherrod isn't a racist anymore. Perhaps those NAACP folks weren't snickering and clapping while she was telling how she used to be a bigot in the 80's. Perhaps, but common sense says otherwise.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 16:25 · Score: 0

I agree with you to but didn't you mean too say "when two use the word to"?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by sumdumass · 2010-07-21 16:34 · Score: 1

Would you support David Duke replacing her at the FDA if she decides not to go back?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 18:11 · Score: 0

thats wut Grahamer Czechers our fore
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Eunuchswear · 2010-07-21 20:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The NAACP passed a resolution to "condemn racist elements in the Tea Party." It is an accusation that the group is grounded on racist ideals.
Zero points for reading and comprehension - how do you go from "racial elements" to "grounded on"?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by masmullin · 2010-07-22 02:49 · Score: 1

welcome to republicanism. not to be confused with conservatism.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by masmullin · 2010-07-22 02:51 · Score: 1

better to be the teabagger than the teabagged.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Silverhammer · 2010-07-22 03:01 · Score: 1

You fail -- the plural is used with "and," the singular is used with "or." For more information, google "compound subject."
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by MoriT · 2010-07-22 06:31 · Score: 1

Well, rather than provide a single specific example of someone who was fired for being unfairly accused of racism, the parent asserts without citation that some people were accused of racism (unfairly or not), and then reports the falsehood that the NAACP declared "the entire Tea Party" racist (they didn't; they criticized them for not denouncing or discouraging the racist elements associated with them), and that there "is no official Tea Party organization" (false: the original protests were organized by FreedomWorks, the National Tea Party Organization is an association of those leaders who feel themselves affiliated with the Tea Party movement, including The Tea Party Patriots, which proclaims itself to be the "Official Home of the Tea Party Movement" and is funded by FreedomWorks).

They then go off on a tangent about "playing the race card" in 2010. In response to the NAACP's call for the Tea Party to denounce the racists among it, Mark Williams, the head of the Tea Party Express (a protest organization funded by FreedomWorks and considered the protest arm of The Tea Party Patriots), published an incredibly racist letter (available here: http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/tea-partier-mark-williams-writes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/). Predictably, the Tea Party Express refused to denounce him, and certainly didn't fire him without having checked to make sure that he actually wrote the letter (he had). It's not playing the race card to point out racism that is actually there, and it is certainly not inappropriate. Besides which, as should be clear from the firing of Sharrod, this administration won't call actual racists racists and is doing their level best to appear post-racial to a fault, so I don't see how Obama comes into this at all.

You don't have to have terrible grammar to be a troll; lying about politically continuous issues certainly seems troll-ish to me.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-22 07:19 · Score: 1

Duke is a racist. Sherrod is a proven anti-racist, in that we have seen her preaching racial tolerance of whites. That is the irony of the edited video seeking to portray her as a racist: the real video shows her preaching racial tolerance and understanding.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-22 07:23 · Score: 1

Yes, the NAACP have continually denounced Farrakhan. And Sherrod schooled the minority of fools who clapped when she said that she sent the farmer to a white lawyer: she was preaching racial tolerance. The lawyer failed the farmer, and Sherrod stepped back in to help him, having realized that her racial biases had prevented her from empathizing completely with the man. She knew that her biases against whites were wrong, even though a white man shot her father in the back, and so she corrected them.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 07:32 · Score: 0

There should be a law. If you're too fucking stupid to realize that trolls love to pretend they don't know what The Onion is, and often respond with deliberately stupid comments on something that came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-22 07:36 · Score: 1

This whole story is propaganda for the poisonous racist myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is an inherently racist story.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-22 07:52 · Score: 1

Sherrod's speech was about racial tolerance. She was denouncing racism. This is a woman whose father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree and set on fire. She had merely passed the buck to a white lawyer, but when that lawyer failed to help the farmer, she realized she was letting her (understandable) biases get in the way, and vowed to do better. Which she did, she saved the farm, and became friends with the farmer and his wife. The minority of idiots in the audience who had cheered the fact that she hadn't done as much as she could to help the farmer were properly chastised. When was the last time the Tea Party chastised anyone for racism?
This is the exact opposite of the narrative portrayed by the racist liar Breitbart, who is pushing the poisonous myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites if they achieve positions of power. The edited video makes it seem as if Sherrod approves of racism against whites, and that is the opposite of the truth.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by khallow · 2010-07-22 10:39 · Score: 1

This whole story is propaganda for the poisonous racist myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is an inherently racist story.
Ignoring for the moment that I have no clue which "story" you refer to (the Onion video, the belated reaction in the Slashdot video, or something in this thread like the NAACP kerfuffle), it is worth noting that ethnic opportunism is a legitimate problem. It brought down Yugoslavia, for example and resulted in the Rwanda genocide (and subsequent Second Congo War, which was probably the bloodiest war since the Second World War). Also, it strike me that you are trying, for some bizarre reason, to frame this argument. It doesn't matter if a story is "inherently racist" or not. Some things (like the Rwanda genocide) really are inherently racist stories yet still worth recalling. The question instead is are the facts correct and are they relevant? Once I understand which story you are refering to, then we can determine whether or not the story is true and relevant.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by angus77 · 2010-07-22 10:45 · Score: 1

I've been reeducated.
Although, with the mistaken hairsplitting removed, the original point's still valid:

I don't know any native speaker who doesn't know how to use the word "to", "too", or "two".
Spelling, however, is another issue.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-22 10:52 · Score: 1

The story I'm referring to is the 'Sherrod and the NAACP are racists who want to punish white people' story that the lying scum Breitbart pushed without fact checking his sources. It's a complete lie, but of course, the dominant culture sees all the privileges they have as being nothing more than their right, and any attempt to level the playing field as 'revenge.' So, these uppity blacks are getting their revenge, because society is now marginally more equitable and marginally less racist.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Pharmboy · 2010-07-22 12:07 · Score: 1

Um, to even compare the New Black Panther movement to the Tea Party is obscene. One wants Republican/Libertarianism, the other wants all white people to die.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by khallow · 2010-07-22 13:33 · Score: 1

The story I'm referring to is the 'Sherrod and the NAACP are racists who want to punish white people' story that the lying scum Breitbart pushed without fact checking his sources.
While I'm unimpressed by Breitbart (for example, his connection to Drudge Report is in itself enough to make me suspicious), I do find it deeply puzzling that Sherrod resigned over this. All she had to do was tell her bosses to wait a few days while she got the full transcript. Can't be that hard. While I'm sure the story will be spun by some creeps in the way that you claim above, I think you miss the point of the story. There is a deep distrust of organizations such as the NAACP simply because they practice rather naked hypocrisy with respect to racism.

It also doesn't excuse the apparent slander that the NAACP made against the Tea Party groups.

but of course, the dominant culture sees all the privileges they have as being nothing more than their right, and any attempt to level the playing field as 'revenge.' So, these uppity blacks are getting their revenge, because society is now marginally more equitable and marginally less racist.
This cartoonish view you have hurts you more than it does anyone else. I frankly don't care if you think I'm part of the dominant culture, selfishly protecting my advantages, or not. The worst you can do is elect someone harmful to the US and its future, such as Obama. Such things will get undone.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-22 14:32 · Score: 1

What slander? Have you seen the racist signs up all over every single Tea Party rally? The picture of Obama the African Witch Doctor? The Tea Party condones obvious racism, it's not just a few whackos, it's at every single tea party rally. Are you just blind?
It's telling that you equate your selfish advantage with the health of the country.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by sumdumass · 2010-07-23 07:54 · Score: 1

Duke has preached the same tolerance. The bottom line is that both have done something racists and claim to not be racists any more. And yes, I know that Duke still preaches about heritage and crap, but that's in essence the same BS about diversity and embracing your roots that is spewed by the NAACP and other minority organizations.
It appears that we are expected to have a double standard here. One more strict standard for David Duke and one more lenient standard for Sherrod. I'm not sure why you don't see the hypocrisy in that. If it's acceptable to take one racist who toned down or even claimed to have reversed their racism stance, then it should be acceptable for all of those doing the same. Or is there some sort of extra consideration that we should give Sharrod because she is black? But wouldn't that be racist in and of itself?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2010-07-23 08:07 · Score: 1

Okay, I understand your points, and a couple could be worth engaging in the interest of expanding common ground, but... well I applaud the bigger intention of Sherrod's speech, taking that at face value. But that said, seriously dude... you're obviously judging Breitbart on received wisdom, preconceived notions, or a very cursory firsthand examination plus some combination of the other two. The 'racist tea partier' meme might have currency with the willfully ignorant, but it comes off as really lazy -- or disingenuous -- to anyone who knows Breitabart's work for themselves. You don't accurately articulate a single real position of his, yet you manage to ascribe false motives and positions to him nonetheless. I expected better from a 4-digit /.er, really.

When was the last time the Tea Party chastised anyone for racism?
Well, just about every shred of "evidence" I've seen of Tea Party Racism(tm) has consisted of infiltrators who were being denounced verbally (and sometimes with signage) -- as they were attempting to infiltrate and discredit the movement. The movement is about limited government, fiscal responsibility and lower taxation. Those in it have no use for anyone who would attempt to hijack that agenda towards racist ends. I've seen no evidence of them being tolerant of such things, nor that such things even happen more than extremely rarely. If you have evidence to the contrary, Breitbart is offering a $100k bounty for proof. As for the Sherrod video, again, the `you're-racist-if-you-criticize-the-actions-of-a-minorty-individual-or-group` meme is getting boring beyond belief.
In contrast to the knee-jerk accusations of racism against tea partiers, there actually is plenty of evidence for widespread, openly racist attitudes within liberal organizations. While the Black Panthers take the cake lately, the NAACP is no angel & has quite a double standard when it comes to racist statements by those in their own ranks. So tell me, if you expect chastisements in response to zero-evidence (and sometimes demonstrably false) accusations of racism by the tea party, where are the corresponding chastisements for demonstrably accurate accusations of blatant racism by those on the left? For that matter, how much time does the left spend chastising Rev Wright or Louis Farrakhan?
Breitbart takes a color-blind, no-gloves approach towards hypocrisy and towards government-expanding ideals. As certain of their racism as you are, you should collect the $100k bounty offered to anyone who can find video evidence of the alleged racial epithets at the March 20th tea party event.

[...] the racist liar Breitbart, who is pushing the poisonous myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites if they achieve positions of power [...]
Dude, that's just insane. Breitbart is pushing no such idea, and the racist label is just not going to stick. Maybe you should read one of the 24 or so black authors on BigGovernment.com who have written about race-relations subjects & condemn the NAACP position towards the tea party. Really, in the long term, the "call them racists" strategy is going to erode the left's own credibility. Calling an action racist is one thing. Falsely smearing a person or movement as racist is what leftists seem to go to lately when they have nothing... it's the new Godwin's Law (or Feldman's Law, as some call it).

--
Pi Ran Out
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-23 09:19 · Score: 1

Sherrod and Duke are nothing alike. You have absolutely no evidence of Sherrod acting in a racist fashion, ever. Seriously, what did she do that was racist? She did not work as hard as she could to help a white farmer. Initially. Is that racist? Most people wouldn't even think about it. Heck, government worker, not working as hard as they could for someone, uh, sadly not uncommon. It took someone who was actively working on correcting her own racial biases to even think about that act as potentially racist.
And when she did what few others would do and looked at her own biases, she immediately tried to correct her mistake. She went out of her way to help because she felt badly about what she would done. Right there, we have proof she is in no way racist. First, most people, even most tolerant people, would not look so closely at their own actions. Second, most people, upon realizing their mistake, offer up an 'I'm sorry' at best. They do not take on extra work to correct their mistakes.
Now, this is all coming from a woman whose father was murdered by a white racist, in cold blood, tied to a tree, and set on fire back in 1965. You simply can not hang the term 'racist' on this woman. She is the exact opposite of a racist. She is an exemplar of how to look at and correct your own racial biases.
Don't think for a second that reasonable people anywhere are convinced by6 your flimsy, transparent, insulting, and yes, frankly racist attitude. You know, as does anyone, that Sherrod and Duke are in no way comparable. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are sitting at your keyboard smirking like a chimp over your clever race baiting. You know exactly what you are doing and how ridiculous it is to compare a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard with a black woman who for a short period of time did not give her all to a white farmer, but corrected her mistake before it impacted the man, his family, or his farm.
So, I will come right out and denounce you as a racist for comparing said Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard with a black lady who ended up helping a white farmer avoid foreclosure.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by spun · 2010-07-23 09:26 · Score: 1

I've read Breitbart, and he is a liar, an attention whore, and a straight up sociopath who does not care who or what he destroys to get his way.
Quoting this destructive sociopath defending himself on his own websites does not help your case one bit.
There is no infiltration of the Teaz Party, those are the real views of real supporters who have never, as you claim, been denounced. In fact, if they were, it would be no problem for the Tea Party to do as the NAACP requested, and denounce the racists. Why won't they?
You know what? Screw this. We really have nothing to talk about. I am diametrically opposed to the evil you stand for and conversing with you will lead nowhere. You lie and distort the facts, you are not interested in open and honest debate, you simply want to win.
Good day, sir.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by sumdumass · 2010-07-23 10:08 · Score: 1

Sherrod and Duke are nothing alike. You have absolutely no evidence of Sherrod acting in a racist fashion, ever. Seriously, what did she do that was racist? She did not work as hard as she could to help a white farmer. Initially. Is that racist? Most people wouldn't even think about it. Heck, government worker, not working as hard as they could for someone, uh, sadly not uncommon. It took someone who was actively working on correcting her own racial biases to even think about that act as potentially racist.
Oh my god. Have you watched the videos or are you just repeating crap that others have said? In the video itself, she admits to stone walling the white farmer because he was white, she admits to not helping him to the capacity of her office specifically because he was white. She admits that she pawned him off onto another lawyer because he was white. It doesn't matter that it all worked out in the end, that line of reasoning is just as sick as me shooting someone then claiming I wasn't trying to kill him, I was trying to save his life because you never would have found the cancer and treated him so early if you weren't sewing his bullet holes back up.
Sure, she goes on in her video to say she regretted doing what she did, she goes on to say she attempted to make it right and now they are friends. But that doesn't erase the fact that she did act on her racism and this guy wasn't not given equal treatment as someone of another skin color would have. And as we all know, these things aren't ever isolated incidents, so how many Whites has she helped in the same way that lost everything?
And no, a government working not working hard for someone is not racism in and of itself, it's where she admits that the intent of not working hard for him was because of his races that makes it racism. That is her own admission, you cannot change those facts. There are poor employees who don't do enough, and then there are racists employees who don't do enough for certain people because of their race. And yes, that is a big deal. Or should we reverse this a little, Suppose she was white and the farmer was black, would a white government employee shrugging of their duties specifically because some black man needed their help be acceptable at all? I think not.

And when she did what few others would do and looked at her own biases, she immediately tried to correct her mistake. She went out of her way to help because she felt badly about what she would done. Right there, we have proof she is in no way racist. First, most people, even most tolerant people, would not look so closely at their own actions. Second, most people, upon realizing their mistake, offer up an 'I'm sorry' at best. They do not take on extra work to correct their mistakes.
So you are saying that because she did something to console her own guilt of doing something racist, that proves she didn't do something racist? The fact that she made it right or attempted to make it right doesn't undo the fact that someone was done. In this case, it was something that was racists. It's really no different then David Duke distancing himself from the KKK. It doesn't erase what he had done, but for some reason, it does with this black woman. Are you sure you aren't acting a bit racists right now?

Now, this is all coming from a woman whose father was murdered by a white racist, in cold blood, tied to a tree, and set on fire back in 1965. You simply can not hang the term 'racist' on this woman. She is the exact opposite of a racist. She is an exemplar of how to look at and correct your own racial biases.
So, I had a friend die less then 5 feet from me after being shot by 5 black teens in some gang retaliation thing that neither of us were part of outside of being on the street when they met. I don't care what her reasoning for being racists or acting racist in the past is. I really don't care for why she says she is
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2010-07-23 12:26 · Score: 1

Okay, have it your way, but I'm making factual claims and offering evidence for them, while you're making subjective assertions and offering no evidence for them.
There are effective ways to point out lies and distortions in a discussion, but issuing bare accusations isn't one of them. You're entitled to your opinion -- even if I happen to think yours is the more evil and destructive of our two philosophies -- but you're playing with an alternate set of facts from the actual ones.

Quoting this destructive sociopath defending himself on his own websites does not help your case one bit.
I didn't quote him, I offered links to evidence against your claims. But here, have some other evidence of Tea Party infiltration, and of zero-tolerance for racism:

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams kicked out over 'Colored People' letter: Mark Williams, the flamethrower leading the battle against the Ground Zero mosque, was kicked out of the National Tea Party Federation Saturday for a racist blog post.But when he posted a satirical letter supposedly from "the Colored People" to President Lincoln praising slavery, that apparently crossed the line. [...] The federation, an umbrella organization that claims to represent 85 Tea Party groups, kicked out Williams' group when it wouldn't fire him. "We have expelled Tea Party Express and Mark Williams from the National Tea Party Federation because of the letter that he wrote," federation spokesman David Webb said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He called the letter - written after the NAACP called on Tea Party leaders to oust racists from their ranks - "clearly offensive."
Foes of tea party movement to infiltrate rallies: ALBANY, N.Y.--Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic. [...] Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.
The Crashers: They came, they saw, they failed: [Yes, it's a Michelle Malkin piece, but full of photographs of tea partiers using signs to denounce and ostracize extremists / infiltrators in their midst.] "Check out the Captain Obvious crasher getting called out for attempting to paint their peaceful protest as an incitement to violence and faking a vile sign."

As to your question...

There is no infiltration of the Teaz Party, those are the real views of real supporters who have never, as you claim, been denounced. In fact, if they were, it would be no problem for the Tea Party to do as the NAACP requested, and denounce the racists. Why won't they?
...again I ask, what racism? So far there's no evidence of it. You reiterate your claim and accuse me of lying and distortion, but you don't even mention a single occurrence that they should be denouncing, much less offer proof of any pattern of racism in the movement. Have you no sense of irony?

--
Pi Ran Out
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by khallow · 2010-07-23 18:06 · Score: 1

Have you seen the racist signs up all over every single Tea Party rally?
No, and I doubt you have either.

The picture of Obama the African Witch Doctor?
Let me get this right. You cite a single example? Which I might add, may have been fabricated or planted. It's not that hard to photoshop or even have some guy show up at a protest with the sign. That really nails home your argument.

The Tea Party condones obvious racism, it's not just a few whackos, it's at every single tea party rally.
Obviously, you have no problem slandering groups of people about which you apparently have no clue aside from some tripe on the internet. That makes you at least as much of a bigot as the racists you claim are there. As I see it, if we're supposed to denounce racists, then I have an obligation along the same vein to set you straight and attempt with my limited powers of argument to cure your deeply flawed bigotry as well.

It's telling that you equate your selfish advantage with the health of the country.
Yes, I do. And if you thought rationally, there's a very good chance you'd equate my "selfish advantage" with the health of the country as well. There's a really simple reason why. In a free country, I am allowed to pursue my interests as long as they don't actively harm someone else. I consider freedom a key measure of health of a country. Many other people do as well.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-24 03:29 · Score: 0

^^^jew!
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by rubycodez · 2010-07-25 03:03 · Score: 1

it has not been proven whether the videos were "faked" (selectively edited) or not. ACORN for years had other questionable things going on with its finances.
on thing is for sure, i hated having my tax dollars go to that and similar organizations, such things must be independently funded.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Luckyo · 2010-07-28 10:15 · Score: 1

I find it funny that for all the protesting, none here have suggested that they should lose their right to vote.
So in the end, you have people as gullible as that voting people with biggest campaign budgets in. And then some blue-eyed naive "pro democracy" people tell us in all seriousness that elected people represent their constituents.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-31 02:04 · Score: 0

also "they're" and "there" and (what I find most annoying) "then" and "than"
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-31 03:39 · Score: 0

Wow, you fell for the op story in disguise!
Great job, Slashdot!
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-01 12:07 · Score: 0

There should be a law. If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
There should be a law. If you are so fucking pathetic that you have to post something like this on the Internet to feel better about yourself, you should be required to jump off of a bridge, immediately.
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by osgeek · 2010-08-04 00:44 · Score: 1

Late to the argument, but you're right.
What's really REALLY sad is that people like spun actively hurt the cause of eliminating racism in our society. By embracing double standards, they create a backlash against their own cause in the minds of people like myself who would like nothing better than for society to be colorblind.
People like David Duke and Shirley Sherrod are pathetic. They've made unforgivable use of their elected and appointed positions to work against segments of our society because of race. They should be repudiated by everyone.
Shirley Sherrod gave a mea culpa. Great. That doesn't excuse her abuses of power - to say nothing of her trying to turn a race battle into a class battle. What a schmuck, always looking to turn every situation into a new us vs them. People like that have no place in a government that we all pay for to do OUR business.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by DavidTC · 2010-08-04 10:32 · Score: 1

The NAACP passed a resolution to "condemn racist elements in the Tea Party."
Because the NAACP condemning racist elements in things is craaaazy.
It is an accusation that the group is grounded on racist ideals.
Just making up stuff doesn't make it true.
The NAACP condemning racist elements, and asking the Tea Party leaders to condemn them, is not saying 'the group is grounded on racist ideals'.
Although, technically, the NAACP hasn't done any of that, as they haven't even passed the resolution yet, nor do we know the actual text of what they voted on to pass to the national delegation.
The resolution that started this, submitted by the Kansas chapter, said that people at Tea Party protests 'displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically' and asked Tea Party leaders condemn them.
Do you disagree with what the NAACP said was true?
Do you agree it's true, but think the Tea party leaders shouldn't condemn those people?
Do you think those people have already been condemned enough?
I think it might be interesting to hear your exact point of disagreement with what the NAACP said. Either you don't think racist things are happening at Tea Party events, you don't think it's reasonable for civil rights groups to ask those things to be condemned, or you think the level of condemnation is enough. Pick one of the three.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Internet Stupidity Test by DavidTC · 2010-08-04 11:01 · Score: 1

Jesus Christ you're a liar. There was no 'nodding' and 'agreement'.
The only thing that could be constructed as 'agreement' is a 'that's right', which was in response to the very start of her story, when she explained how he was being racist towards her.
That's right, if your 'agreement' theory holds water, the NAACP is racist...because they agree with how the white farmer acted! That's the only 'agreement' that is even possibly there. More likely, the guy meant 'Yeah, I've seen that sort of smug superiority! You tell the truth!'.
No one, at any point at all, 'nodded' their head. There's some head rolling while laughing, but no one at all 'nods'.
No agreement. No nodding. Watch the fucking video with your actual eyes.
Now, there were laughs as she was telling an actually funny story. It was funny due to a concept called 'irony', which you probably think has to do with those things that flatten clothes, but is actually a concept where the exact opposite of what 'should happen' happens.
In this case, it was dramatic irony, where someone who is a jerk has to come to someone they were a jerk to to ask for help.
Yeah, let's all pretend the only reason that might be funny is racism. No sitcom has ever had a plot where the characters are a jerk to some random person, and then it turns out that person is a government bureaucrat or doctor or whatever who they need the help of. Why, that very concept isn't funny at all!
But, anyway, all that was before what she said she did. No one before that point could possibly be 'agreeing' with what she (supposedly) did, as they didn't know. That laughter is she ended up in the position to help or not help a guy who was rude to her, which is, as I said, an example of dramatic irony and, duh, funny. They couldn't be laughing at what she did, they didn't know it yet.
So let's look at where she actually said 'So...I didn't give him the full force of what I could do.' 1:06 of the video and onward.
Utter SILENCE from the audience. In fact, from that point, the entire audience is somber and sort of shifting in their seat, as if they're not entirely sure where this is going, normal sort of behavior people get when the audience isn't entirely sure if they've started telling a racist story.
Seriously, people, watch this video. See if you can see any racism on the part of the NAACP or them encouraging her supposed 'discriminate against white people' behavior.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Who needs the Onion? by Third+Position · 2010-07-21 04:30 · Score: 1

When we already have a press like this?

--
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!

Re:Who needs the Onion? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:52 · Score: 0

Or this
Re:Who needs the Onion? by spun · 2010-07-21 05:02 · Score: 1

The Daily Caller is not 'press' though, and that story is a great example of a ridiculous lie. Rev Wright's statements were taken out of context, videos were edited to make him look bad, but you NEVER saw that mentioned in the corporate conservative press.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

That's "Blue" by XanC · 2010-07-21 04:30 · Score: 2, Informative

You mean "blue in the face". Red would imply embarrassment. Those would be the other folks, not the ones getting blue in the face.

Re:That's "Blue" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:33 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh sure, turn this into a Red State/Blue State Issue ;)
Re:That's "Blue" by canajin56 · 2010-07-21 05:28 · Score: 1

Blue in the face is just an expression, I've never seen anybody talk so much that they actually suffocate. But, if you've ever tried to explain something over and over to somebody who'd rather be filled with righteous indignation and aimless, untempered, unmitigated, hatred, you'd know that your face sure does turn red with rage ;)

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:That's "Blue" by dAzED1 · 2010-07-21 05:59 · Score: 1

I've never seen anybody talk so much that they actually suffocate
I have. I was, at the same time, happy and sad; happy that the noise mercifully stopped, sad that my wife was now too depressed (about her mom) to do anything for a while. Oh well, that's what Tilted Kilt is for, right?
I have absolutely no idea what possessed me to turn this in to a mother-in-law joke...

Seems legit to me by Skyshadow · 2010-07-21 04:30 · Score: 1

"Should event occur in urban areas.... Jesus.... (haunted) That's.. classified."

Seriously, people are complete and total retards. And I mean that in the 3rd grade definition, not in any clinical sense. This should not be news to anyone, especially those of us who've been kicking around the internet for more than a couple of weeks.

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

that's classified by samsonov · 2010-07-21 04:31 · Score: 1

Hah. Hilarious. Some people will believe anything I guess.... Tinfoil hats: engaged!

--
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger

Faux News by Foofoobar · 2010-07-21 04:33 · Score: 3, Funny

I believe they mispronounced the french when naming their news channel but you get the idea.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Re:Faux News by canajin56 · 2010-07-21 05:35 · Score: 1

This wasn't FOX though, it was just Facebook and youTube. FOX News has run Onion articles as legitimate on their website though, but never on-air ;)

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Faux News by Foofoobar · 2010-07-21 05:40 · Score: 1

Yes but the point is that this is their style. 'Obamacare wants to EAT your babies. Those damn liberals are at it again and just want a FREE lunch!' etc etc The stuff writes itself.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:Faux News by canajin56 · 2010-07-21 05:56 · Score: 1

It's absurd to blame somebody for something they didn't do, with the justification that it seems like the sort of thing they would do. In fact, what you did is almost exactly like FOX running this very video, and when told it's fake saying "But it's the sort of thing Obama would do, so it's fair game!" Now, as it happens, FOX has, on their website, published an article based on a satire article (not Onion though) about a Global Warming expert freezing to death in a blizzard in Antarctica (in a way that article is so stupid and unfunny that you can't blame them for not noticing that it's false). But in this instance no mainstream media outlets have touched this video except to comment on the ridiculousness of republican nutjobs thinking Obama is keeping a Zombie/Chtulu invasion secret from them.

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Faux News by elrous0 · 2010-07-21 06:18 · Score: 1

Don't be silly, Fox would never report this story. It didn't come out of a press release from the Republican Party.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Faux News by Foofoobar · 2010-07-21 07:56 · Score: 1

Ok so what you are saying is blaming raciscts for racism would be stupid?? I get your point that they are just another domino in a domino effect... but for you to deny that there are one of the largest dominos (if not one of the fingers tipping them) would be ignorant.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:Faux News by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 08:46 · Score: 1

'Obamacare wants to EAT your babies.

Are the babies made of crackers?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Faux News by Foofoobar · 2010-07-21 16:14 · Score: 1

No but they are cracker babies. Oh come on... you tea baggers have no sense of humor...

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Yum - onion rings by Cidtek · 2010-07-21 04:33 · Score: 1

All of a suddan I crave fried onion rings so the article isn't totally a waste of time.

Has swept across the internet recently by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:36 · Score: 1, Funny

More like swept across 2 dozen facebook entries.

Worst. Editorial promotion to frontpage. Ever.

Some things never change... by techstar25 · 2010-07-21 04:37 · Score: 1

It's War of the Worlds 2010.

Re:Some things never change... by Dunbal · 2010-07-21 04:40 · Score: 1

Heh our posts are a minute apart. Slashdot has a hive-mind too, apparently.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Some things never change... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2010-07-21 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's War of the Worlds 2010.
And I've wondeded whether the reaction to the War of the Worlds broadcast made people in the US, at the time, more skeptical of radio broadcasts, thus less susceptable to broadcast propaganda than those in other countries (or audiences), and thus led to the US neutrality in WW II until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
One thing the reaction to this item shows: The current government has some people prepared to believe that martial law and fascism are on their agenda.
Not sure if the rumor is a good or bad thing. On one hand it will make people more skeptical again. On the other, like the parable of the kid who cried "Wolf!", it could delay or abort public opposition if the real thing does come along. (How convenient for any hypothetical neofascists.)
The last thing I want to see is the idea planted in the heads of ANY US administration that they COULD get away with it. B-(

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:Some things never change... by maxume · 2010-07-21 05:25 · Score: 1

I think geography does a pretty good job explaining why the U.S. remained relatively neutral.
I'm not sure I would take the propaganda explanation real far anyway, the fall of the French was more due to Panzers than propagandized nationalism.
Or do you actually mean to paint German aggression as revisionist?

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Some things never change... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2010-07-21 08:26 · Score: 1

I think geography does a pretty good job explaining why the U.S. remained relatively neutral.
IMHO a more likely cause was that the US population was more of German descent than English.
The NAZIs were hoping that the US would come in on THEIR side. And they had quite a number of supporters in the US power structure and media. Some of them apparently launched a plot to stage a fascist coup against Roosevelt. (This fell through because they picked the wrong guy for the military figurehead - Smedley Butler - who turned them in.)

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

It makes sense by Dunbal · 2010-07-21 04:38 · Score: 1

After all, America is the country that was sure it was being attacked by Martians only a couple generations ago, when Orson Welles did his "War of the Worlds" radio show.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:It makes sense by Nadaka · 2010-07-21 04:50 · Score: 1

"They" also thought that islamic terrorists had anthrax that just so happened to match the exact purity and unique genetic strain that is manufactured in a US government lab...
"They" also thought that there were WMD in Iraq...
"They" also believe that Obama is a non-citizen, born in Africa, Communist, Nazi, anti-Christ, ushering the apocalypse and European new world order... ...for certain values of "They".
Re:It makes sense by eXFeLoN · 2010-07-21 05:03 · Score: 0

It was only the US because no one else in the world had invented / knew how to use the radio. duh.

--
My other sig is a knife wound.
Re:It makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:32 · Score: 0

"They" also thought that islamic terrorists had anthrax that just so happened to match the exact purity and unique genetic strain that is manufactured in a US government lab...
Well is that something that is terribly unlikely?
About as unlikely as the idea that an American Army officer would suddenly go all "Durka Durka, Muhammed Jihad!" and kill a baker's dozen of his fellow soldiers? Sounds pretty far fetched right?
Suppose he'd was some fellow working in a government lab around anthrax spores? Suddenly it doesn't seem so unlikely now does it?
Not saying that's what happened, but saying that to casually dismiss the possibility of things that are entirely possible out of hand... not a terribly wise thing to do.
Re:It makes sense by dr_dank · 2010-07-21 06:21 · Score: 1

After all, America is the country that was sure it was being attacked by Martians only a couple generations ago, when Orson Welles did his "War of the Worlds" radio show.

Radiolab did an episode on this a while back. Welles timed the broadcast so that people would tune from the bogus big band show and hear the opening to the immensely popular Bergen & McCarthy show before flipping back in time to hear the "special bulletin" and conveniently missing the disclaimer that it was all a work of fiction.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?

But the Onion *is* prescient! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think we ignore The Onion as a serious news source at our peril, especially now that mainstream media has all but abandoned serious reporting themselves. Imagine what could have been avoided if people had listened in 2001. It's like their reporters had used a fricking time machine!

Re:But the Onion *is* prescient! by tibit · 2010-08-04 02:54 · Score: 1

That's spooky. I read The Onion every now and then, but I missed that article. It's not very funny now, though. I give the author props for seeing Bush for who he really was.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by jdgeorge · 2010-07-21 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

...remember what they said about Gillette in February 2004? And then what happened in September, 2005?

(Now let's watch as The Onion replaces the writings of Nostradamus as the road map to an apocalyptic future.)

Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by samkass · 2010-07-21 04:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

My favorite was always the 2000 article Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over... almost everything in the article came true.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:57 · Score: 0

SNL was joking about that 30 years ago, to be fair.
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by Xyrus · 2010-07-21 06:05 · Score: 2

If you want to know about the future, ask a comedian. Only they have a wide enough grasp of the stupidity of people to know what the future will hold.

--
~X~
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by WilliamBaughman · 2010-07-21 06:16 · Score: 1

I do remember, Mad Magazine predicted it, too.
On a related note, my fiance has made me throw out many things, but I still cling to the issue of Maxim from 2000 where they predict that Osama Bin Laden will start World War III with a terrorist attack in New York City.
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by IMightB · 2010-07-21 07:27 · Score: 1

Holy crap! That's eerie....
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by jdgeorge · 2010-07-21 08:02 · Score: 1

You mean another terrorist attack in New York City.
The Maxim thing was a very conservative prediction. Bin Laden was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, so they had reason to expect he would make a second attempt.
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by snookerhog · 2010-07-22 01:19 · Score: 1

agreed. that Gillette story is still one of my favorites. Even after I almost got thrown out of a class at an Ivy League business school for sharing it with classmates as an example of marketing myopia. Apparently one of the students complained about being exposed to such filth, but would not confront me directly. Keep in mind the average age for students in this class was around 32. The professor told me with a straight face that she could not see any possible relevance that the Gillette article could have on our marketing theory class.
Re:Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but... by baggachipz · 2010-07-22 02:17 · Score: 1

Holy shit. I remember that article, but re-reading it now... wow.

For a follow-up by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Try citing The Onion AV Club as a source on Wikipedia. No one will believe you. Condescendingly, they'll explain that The Onion is satire.

Re:For a follow-up by canajin56 · 2010-07-21 05:42 · Score: 1

Your mistake is calling it by the wrong name. Their review site is just "The A.V. Club" not "The Onion A.V. Club".

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:For a follow-up by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 08:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

The same should happen if you try to cite FOX News.
Re:For a follow-up by threat_or_menace · 2010-07-21 11:23 · Score: 1

And we'd want to spend time paying enough attentio to post to wikipedia why, again?

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:42 · Score: 0

You mean, there are only morons on Facebook?

The original video: by slagheap · 2010-07-21 04:44 · Score: 5, Informative

is here.

--
First against the wall when the revolution comes

What can I do by Georules · 2010-07-21 04:44 · Score: 1

to prepare for the day when something like this turns into a stand alone complex?

Re:What can I do by chronosan · 2010-07-21 05:06 · Score: 1

Say cheese!

Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by gestalt_n_pepper · 2010-07-21 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Moving on, our next topics are Santa Clause, Jesus, the Tooth Fairy, and honesty in government.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:52 · Score: 0

Did you have some point you wanted to make by throwing Jesus in there, other than that you're a bigot? There's quite a bit more manuscript evidence for the existence and life of Jesus than there is for Genghis Khan. If you want to have a conversation about the validity of his own (Jesus') claims to be God incarnate, then you may. But only a willfully ignorant fool could deny the actual historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by sqlrob · 2010-07-21 04:56 · Score: 1

[Citation needed]
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by onkelonkel · 2010-07-21 05:07 · Score: 1

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

--
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:16 · Score: 0

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+of+nazareth+manuscript+evidence
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Beezlebub33 · 2010-07-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Dude, you need a serious humor injection. To lots of us, Jesus, while he may have existed, was just another deluded person. When I hear people talking about "Jesus" it is always in the religious sense, and not in the human sense; if someone wants to discuss the manuscript evidence, then they refer to the "historical Jesus".
And you are incorrect about the comparison to Genghis Khan. The amount evidence is actually about the same, with very little to no manuscripts until significantly after the death of the person in question; as opposed to, for example, Julius Caesar or Mohammad, about whom much more evidence exists from their lifetimes. (And, no, Josephus doesn't count, as it's clearly an insertion by a later person). At least with Khan, we don't have zealots making up conflicting stories to match earlier prophets, and stealing from earlier figures from other religions.

--
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:58 · Score: 0

-The biblical accounts of the 4 gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) conflict on pretty much all points of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
-None of the gospels were written during Jesus' supposed lifetime of the lifetimes of anyone that could have met him.
-The census mentioned in the bible as the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem never occurred. No contemporary historical or eyewitness account of Jesus exists anywhere.
-The blacking out of the sun claimed by the bible during the crucifixion never happened.
-Of the 4 pieces of historical evidence Christians point to as evidence of Jesus, none are from Jesus' supposed lifetime or the lifetimes of anyone that could have met Jesus
-The 2 most important (Josephus and Tacitus) have been shown to be fakes and were never mentioned by early Christian scholars
-1 is a letter from a prisoner who only states his belief in Jesus, which is no more evidence than if I were to write a letter stating I believe in unicorns
-The other was written centuries later and makes impossible claims about events known to have never occurred (like the sun blacking out).
-The shroud of Turin has been shown to be fake.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-3716-post-70974.html#pid70974
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:14 · Score: 0

There is no evidence that the stories about "Jesus of nazareth" is based on one man. Infact there is evidence that there was a number of different people claimig of being the son of god, born by a virgin etc and was later crucified.
There is even stories about "jesus of [different place]" and people not named Jesus doing the same miracles as the jesus did in the bible.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Bryansix · 2010-07-21 10:24 · Score: 1

False Analogy much? Santa Claus and Jesus were real men who actually existed. The Tooth Fairy and Honsty in government on the otherhand never have seen the light of day. I keep hoping that I'll live to see the messiah that is honesty in government but everytime that divine conception happens the baby is stillborn and dies in the birth canal of reality.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by gestalt_n_pepper · 2010-07-21 10:42 · Score: 1

Both Santa Claus and Jesus may have been based on some real human being in the distant past.
I'm pointing out that:
a)Neither exist now.
b)Based on current evidence, belief in either as magical superbeings is delusional.
P.S.
Sorry if this offends any of your current imaginary friend(s).

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by TheRaven64 · 2010-07-21 11:16 · Score: 1

I'd always assumed that the Jesus stories were vaguely based on a real person, but your claim that there was more evidence for him than for Genghis Khan made me bother to look up exactly what the evidence was. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of primary sources, and they all vague, oblique mentions (and contradict things in the Bible, for example claiming that he had 5 disciples and giving the different names to any found in the New Testament). None of the detailed accounts come from any earlier than a few decades after his death, and even these contain numerous contradictions. Very few references to Jesus appear before about two centuries after his death. I contrast, there are a lot of primary sources related to Genghis Khan.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Bryansix · 2010-07-22 06:51 · Score: 1

Care to comment on the issue of the quick spread of Christianity after the witness of Jesus' resurection? Seriously, he only had 12 disciples and only a few hundred beleivers at that time. How does a story like that gain so much popularity so quickly? Some 800 years later we know how Islam spread so quickly. It was at the end of a sword. Yet, Christianity spread like wildfire and it was peaceful. In fact it was the Government who immediatly started persecuting the new followers but that did not stifle it's rise. Care to explain any of this? I have an explanation. Those who saw Jesus be resurected had a story which had to get out. It was lent credibility because those who witnessed it did not all know each other. The truth is science cannot test the theory that Jesus was not God. Therefore science has nothing to say about it. Philosophy on the other hand has lots to say and most philisophical proofs are FOR the existance of God.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by gestalt_n_pepper · 2010-07-22 07:18 · Score: 1

Christianity spread because the followers borrowed their organizational structure from the roman government. Pope = Emperor. Apostles = Bishops. And so on. This structure allowed for more efficient actions of any sort, including proselytizing innocents.
Buddhism spread without this - they were just groups of travelling monks, talking sensibly. Perhaps they had a message which had to get out. :)

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Re:Gullibility, it's what's for dinner! by Bryansix · 2010-07-22 10:40 · Score: 1

Buddhists account for 5.84% of world religious followers. Buddhism spread mainly because it became engrained in the culture and the people had not much religion before that which was not tied to their culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country

Can't Top China by organgtool · 2010-07-21 04:45 · Score: 1

This is definitely humorous (and sad), but it still doesn't top China

Totally shouldn't be allowed to vote! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:46 · Score: 1, Funny

I totally agree! Also if you don't speak English - how the fuck are you expected to know what's going on? Or if you don't own your own house. Or aren't white. Or a man.

Re:Totally shouldn't be allowed to vote! by Lithdren · 2010-07-21 05:40 · Score: 1

Hey, you might be interested in a product im peddling door to door!

You see, it consists of simply a mat. But not just any mat, its a mat with various outlandish "conclusions" on it, that you can "jump" to without reguard of content! I like to call it a "Jump to conclusions" mat! The best part is you asume how much its worth, and thats a verbal contract that you'll purchase one! Thank you for your purchase, and yes you're right you'll never recieve one in the mail as promised! Guess what? You just bought another one!

People are afraid of real zombies? by BoppreH · 2010-07-21 04:47 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I'm watching the right video. The one I saw is a congressmen reading a bill about response to *zombie* threats.

"Flesh eating," "airborne infection," "urban outbreak."

Please tell me I watched the wrong video.

Re:People are afraid of real zombies? by GryMor · 2010-07-21 05:03 · Score: 1

"You watched the wrong video"
Unfortunately, you did in fact watch the correct video and I'm just telling you the above per your request.
Though, parts sounded like a Eldritch Horror/Cloverfield situation rather than a Zombie scenario.

--
Realities just a bunch of bits.

Poe's Law at it's best by amstrad · 2010-07-21 04:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

Re:Poe's Law at it's best by twoallbeefpatties · 2010-07-21 05:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

There's something amazing about invoking Poe's Law here, similar to the number of far-rightists who think that Stephen Colbert is secretly a real conservative who's just pretending to play a fake one so that he has a chance to mock liberals - that even when you make it clear up front that you have a parody, some fundamentalists will still miss or ignore that part. Apparently, there's nothing you can do to get 100% certain with parody.

--
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by somaTh · 2010-07-21 05:38 · Score: 1

From where I am, I can't get to Poe's Law on rational wiki. However, I can get there on Wikipedia. The amusing part, to me, is that the page has a link to The Onion in the See Also section.

--
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by JSBiff · 2010-07-21 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd just like to point out that this applies equally to the extreme ends of any ideology.
Because parody attempts to take any idea to an absurd extreme, it's difficult to distinguish parody from the extreme camp of any ideology.
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by Jay+L · 2010-07-21 07:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Apparently, there's nothing you can do to get 100% certain with parody.
Yeah, for 100% you really want CRC or some sort of forward error correction.
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by IICV · 2010-07-21 07:55 · Score: 1

What's really scary is that I've never actually seen a parody of an extreme American-style Left position that I had a hard time distinguishing from satire.
On the other hand, I seem to frequently batshit crazy stuff coming from the American Right that I have a hard time believing aren't parodies, like that "get your filthy government hands off my Medicare" guy or the politician who yelled out "You lie!" at the President.
Has our political system really devolved into a right wing and H.R. Geiger's parody of a right wing?
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by snowgirl · 2010-07-21 09:49 · Score: 1

I think the problem is that because the US has such a right-wing slant in its general population, it's difficult to produce a proper left-wing parody so extreme that someone on the left would actually believe it. (Ok, so you might catch one or two, but seriously, who can really find them?)
So, again, while the "get your filthy government hands off my Medicare" is totally believable and actually held by a real individual, coming up with something totally bat-shit left wing starts becoming totally untenable... for instance: "no, I really do want the muslims to come here and turn the US into a theocracy." ... it's just way too many standard deviations away from average, that the number of people actually holding the position is limited.
On the other hand, there are some bat-shit crazy left-wingers on Penn and Teller's Bullshit, in the range of what might be "parody or honesty?" might become a valid question.

--
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 10:27 · Score: 0

You know, he still hangs out at christianforums now and then.
And yes, I've had a full on encounter with his law on there. Someone linked a video of good non-Christians getting sentenced in the afterlife. They all go to hell despite being good people. Like the black guy who did good things all his life gets canned for owning a porn mag "it was just for the articles!". Then a rapist or something comes up. Before the judge makes a ruling, Jesus comes up and says "he's with me" and the rapist gets into heaven. The judge makes a comment "that's why they call it grace".
It REALLY looks like a SNL skit poking fun at christianity, but they didn't bat an eyelash at it on the forums. Hunting down the source, it was made by this fundy site that's way too big to be a spoof.
Re:Poe's Law at it's best by inKubus · 2010-07-21 12:59 · Score: 1

You're joking, right?

--
Cool! Amazing Toys.

There was a Bush-era Onion martial law story... by captainClassLoader · 2010-07-21 04:48 · Score: 2, Funny

...That you can find here.

--
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier

Re:There was a Bush-era Onion martial law story... by canajin56 · 2010-07-21 05:13 · Score: 1

March 2001 is barely "Bush-era" and it's about Starbucks declaring Martial Law, not the government. A better Bush-era article in a similar vein was their one about the Department of Homeland Security mysteriously issuing every man woman and child a lifejacket, with no explanation, and assurances that they surely won't need it and everything is fine. Link

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:There was a Bush-era Onion martial law story... by canajin56 · 2010-07-21 05:44 · Score: 1

Also since the video in TFA is from 2007 it technically is also a "Bush-era" martial law story

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:There was a Bush-era Onion martial law story... by jeffmeden · 2010-07-21 05:46 · Score: 1

The sad thing: This video clip IS BUSH-ERA. It's from 3 years ago.
This is just another testament to the fact that if an ignorant person wants to believe something (say, that the government is out to get you) that they will seek out any information that validates the theory (like the top 80% of the image in that video), and ignore anything that challenges that belief (like the bottom 20% of the image, which clearly proclaims that the speech is from a fake senator, AND telecast by a fake news site.)
This is funny, and then meta-funny, but sadly it happens all the time *cough*talkradio*cough*.

Re:Suckaz by linumax · 2010-07-21 04:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I attend political debates, couple of times a month with different audiences and I have yet to meet a single person from the left mistake Onion with real news. I have also very rarely seen people from the right make that mistake. However, people who attend these talks are most likely better educated.

Back on topic, regarding general public this was released three years ago and at the time the left didn't come out and mistake this with real news. From looking at Facebook and Twitter, it seems like a whole lot of people on the right have been duped.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 04:49 · Score: 3, Funny

The difference, of course, is that your right wing friends won't believe you.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Kindra Arnesen is concerned by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 04:50 · Score: 0

Kindra Arnesen has come out against the bill. She also was quoted saying "Y'all don't know wut all the numbers mean but I'z do because I'z a fishermans wife and I gots maps behind me"

As a result, all her followers have been writing letters to congress in opposition to the bill.

Oh, Dizzam by Aphoxema · 2010-07-21 04:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Onion news ISN'T REAL!? This sets me back on some things I believe to be fact... oh dear...

--
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Re:Oh, Dizzam by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 18:27 · Score: 0

The fact that the public can mistake what was supposed to be a satire as truth is very disturbing.
Either reality is screwed enough that nobody is able to tell real from fake or reality as known by people are as bad as the satire.
Re:Oh, Dizzam by PhxBlue · 2010-07-22 07:38 · Score: 1

This sets me back on some things I believe to be fact yet..
FTFY.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:Oh, Dizzam by proverbialcow · 2010-07-24 08:33 · Score: 1

Sadly, floors have yet to be invented. Sounds like a good idea, though.

--
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion

But the Onion IS real... by nweaver · 2010-07-21 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny

After all, in 2001, they had Bush's inaugural address as "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over"...

--
Test your net with Netalyzr

Re:But the Onion IS real... by eln · 2010-07-21 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's scary how prescient that article turned out to be.
Re:But the Onion IS real... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-07-21 04:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Reality has been waging a very effective war on satire for some time now.

The only bright side to all this is that Irish babies are, in fact, delicious.
Re:But the Onion IS real... by cheatch · 2010-07-21 05:01 · Score: 0

At first reading this I was like ya, it wasn't that clever to write that now that he's out of office, then I saw the date..
Re:But the Onion IS real... by Nadaka · 2010-07-21 05:02 · Score: 1

How prophetic...
This makes me a sad panda...
Re:But the Onion IS real... by daeley · 2010-07-21 05:04 · Score: 4, Funny

The only bright side to all this is that Irish babies are, in fact, delicious.
Well, that certainly gives a whole new spin to "Swiftboating."

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:But the Onion IS real... by seandiggity · 2010-07-21 05:14 · Score: 2

The only bright side to all this is that Irish babies are, in fact, delicious.
I hate to explain a good joke, but I know someone's gonna ask you what the hell you mean by that.

--
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Re:But the Onion IS real... by Bing+Tsher+E · 2010-07-21 05:56 · Score: 1

When 'the left' accuses someone of swiftboating many of us just chuckle.
Many of us believe the 'swiftboaters' were revealing John Kerry for what he is (a typical politician for whom the most dangerous thing you could do is get between him and a live camera, and one who viewed his time in Vietnam as a photo-op, which he jetted out of as soon as he had adequate footage)
Anyhow, for people who understand that about John Kerry, being accused of 'Swiftboating' is essentially being accused of exposing the truth about somebody.
So saying that 'Obama is being Swiftboated' for instance, means the claims being made about him are true.
Just thought that should be cleared up here where some of the kossite morons hang out and where they might have time to spread the word back to their cadre.
Re:But the Onion IS real... by lwsimon · 2010-07-21 06:08 · Score: 1

Congratulations on the most highbrow humorous exchange I have ever witnessed on the internet. Bravo!

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:But the Onion IS real... by dkleinsc · 2010-07-21 07:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Meh, the death of satire was predicted back when they gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:But the Onion IS real... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:39 · Score: 0

*swifffffffffffffff*
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=a+modest+proposal
Re:But the Onion IS real... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-07-21 07:39 · Score: 1

Would satire have been finished off for good, or given a vigorous new lease on life if(after being handed the prize, of course), Kissinger had delivered an A cappella rendition of "Napalm sticks to kids" instead of a speech?
Re:But the Onion IS real... by uglyMood · 2010-07-21 07:58 · Score: 1

I concur. Literate, multilayered, ruthlessly on-point and funny. Slashdot should give fuzzyfuzzyfungus and daeley some kind of award.

--
"No matter where you go, there you probably are." -- Buckaroo Heisenberg
Re:But the Onion IS real... by Guppy · 2010-07-21 10:25 · Score: 1

The only bright side to all this is that Irish babies are, in fact, delicious.
Psst! Secret is to marinate them in Guinness. ...follow the link, I'm not entirely kidding, either.

Re:Suckaz by maxume · 2010-07-21 04:52 · Score: 1

It sounds like you should introduce both sides to your 12 gauge friend.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

RSS Feeding Onion by Tink2000 · 2010-07-21 04:55 · Score: 1

I have the Onion on my RSS feed, and sometimes their posts my jaw drop open and I have to rub my eyes, only to realize my feed has pwnd me yet again.

--
Why do I M2 everything negatively?

One word by xswl0931 · 2010-07-21 04:56 · Score: 1

Idiocracy

Zombpocalypse by Dexter+Herbivore · 2010-07-21 04:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Is it just me, or does that sound like an awesome description of Z-Day?

Re:Zombpocalypse by Fieryphoenix · 2010-07-21 05:05 · Score: 1

It's not just you.
Re:Zombpocalypse by Dexter+Herbivore · 2010-07-21 05:17 · Score: 1

Good, time to stock up on shotgun ammo and a "lobo" to prepare for an outbreak of African Rabies.
Re:Zombpocalypse by RightwingNutjob · 2010-07-21 11:18 · Score: 1

The government can neither confirm or deny your insightful observation.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 04:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Oh here we go

-slam the right. It's practically a new passtime to slashdot.

At least we don't have a Leftist Congressman talking about the "island tipping over" if too many soldiers are stationed there.

Or another Left Congressman talking about how the Pelosicare bill is legal because the "Good and Plenty" clause of the constitution allows it.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

People who believe this... by aaronrp · 2010-07-21 04:58 · Score: 1

are .

--
Write Only Memory: Another pointless blog.

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Conspiracy nutjobs exist on both sides of the spectrum. For every idiot republican who thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan terrist who wants to make them get gay married, there's an idiot democrat who is certain that 9/11 was an inside job.

Re:Suckaz by kinnell · 2010-07-21 04:59 · Score: 1

I don't know, they've been right before.. I'm not taking any chances - I'm going to start stockpiling *classified* and move to *classified* where I can fight off any *classified* flesh-eating *classified*.

--
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 05:00 · Score: 1

Doh. Meant to include that both idiots will ignore facts when they conflict with the elaborate conspiracies that they have concocted in their heads.

The best argument against democracy... by Techranman · 2010-07-21 05:00 · Score: 5, Funny

...is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill

Re:The best argument against democracy... by RPoet · 2010-07-21 05:37 · Score: 3, Funny

He then later followed up with "SHABOOM!" and slapped his wife on the ass, before immediately pounding a 40.

--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Re:The best argument against democracy... by jbeach · 2010-07-21 06:20 · Score: 1

True story. Winston Churchill: statesman, pimp and playa.

"We shall smack hoes on seas and oceans. We shall smack hoe's on the beaches. We shall smack hoes in the tunnels. Word, we shall defend our hood, whatever the price may be."

--
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Re:The best argument against democracy... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 17:32 · Score: 0

"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."
-- Rudyard Kipling

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 05:00 · Score: 1

P.S.

Here's the link for those that don't know what Congressmen I was referring to. It's the 4th and 5th segements in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfGCMORVoY

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Still waiting for Cock Puncher to be released! by Kenja · 2010-07-21 05:01 · Score: 1

And dont tell me its not real! It IS real! I know it!

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

lmao by tycoex · 2010-07-21 05:01 · Score: 0

This is absolutely hilarious. He says "classified" for literally every other word. People really thought this was real?

Re:Suckaz by ericspinder · 2010-07-21 05:05 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The only reason why people are even distributing such foolery is that right wing commentators have been filling the gullible with tales of Death Panels, Socialistic take over, etc. in a seemingly desperate effort to confuse people enough to vote for them again.

Reactionaries always whine about 'those dirty damn liberals' as an effort to distract from real policy discussions. Troll like, they are often spit out comments about how 'their liberal friends' are 'so stupid'.

--
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:07 · Score: 0

sounds like you have dumb friends

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

-slam the right. It's practically a new passtime to slashdot.

They invite it, though, with right wing politicians calling Obama a socialist, a 'secret Muslim', not born in the U.S., talking about death panels in the healthcare bill, etc. And that's in the GOP itself, not just in the TEA Party.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:08 · Score: 0

Some of your friends might do well in explaining to you that The Onion is very much real indeed. Their stories, on the other hand, are not factual.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:08 · Score: 3, Informative

That is a false equivalency, very few in the left wing believe 9/11 was an inside job, and they are roundly denounced by the rest of us. The right wing, however, holds some very crazy beliefs very strongly.

# 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

# 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

# 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

# 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
Story continues below

# 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.

# 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.

# 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.

# 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

the usual bunch of idiots... by Thud457 · 2010-07-21 05:09 · Score: 1

Al Jaffee beat them to the punch 31 years ago!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 05:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Outside of the Acorn thing, all of those are demonstrations that republicans are generally stupid and ignorant, not conspiracy theorists ;)

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Doh.

Meant to include that both idiots will ignore facts when they conflict with the elaborate conspiracies that they have concocted in their heads.

Didn't I just see an article somewhere (maybe here) in the last week or two which stated that real, actual, honest-to-goodness facts can often cause horribly misinformed people who believe something that is totally incorrect to to feel even more strongly that their misinformed belief is right?

I can't seem to find a link to it in my browser history but I'm certain I saw it.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Sarah Palin was always more qualified than Obama. Sarah Palin had great executive experience as Governor and Mayor. Obama? Zero executive experience. Biden? Zero executive experience. Quite frankly, Obama did not have the resume that most people expect to see in a Presidential candidate.

And I seem to remember many liberals thinking that Bush should be impeached. I don't know what the numbers were, but you didn't cite a source for yours, so...

CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN by deoxyribonucleose · 2010-07-21 05:13 · Score: 1

Sounds like the US is preparing itself too. Wonder what the equivalent of MAGINOT BLUE STARS is going to be? There must be something eldritch you can do with tens of thousands of TSA staff combined with teraherz scanners... (For obscure references, see http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html)

Re:CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:26 · Score: 0

I'm about 2/3rds through the Fuller Memorandum, Stross' work is awesome.

I think this goes to prove by bugs2squash · 2010-07-21 05:14 · Score: 1

that the slashdot posting system is too slow, and allows too much time for consideration before posting a comment. We need an option to improve ability to fire off knee-jerk reactions unthinkingly. This whole episode is misrepresenting slashdot posters as being less reactionary and idiotic than twitter users.

--
Nullius in verba

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:14 · Score: 0

These are false statements, very few in the right wing believe the things you have posted, and they are roundly denounced by the rest of us. The left wing, however, holds some very crazy beliefs very strongly, such as the belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

Hey, if you can make 'objective' yet broad, sweeping statements about a group you don't align yourself with, so can I!

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:15 · Score: 0

OMG, The Onion isn't real news?

But it IS REAL!!! by Ossifer · 2010-07-21 05:16 · Score: 1

You sheep don't understand!

When the news of this leaked out "they" decided they could hide it by pretending it was humor--why do you think it ended up on The Onion?

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:16 · Score: 0

I happen to know a right winger (super right) who is adamant that 9/11 was an inside job, but that it had to be done to rally the liberals to take action.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:17 · Score: 0

And I'm a centrist: both of them are right!

Poe's law strikes again. by Kikuchi · 2010-07-21 05:18 · Score: 1

Another Poe's Law casualties.

--
There's no scientific consensus that life is important.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:18 · Score: 4, Informative

To be fair, online gullibility and hysteria does tend towards a right wing bent.
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, just for this month alone. The left is not immune to the chain-email urban legend phenomenon (e.g. talk of the draft a few years back) but it is the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.

Re:Suckaz by LoverOfJoy · 2010-07-21 05:20 · Score: 2, Funny

I happen to know a right winger (super right) who is adamant that 9/11 was an inside job, but that it had to be done to rally the liberals to take action.

Whoa! You're friends with Bush?

Re:Suckaz by Artifakt · 2010-07-21 05:20 · Score: 1

I'm thinking that the redwood forests should provide some resistance to them moving about freely, due to their enormous size. Lesser trees will, of course, represent absolutely no obstacle. Beyond that, this board is not currently cleared CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN, so I'll just hint that people should stock up on 'classified' with all five points intact.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Re:Suckaz by Hogwash+McFly · 2010-07-21 05:21 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe this was the article you refer to.

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?

Re:Suckaz by grahamsaa · 2010-07-21 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Citation needed.

--
Facts have a liberal bias.

ever watch Jay Leno jaywalking by peter303 · 2010-07-21 05:21 · Score: 1

Ignorant people are easy to find, especially among the younger set.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:21 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Sarah Palin quit half way through her term as governor, demonstrating she is a quitter. She has demonstrated a complete lack of intelligence, the next most important quality of a leader.

I can't believe anyone is defending Sarah Palin. Seriously, you demonstrate my point about irrat5inal right wing beliefs for me.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 05:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is utterly true, not only about 9/11, but also about martial law. You wouldn't believe how many of my liberal friends thought Bush would cancel the elections and call martial law before Obama could get elected. It was really depressing because they were mostly well-educated and should have known better. Here is an example of one guy defending his position, in case you want to see what it looks like.

I don't think it actually shows Americans are crazy, I think it reflects the deep-set distrust Americans have of their government. And this is something that extends from the left to the right. And it's probably a good thing.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by skids · 2010-07-21 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, those aren't Democrats, they usually register Green or Indie, if they
register at all.

Both major parties are considered mainstream, and so they must be part of
the the big conspiracy. Voting for any candidate that actually has a chance
of winning seems to be an anathema to them. Some actually outright call
voting an act of endorsing "the system" as if there is some all powerful
international karma genie keeping track and ready to kick out the government
if voter enrollment fell too far.

(Not that I don't like the Green party on principle, they have a better platform
than the Dems, but it seems to have the liability of being a magnet for
despondent borderline nutjobs, and in certain states, a takeover target for
wannabe communists. Which is a drag on the other states where the adults
are in charge of it.)

--
Someone had to do it.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:25 · Score: 0

but 9/11 was an inside job ... by Muslim Kenyan Terrorists to get one of their own elected. Not in the next election of course, because that would be too obvious.

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 05:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Hahaha! That's a good one! "Executive experience"! She ran a backwater Alaskan town into the ground, crippling it with millions of dollars of debt, then stepped down before completing her first term as Governor amid accusations of abuse of power stemming from 'troopergate' and the bribes, excuse me, I mean "Free Home Improvements" she accepted while in office. I wouldn't trust her to run my convenience store, much less my government.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:25 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Google 'poll of right wing beliefs' if you don't believe me. Obama derangement syndrome has driven right wingers absolutely crazy. They can not believe a black liberal is president, that a black man is smarter and more powerful than they are. These small minded bigots have always excused their own shortcomings by saying, "I may be a complete failure, but at least I'm not black!" Well, now they have nothing, and it has driven them bug berserk.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Really? This poll was all over the news two months ago, everyone was commenting on it. Google 'poll of right wing beliefs' if you need a citation, this isn't wikipedia and I'm not your research assistant.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by metrometro · 2010-07-21 05:29 · Score: 1

Yes, but only the right has a TV network devoted to spreading The Crazy.

News Source Fail by orgelspieler · 2010-07-21 05:31 · Score: 1

Reminds me of Christina Maldonado's fail back in May. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and scary.

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by Locke2005 · 2010-07-21 05:31 · Score: 1

Finding morons on FaceBook is not news. Finding someone on FaceBook that is NOT a moron would be big news, when and if it ever happens!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK, it's just intellectually dishonest of you to use the results of that poll once it was shown that the numbers were made up. It's one thing if you want to push your Democratic agenda, but you better be using real data if you don't want to be compared to the scum of the earth. And by the scum of the earth, of course, I mean......marketers.

Seriously, that just made you look really bad. Learn to find good information.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

We slam the right because the right is stupid. Isn't it obvious?

Re:Suckaz by lysdexia · 2010-07-21 05:36 · Score: 1

I keep reading that "Muslim Keynesian Terrorists"
What the Hayek was I thinking?

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Bullshit. The numbers on that poll were not made up. You are the first person claiming that that particular poll contains false data. The only polls with disputed numbers were the weekly tracking polls. Heck, it's in the first sentence of the article you link to.

Research 2000 defrauded dailyKos. DailyKos themselves broke the story and sued the pollster. The poll I mention was not one that was faked. No one (except, I suppose, you) debates the numbers in the poll of Republican opinions, and they have been backed up by other polls.

Seriously, this just made you look bad. Learn to find good information.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by mjhacker · 2010-07-21 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

No no no no no. You have obviously never been a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. 9/11 Truthers are invariably libertarians of the Alex Jones flavor. I'd wager that the percentage of 9/11 Truthers who are democrats is VASTLY lower than the number who would define themselves as either libertarian or paleoconservative. I can vouch for this as a former truther.

That's almost as good as ... by wiredog · 2010-07-21 05:39 · Score: 1

"Is your son a computer hacker?" which trolled a certain techie site hard...

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 05:39 · Score: 1

What are you talking about? That news show with Jon Stewart as the anchor man is always spreading left wing lies!

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-21 05:39 · Score: 1

The last poll I saw putting forward the "Did Bush know about 9/11 in advance" had democrats at a nice 35% in the affirmative with an additional 26% "not sure". And in case you don't like Rasmussen, Zogby's earlier poll had Dems at 42% for their belief that Bush either participated in or allowed 9/11.

So you and your fellow left wing 'denouncers' are clearly in the minority of your party.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Re:Suckaz by djdanlib · 2010-07-21 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, then you can use an addon to block content from there, or reroute it to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 via /etc/hosts or c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

Re:Suckaz by Bing+Tsher+E · 2010-07-21 05:42 · Score: 1

Uh, yeah. Citation needed. Why is it a struggle to rattle off a bunch of numbers like that and provide your source? Unless they were made up on-the-fly they came from somewhere.

Re:Suckaz by OakDragon · 2010-07-21 05:42 · Score: 1

Humor us.

--
Dark Reflection

Re:Suckaz by countertrolling · 2010-07-21 05:42 · Score: 1

The misinformed strike again. Nobody should be surprised at all.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:43 · Score: 0

I would love to hear your rationalisation about what happened to WTC 7.

Or do you just not think about that?

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:44 · Score: 0

Where did you get these statistics, Dailykoz.com?

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sorry, but 'knew about 9/11 in advance' is not '9/11 was an inside job.' Thirty five percent is a minority, and 'not sure' means 'not sure,' so I'm in the majority.

Please report to remedial English, and after that, remedial math, m'kay?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:45 · Score: 0

Citation needed.

Re:Suckaz by Bing+Tsher+E · 2010-07-21 05:45 · Score: 1

She has demonstrated a complete lack of intelligence, the next most important quality of a leader.

WTF is a 'complete lack of intelligence' except for a rhetorical flourish. Please don't spam the discussions with meaningless hackneyed rhetoric.

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-21 05:46 · Score: 1

Huffington Post's own link to the poll calls into question any of the findings. As you would clearly see if you bothered to follow the GPs link.

Those damn dirty conservatives over at HuffPo trying to boudmouth the outstanding work of Reasearch2000.

But you can go on with your belief that of all the claims of outright fraud against the polling company in question THIS was the poll they were completely truthful about.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:47 · Score: 1

As I have stated in this thread, go google 'poll of right wing beliefs.' This was a big news item two months ago, I'm actually surprised you did not hear of it. It was even on Fox News.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

minor but important point by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

The video wasn't "faked" it was edited to remove context.

Even watching the whole video, she used some pretty stupid language in relating her story despite her intentions. The more damning thing in the video is the crowd's reaction to her attitudes back then ("send him to his kind" followed by chuckles, "yeahs!", etc.). Her claim that the language she used was "how she felt then" is partially not true because it was a way of her as a speaker relating to the crowd.

No, it's not good the context was taken away, but Sharpton / Jackson do this all the time and nowhere do we find the appropriate vitrol for those two. Anytime an issue comes up "intent" and "context" are never relevant for those two.

Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-21 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Bullshit. She was explaining how she overcame her racial biases and helped the farmer after the white lawyer she sent him to screwed up. The farmer's wife even went on air to defend the lady.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by ptbarnett · 2010-07-21 06:23 · Score: 1

She was explaining how she overcame her racial biases and helped the farmer after the white lawyer she sent him to screwed up. The farmer's wife even went on air to defend the lady.
Yes, she did. And the rush to judgment was unfair to her.
Now she knows how it feels to be unfairly accused of racism and suffer the consequences for something that was taken out of context.
There's an entire Wikipedia page about controversies that have arisen over the misunderstanding of the word "niggardly". It would have been nice if all of those people unfairly accused would have been offered an apology.
On the other hand, the video wasn't supposed to be about Sherrod: it was about the NAACP's reaction to her story before she got to the point of redemption. But now that she has played the victim card, that's been lost in the noise.
Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-21 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

The video was taken in 1986. Please explain what a 24 year old video tells us about the NAACP of today, which has actually denounced even suspected racists in their midst.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by J053 · 2010-07-21 07:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, the video was from March of this year (2010) - Sherrod was relating an event that took place in 1986. Just trying to keep the facts straight (an impossible task, I know)
Re:minor but important point by ScentCone · 2010-07-21 09:14 · Score: 1

Please explain what a 24 year old video tells us about the NAACP of today, which has actually denounced even suspected racists in their midst.

What the video (which was taken three months ago) tells us about the NAACP is that in a room full of its members, there are plenty of them that - before the speaker has even made her point - will laugh and say "yeah!" at the notion of the speaker shorting the farmer because he's white, or referring to "his kind" when talking about white lawyers. This was about that audience and their clearly-not-race-neutral approval of a half-told anecdote about a white farmer Getting It From The Man because he's white. That's what this video tells us.

And that was the whole point of the guy who posted it in the first place: he's pointing out that just because a few loons show up in the margins of a Tea Party event doesn't mean the NAACP should make a national meeting issue out of it - not while their own members cheerfully encourage an anecdote about denying a farmer equal government services because he's white.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:minor but important point by e2d2 · 2010-07-21 09:15 · Score: 1

Actually the video in question was taken 3 months ago at an NAACP banquet.
Re:minor but important point by mirix · 2010-07-21 16:30 · Score: 1

Good lord, I know the public school system is weak in the US, but there's been dismissals due to the fact that morons don't know what a word means?
What a sad state of affairs.

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-22 07:28 · Score: 1

Sorry, got that wrong. The original incident was 26 years ago. But my point is that she was preaching racial tolerance at the NAACP meeting. Her father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire. You can understand how she might have some hard feelings about that. But she overcame them, and when the white lawyer she sent him to failed, she stepped back in to help him. The minority of NAACP members who cheered that she had passed the buck were properly schooled.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-22 07:33 · Score: 1

Yes, a minority of members cheered when Sherrod, whose father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire, said she had passed the buck. But Sherrod schooled them in the error of their ways, showing them that racial intolerance was wrong. When has a Tea Party leader ever done that? The NAACP never denounced the Tea Party for racism: they merely denounced the Tea Party for not denouncing the racists in their midst. Even if your laughable assertion that only a few fringe elements of the Tea Party are racists was true, it would not change the fact that racism is tacitly condoned there.
More importantly, this whole story is propaganda for the ludicrous and poisonous myth that minorities will always seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is a dog whistle for racists everywhere: never let the minority win or he will punish you.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-22 07:53 · Score: 1

Sorry about that, you are right, the video is recent but detailing a 2 year old event. But this still upholds my position: Sherrod was giving a speech about racial tolerance of white people. The minority of idiots in the audience who clapped when she said she passed the buck to a white lawyer were schooled in the error of their ways. Sherrod, whose father was murdered by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire, said that when that white lawyer failed to help the farmer, she stepped back in to help him.
So there we have it: the NAACP was hosting a speech on racial tolerance, denouncing racism against whites. The NAACP says the Tea Party has never promoted racial tolerance or denounced racism. The Tea Party then tries to claim the NAACP are racists.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by ScentCone · 2010-07-22 09:10 · Score: 1

When has a Tea Party leader ever done that?

You mean like when some race baiter gets up at a Tea Party event and spouts some nonsense, and the people in the room boo him and tell him to get out, and that he's full of crap? That sort of thing? As opposed to the people in the audience who weren't mistakenly cheering on the wrong aspect of Sherrod's speech but didn't scold the others in the audience who were vocally approving of race-based support (or lack of it) for farmers?

your laughable assertion that only a few fringe elements of the Tea Party are racists

Actually, that's as simple as talking to them and meeting them, which you clearly haven't done. Though it's funny that you are making an assertion that it's true without citing anything showing that racism is at the core of that movement. Typical nonsense: don't like the fact that a group is opposed to what you do (a la the left's policies, as acted upon by the current congress and the administration)? Quick! Call them racists!

it would not change the fact that racism is tacitly condoned there

Other than the fact that you're simply incorrect (well, that's not true - you know you're actually lying), we just saw video of a putatively anti-racism group (who, oddly, are organized around forwarding the agenda of people based expressly on their skin color - you can't get better irony than that) having plenty of people in one of their meetings displaying approval of the notion of racist behavior from an authority, and nobody complaining. I'm not sure what your point is.

this whole story is propaganda for the ludicrous and poisonous myth that minorities will always seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power

Really? I thought it was an excellent object lesson in extreme hypocrisy. And as a side note, a fantastic demonstration of how unprincipled the current administration actually is, preferring as they do to react to all things by sticking their finger in the wind for a sense of how they think something will play. Pure, blind, witless panic on their part. Really shows you what sort of judgement we're dealing with. Hate to see them in an actual crisis.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-22 09:30 · Score: 1

When did the race baiter get booed down? I simply don't believe you.
I stand by my assertion that there are a sizable number of non fringe racist elements in the Tea Party. Their words and actions are on record. In fact, I would say that most Tea Partiers are motivated far more by fear that the 'white race' is losing status, than by economic motives.
I know I'm telling the truth, and I know that you know you are lying. You see, the whole point of Sherrod's speech was to complain about racism towards whites.
It was an excellent lesson in the extreme hypocrisy of the right wing, who will manufacture lies, spout racist nonsense, complain about being called racists, and claim that anyone who calls them a racist must also be a racist. It's extremely childish.
http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2010/03/21/tea-partys-racist-antics-are-anything-but-isolated/

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by ScentCone · 2010-07-22 09:58 · Score: 1

You see, the whole point of Sherrod's speech was to complain about racism towards whites.

No, her whole point (which she stated, not that you care), was that in her role as a civil servant, she's realized that it's all about the haves vs. the have-nots. The whole point being made by posting the video of the NAACP audience's reaction to her anecodote-in-progress was to very accurately skewer the NAACP's whole "racist elements" holier-than-thou schtick. Even in that small conference room, the NAACP's membership was populated by on-video "racist elements" and by a larger audience that didn't say a thing to shame them for yukking it up at the prospect of a white farmer getting handled less constructively than a black one. As her anecdote and speech continues, those same people sure are quiet.

manufacture lies, spout racist nonsense, complain about being called racists, and claim that anyone who calls them a racist must also be a racist. It's extremely childish

What's fascinating is that you're the one actually doing those things, right now! Fantastic.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:minor but important point by spun · 2010-07-22 10:10 · Score: 1

Sherrod shamed them for yucking it up, duh, that was why the NAACP asked her to speak on the matter. And of course I care that she said that it's about the haves vs the have nots, you know me, that's my line! Class warfare, baby. But that was by no means the point, the major point was that she had made a mistake, and corrected it, and she was urging NAACP members to examine their own racist attitudes. Something the Tea Party has not even come close to doing.
I notice you have not addressed the serious racists outlined in the linked story I gave you. Here, maybe you missed it, so I'll keep posting it until you do address said racists: http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2010/03/21/tea-partys-racist-antics-are-anything-but-isolated/

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:minor but important point by e2d2 · 2010-07-26 06:50 · Score: 1

Oh I understand the message she was trying to convey, I watched the whole video. This type of selective editing does nothing for bridging the gap between races.

Re:Suckaz by Jedi+Alec · 2010-07-21 05:47 · Score: 1

I don't think it actually shows Americans are crazy, I think it reflects the deep-set distrust Americans have of their government. And this is something that extends from the left to the right. And it's probably a good thing.

If by a "good thing" you mean that americans are completely dissociated from their government and take no responsibility whatsoever for its actions...then yes.

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 05:48 · Score: 1

You can't type? Here you go then, let me just google that for you.

http://www.google.com/search?q=poll+of+right+wing+beliefs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

P.S. by bonch · 2010-07-21 05:48 · Score: 1, Troll

Brietbart is the guy who destroyed ACORN with false accusations and edited video

Whoa, what the hell? They really were involved in an embezzlement controversy, and an internal ACORN investigation found that poor management led to bad behavior on the part of employees. Based on your statements, I'm guessing you visit nothing but left-wing blogs and so have a completely one-sided perspective of nearly everything. Frankly, I find it amusing that the left gets to experience what it's like to have allegedly edited footage portray you in a bad light after all those years of heavily edited "documentaries" like Michael Moore films and Outfoxed.

Pretty much the entire Obama era so far has been an example of the left experiencing all the things they did to the right and an administration doing all the things Bush did. The country didn't change at all.

Re:P.S. by spun · 2010-07-21 05:53 · Score: 1

Could you give me a citation backing up your claims?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:P.S. by bonch · 2010-07-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Certainly. Here is the embezzlement story from the New York Times, and here is the result of the internal ACORN investigation about their poor management practices.
Re:P.S. by spun · 2010-07-21 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sorry, but how does being robbed make you guilty of vote theft? Where does that investigation show that ACORN rigged the election? How does any of this address the made up pimp video? Breitbart lied, end of story.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:P.S. by bonch · 2010-07-21 06:27 · Score: 1

You said Breitbart is the one who destroyed ACORN, so I told you ACORN destroyed itself through poor management practices and actions on the part of higher-ups. I mentioned that I think you must read left-wing blogs a lot because ACORN is one of those things they obsess over, along with Sarah Palin.
Obama and the Senate cut off funding of ACORN due to all their scandals. You can blame Brietbart if you want, but it wasn't the cause of their demise. Their internal investigation describes their lack of transparency and opaqueness of information.
Re:P.S. by VarmintCong · 2010-07-21 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pretty much the entire Obama era so far has been an example of the left experiencing all the things they did to the right and an administration doing all the things Bush did. The country didn't change at all.
Pretty much the entire Obama era so far has been an example of the right projecting all the things they did onto the left and the Democrats doing all the things in the Republican's interest. The country didn't change at all.
Thought I'd fix that for you.
I find it interesting that the Republican talking points are an extreme example of projection. If they accuse someone of embezzlement, or pretty much anything, you can be sure of three things:
a. They really believe it and always will, no matter how much you point out facts that prove them wrong
b. That when said facts disagree with their worldview, they will accuse the source of being left wing and biased and therefore by definition incorrect
c. That somewhere, they are actually doing the same thing they are accusing the left of, except much more efficiently and effectively.
Examples of this would be the family values thing, the deficit thing, the not giving a fuck about the veterans thing, the being in the pocket of industry thing, the government program = welfare thing (i.e. a huge amount of the defense budget), the racism thing, the litmus test thing, the only policy being that to gain power politically thing no matter what the cost to the country thing, the voter intimidation thing, the voter fraud thing...
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Well, probably not, but whatever. I'm going to go back and watch the continuing subjugation of our citizens to the almighty dollar. Hopefully I can continue to afford to buy popcorn.
Re:P.S. by bonch · 2010-07-21 07:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Those three things listed apply just as equally to Democrats:
a. Democrats really believe it and always will, no matter how much you point out facts that prove them wrong.
b. When said facts disagree with their worldview, they will accuse the source of being right wing and biased ("neo-con") and therefore by definition incorrect
c. Somewhere, they are actually doing the same thing they are accusing the right of, except much more efficiently and effectively (the current Congress has been a shining example).
However, I would add a fourth item for Democrats:
d. Democrats are the ones who constantly position themselves as the superior, enlightened intellectuals, yet they do all the same bad things they accuse Republicans of doing. In effect, they use moral superiority as an argument to justify being just as evil. (e.g., Obama and other Democrats criticizing recess appointments under Bush, yet when in power, they do the same thing and claim it's for the good of the country).
The left and the right are exactly the same in that their political views are their religions. However, the embezzlement claim isn't a "Republican talking point." It really happened.
Your "almighty dollar" statement makes you dangerously close to sounding like a stereotype. I can even hear you saying "maaaaan" at the end of it!
Re:P.S. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 12:18 · Score: 0

He didn't lie. He just didn't tell the entire truth.
Re:P.S. by spun · 2010-07-22 08:55 · Score: 1

Not that I expect you to accept any of this, as a recent story here has pointed out: the truth only makes some folks believe the lies more; ACORN has been fully exonerated. Just as with Sherrod, Breitbart and the right wing have orchestrated a campaign of lies and destroyed an innocent progressive institution that has done nothing but good in the world. It's disgusting how these underhanded and dishonest bullies actually get their way using the cheapest and dirtiest tactics. To the right wing, this is brutal, all out war, we are the enemy of all that is good and decent, and must be destroyed at any cost. It's sickening how far they will go, and terrifying that their tactics work. Just remember, you reap what you sow.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/CRS-ACORN091222.pdf
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/acorn_workers_cleared_of_illeg.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/acorn_got_no_direct_justice_de.html

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Harry Potter by Masterofpsi · 2010-07-21 05:49 · Score: 1

For a second I thought the Slashdot headline was an Onion-esque headline, reporting the blindingly obvious and mundane as if it were news.

Because it's happened before -- it's how the whole Harry Potter moral panic got started. True story.

The original article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/harry-potter-books-spark-rise-in-satanism-among-ch,2413/http://www.theonion.com/articles/harry-potter-books-spark-rise-in-satanism-among-ch,2413/

And the snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp

Re:Suckaz by hesiod · 2010-07-21 05:50 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that... it's horrifying.

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-21 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

And as pointed out below the 'polling' company who put forward those results has been caught cooking the books. They were so bad even most liberal sites have been trying to disassociate themselves from their findings.

Using Reasearch2000 as an accurate polling source is akin to using Tiger Woods as a source for marriage advice.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 05:51 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The "complete lack of intelligence" comes from basically every interview she did during the McCain campaign. She did fine when she had a script in front of her, but every time she was interviewed without pre-screened questions, she looked like a deer in the headlights. Hell, she couldn't even name a single periodical that she read when interviewed by Katie Couric. Her respond was 'most of them'. She couldn't think of the name of a single publication that she reads. I'm guessing that's because she doesn't read, but she couldn't even think of a better lie than 'most of them' under pressure.

Re:Suckaz by Danse · 2010-07-21 05:52 · Score: 1

Sarah Palin was always more qualified than Obama. Sarah Palin had great executive experience as Governor and Mayor. Obama? Zero executive experience. Biden? Zero executive experience. Quite frankly, Obama did not have the resume that most people expect to see in a Presidential candidate.

And I seem to remember many liberals thinking that Bush should be impeached. I don't know what the numbers were, but you didn't cite a source for yours, so...

Are you serious? Did you hear those interviews with her? She can hardly express a coherent thought unless someone hands her a script. It's completely ridiculous to consider her qualified to be president. I'm find it terrifying that so many Republicans think she is. At best she'd be a puppet, because she apparently can't think for herself and has to have the party talking points drilled into her before she can even respond to a question. I don't want someone that vapid to be president.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re:Suckaz by SimonTheSoundMan · 2010-07-21 05:53 · Score: 1

Build some good karma, you then have the option to have /. with no ads.

"Idiots" aren't allowed to vote in several states by tylersoze · 2010-07-21 05:54 · Score: 1

It's right there in their constitutions!

http://bit.ly/3vwrv6
http://bit.ly/9SBGol
http://bit.ly/amsqDk
http://bit.ly/aY78x

Although to be fair, Arkansas recently repealed their ban on "idiots" voting

http://bit.ly/cYrrmI

Re:Suckaz by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-07-21 05:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think it actually shows Americans are crazy, I think it reflects the deep-set distrust Americans have of their government. And this is something that extends from the left to the right. And it's probably a good thing.

It would be a good thing if it was a distrust of government in general. But as it is, it's the distrust of the government so long as your party is not in charge.

Re:Suckaz by OakDragon · 2010-07-21 05:55 · Score: 1

Let's try again. The OP didn't say he discovered this through a Google search. I am assuming he has a specific poll, or set of polls, in mind. I think there are a couple of us here interested in where he got his information.

--
Dark Reflection

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

... Or the fact that hes called a Communist and a Nazi at the same time. When the idiots don't realize the Communists fought against the Nazis.

Re:Suckaz by aliddell · 2010-07-21 05:57 · Score: 1

They can not believe a black liberal is president, that a black man is smarter and more powerful than they are. These small minded bigots have always excused their own shortcomings by saying, "I may be a complete failure, but at least I'm not black!"

Proof or GTFO.

--
What do you think, sirs?

Something happened today. by xmousex · 2010-07-21 05:57 · Score: 1

Please change the title of this idiots article to "Something happened today", as the current title, "Onion story blown out of proportion" is only 97% recyclable.

Re:Suckaz by markbark · 2010-07-21 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.

Perhaps because religion left or right excels at propagating misinformation?

Re:Suckaz by zx-15 · 2010-07-21 05:58 · Score: 2, Informative

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In this pool the question is somewhat unclear.

The question could go either: Did Bush have the intelligence warning that there is going to be an imminent attack on US but didn't do anything about it? (my answer is Yes, just google 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US') OR Did US government orchestrated the destruction of WTC? (Then my answer is a definite no.)

Anyway I don't think that the belief that US government might be behind 9/11, given that how the administration lied about the invasion of Iraq, is as misguided as anything that contains words 'Obama', 'secret', 'terrorist' and 'muslim' in the same sentence.

Re:Suckaz by locallyunscene · 2010-07-21 05:58 · Score: 1

I don't think that's a very apt comparison. If Liberals were still claiming that Bush is likely to declare martial law in the future or did somehow secretly in the past then it would be an apt comparison.

I will agree that it's an overblown fear that exists in the Liberal population when a Republican president is in office. In that way it is similar to the Neo-Conservative fear that a Democratic president is going to somehow revoke Second Amendment rights.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:00 · Score: 1

No, I did follow that link and it does not call the poll findings into question. If you have a link that does purport to question the numbers in that poll, please, post it.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

I can see why by XxtraLarGe · 2010-07-21 06:00 · Score: 1

As someone who has read The Onion since it was just a newspaper, you have to give them their props. They do such a great job; the stuff is so well produced that it's almost believable.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 06:02 · Score: 1

No, I've never been one, and all the one's I've ever spoken with self-identified as democrats, but it's an admittedly very small set of data.

ahhh, quit it, you'll make Glenn cry. by swschrad · 2010-07-21 06:03 · Score: 1

you're all just too cruel using the truth.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:03 · Score: 0

Obviously he is not the first person claiming the poll contains false data. Why did they do an analysis on r2k polling statistics if the numbers are within the realm of viable possibility. The analysis of the data available from r2k shows that there is no way the data could be random as they claim it to be. Statistically speaking, the possibility of the data being this patterned is not plausible given the sample size listed.

The numbers you are referencing from DailyKoz are not valid. I'm sure there are plenty of Repubs that can associate with each point referenced in the articles, but they fall far short of the exaggerated claims from the poll you cited.

Re:Suckaz by lwsimon · 2010-07-21 06:04 · Score: 1

On impeachment: Why is that "crazy"? Impeachment is merely calling a formal inquiry. All you've shown is the 39 percent of people who identify as republicans are suspicious enough of *something* to do with the man to want him to answer.

On the birther nonsense --- I don't believe that he was born elsewhere, but again, it is reasonable to ask for investigation into it. The issue is now so muddled with falsehoods and accusations that I can provide "proof" that he was born on Mars.

On racism --- have you read "Dreams from My Father"? The man certainly is influenced by overtly racist ideologies, if not an outright racist himself. That said, unless evidence comes to light that Obama had a direct hand in modifying the sentencing of Malik Shabazz, I don't see that he has done anything "racist" while in office. In that case, this is moot.

On "Socialist" - he is. So was Bush, to a very slightly lesser degree. They both have acted to give the federal government increasing power and ownership of private means of production.

On "Wanting the terrorists to win" - I see no evidence of that. Never assign malevolence to that which can be adequate explained by incompetence.

On ACORN - Yes, there was systematic fraud in 2008 (and before) perpetrated by ACORN. I don't believe its impact was enough to impact the results of the election. ACORN has basically ceased operation, though the fragments have started to reform and should be watched.

On secession - My state couldn't support itself. There is a time and a place for it, but it isn't now. In short, I *could* support secession, provided conditions are met.

On Palin - She wasn't running for President, first of all. Second - no, she isn't qualified to run for President, though she was close. Completion of her term and a term in the federal legislature would have done it, or being elected VP and serving with distinction would have done it too. She's now unelectable. That aside, she would have been a better President that Obama has been.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:04 · Score: 1

The numbers used in that poll were never questioned, and were backed up by plenty of other polls. If you have some evidence that this particular poll was faked, please, post it. Just saying "Well, they were caught faking the weekly polls, so all their polls must be false" is simply bullshit. It's not as if Research2000 is a partisan polling firm, they have been used by a number of clients both right and left. They cut corners to make a buck, not to make any particular group look bad.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Simple yet elegant proof by Jawnn · 2010-07-21 06:04 · Score: 1

That people will believe almost anything (and of course spam all their friends with it) if it eases that "cognitive dissonance".

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:04 · Score: 1, Troll

>>>They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.

Fixed that for you.
I guess you forgot about that.
Or else you endorse it.

POINT = There are idiots in both parties. The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:06 · Score: 1

The data for the weekly tracking polls contained statistical anomalies. The data for this poll does not. Simple as that. You may not want to believe how crazy the right wing are, but that does not change the facts.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:06 · Score: 0

The last poll I saw putting forward the "Did Bush know about 9/11 in advance" had democrats at a nice 35% in the affirmative with an additional 26% "not sure". And in case you don't like Rasmussen, Zogby's earlier poll had Dems at 42% for their belief that Bush either participated in or allowed 9/11.

So you and your fellow left wing 'denouncers' are clearly in the minority of your party.

Dramatic events like that with so much conflicting and confusing information released about them always generate conspiracy theories. Much like the Kennedy assassination, people always feel that they aren't getting the full story, and they're probably right about that much. A lot of information remains classified about these things for many years. That helps to fuel the conspiracies. Not much that can be done about that. Looking at the right-wing poll, they hold numerous crazy beliefs based, apparently, on nothing more than crazy talk-show host rants and chain emails. They don't even bother to do basic fact-checking.

This doesn't really excuse belief in conspiracies, but we're generally not doing anything based on those beliefs, while the right is apparently willing to elect someone like Palin. It's like they're actually searching for the dumbest possible candidate. But hey, she's folksy and photogenic, so she's obviously qualified!

Re:Suckaz by Sethumme · 2010-07-21 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

More specifically, because the religious left or right care about information, but don't care whether it's scientifically verifiable or not. The thing is, religion, by it's very nature is conservative. Change contradicts 1,000-year-old scripture.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:07 · Score: 1

If you are interested, look it up, or read further down where we are discussing it. I'm not here to guide you by the hand, sorry.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by HBI · 2010-07-21 06:09 · Score: 0

The Communists fought the Nazis when they weren't actively allied with them.

Clean hands, and all of that.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-21 06:09 · Score: 1

Let's try out this remedial English lesson on you.

Denounce: Publicly declare to be wrong.

To denounce something you would have to be of an opinion that the subject you are denouncing is wrong. You can assume that those who hold no opinion on the matter (26% as mentioned above) or those who agree with the subject (35%) are not actively denouncing anything. That leaves just 39% of Dems who may or may not be actively denouncing anything. As 39% is less than 61% then it would be safe to say that a clear minority of Democrats who are denouncing 9/11 trutherism.

You could possibly say you are in the majority of those Dems who are vocal in their 9/11 beliefs but since 39% and 35% are within the +/- of most polls even that can't be said with 100% certainty.

So how does that math work out for you? I could write it out long form and show my workings if it's too hard for you to follow. Or if you prefer I could wait for you to write someone at Research2000 and I'm sure they can get you a result showing Dems are 98% against 9/11 trutherism. Just make sure you state what numbers you want up front, I hear they charge extra if you make them make up the numbers themselves.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:09 · Score: 0, Troll

>>>When the idiots don't realize the Communists fought against the Nazis.

There's no stronger fight than brother against brother. They were originally partners (prior to 1920s) and only split later on..The only difference between the National Socialists and the Communists is that the Natsi Party wanted to keep companies privatized. The Communist Party did not. In all other aspects they are almost identical - strong centralized power. - Elimination of undesirable populations. - Rise of a cult figure (Mussolini and Stalin respectively). Control of the media to spread propaganda. 5 or 10 year economic plans.

And on and on and on

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:09 · Score: 1

Proof that my statement is false or GTFO.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:09 · Score: 0

As a thinking person, I have come to realize that 911 *was* an inside job. Inside of what, exactly, I doubt anybody will ever say, but there was more than just planes involved in leveling two towers through the path of most resistance (directly inward and down)...
Also, three building collapsed in identical fashion that day from "fire" despite no high rise before or since ever having done so. Two were of similar construction and I might have been able to swallow some kind of inherent design flaw causing the towers to collapse after the fire had gone out. But building 7, which was of a completely different design and was not hit by a plane or any terrorist act, also collapsed inwards and down through the path of most resistance.

I challenge anyone that truly believes the official story is the whole story to prove that fact to yourself... I tries to do so to a 'crazy wackjob conspiracy theorist' cohort, and found myself convinced in the other direction. Thermite leveled the towers, not kerosene.

Don't let an official decision mislead you fro mforming an educated opinion. If you can mathematically prove how a fire could level those buildings at near free-fall velocity, please share... that would help improve my world view immensely.

Re:Suckaz by 2obvious4u · 2010-07-21 06:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

To be fair, anyone educated in the last 50 years has been indoctrinated with some form of socialism; but not only does Obama have a lot of socialist views so do most of the far right bashing him for those views. The 'secret Muslim' conspiracy is wacko and wouldn't matter even if it was true.

Ok, for the birth-ers you're gonna have to bear with me a second. I don't buy it, nor do I think it would matter even if it was true. The claim was that he wasn't born in the US, lets say they are right, his mother was still a US citizen so he would still be able to claim us citizenship from birth anyway. They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was. And at this point if it became that big a deal (which apparently it did) who is to say that he couldn't forge the document? But like I said it doesn't matter he was sworn in and it wouldn't change anything. About the only thing that would happen if it was true is that it would allow Arnold a presidential bid. So, does it deserve mocking? It was important enough to be in the constitution, but they should have dropped it as soon as he was sworn in.

Did anyone actually think there would be "death panels" in the health care bill? From what I got from all the news coverage about death panels it just seemed like people were saying this bill could lead to it. They were following the slippery slope to its soylent green conclusion. I believe the actual argument for death panels went more like: The new health care bill will raise health care costs to the government, which will in turn cause the government to first cut "unnecessary" services to health care, which some group will need to decide what will be cut, which at some later time maybe 20 years from now will require cuts to elderly care, which at some point became 'death panels'; but I don't think anyone honestly thought that the bill in its current form was going to have death panels in them. If people actually believed that, then maybe they do deserve mocking; to me I thought it was just hyperbole.

As for the TEA party, the neocons in there are messing the hole thing up. The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility. Lower taxes and reduce spending. Anything beyond that doesn't belong in the TEA party. It makes it hard for the people in the middle to associate with the TEA party when they start taking on social issues. Sarah Palin is ripe for mockery and her support of the TEA party actual keeps a lot of people from the middle and left out of the party. If you want social conservatism join the GOP, if you just want the fiscal conservatism but not the social bigotry that is where the TEA party got its initial push. It really sucks that the neocons took it over.

Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?

Re:Suckaz by HeronBlademaster · 2010-07-21 06:10 · Score: 1

I'm sure if I spent five minutes googling I could find similar lists of demonstrable stupidity by members of every political party. It's silly to pretend this is unique to Republicans; stupidity, ignorance and crazy beliefs are very common traits.

I voted against Obama, but I think the people painting Hitler mustaches on his face and calling for his impeachment are morons. I may not like everything Obama supports, but he is the President, and I believe we should support him as best we can.

It feels like "hate the President" is this fad that people feel cool if they follow, regardless of the fact that most sane people are going to ignore them; they could make a much bigger difference putting that energy toward actual political participation.

Re:Suckaz by adamdoyle · 2010-07-21 06:10 · Score: 1

>>>They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.

Fixed that for you.
I guess you forgot about that.
Or else you endorse it.

POINT = There are idiots in both parties. The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.

He's right. The "right-wing nutjobs" people normally quote are only a small percentage of crazies. The left has their very own small percentage of crazies as well. Everything commodore64_love posted above was said about Bush at one point or another by commentators on the left.

Re:Suckaz by Amouth · 2010-07-21 06:11 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJd_vm9VhpU

was my favorite interview - congrats to the camera man for that shot setup..

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:11 · Score: 0

mod this good man up.

But "other-wordly strength" could mean Islam! by jbeach · 2010-07-21 06:12 · Score: 1

I hear you. People need to chill the frak out and not just run with the fears in their head.

I think what this actually reveals is how much people let their fears dictate their actions in normal, every day life.

--
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.

Re:Suckaz by mjhacker · 2010-07-21 06:12 · Score: 1

I suppose that could be the case for those that believed that Bush masterminded the whole thing by himself, but the Truther community is largely composed of those who believe the evil NWO global shadow government that secretly controls everything and wants to kill us all masterminded it. Meh. It's all bullshit and it kind of makes me nauseous to think about how credulous and ignorant those people are.

for the sleeping by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:13 · Score: 0

"Most corrupt and legally sanctioned forms of tyranny hide in plain sight as democracies with free elections. The toughest lesson is that ALL elections are distractions. Nothing conceals tyranny better than elections. Few Americans accept that their government has become a two-party plutocracy run by a rich and powerful ruling class. The steady erosion of the rule of law is masked by everyday consumer freedoms. Because people want to be happy and hopeful, we have an epidemic of denial, especially in the present presidential campaign. But to believe that any change-selling politician or shift in party control will overturn the ruling class is the epitome of self-delusion and false hope. In the end, such wishful thinking perpetuates plutocracy. Proof is that plutocracy has flourished despite repeated change agents, promises of reform and partisan shifts." - Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Delusional Democracy, 2008

14 signs of fascism
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Re:Suckaz by adamdoyle · 2010-07-21 06:14 · Score: 1

To be fair, online gullibility and hysteria does tend towards a right wing bent.
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, just for this month alone. The left is not immune to the chain-email urban legend phenomenon (e.g. talk of the draft a few years back) but it is the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.

Conservatives are demographically older and more affluent. Older people are more gullible on the internet. So what? That's no excuse for the level of hatred toward the right we see on /. every single day.

Zombie more than Martial Law by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:14 · Score: 0

This looks like it has much more to do with Zombies than with a government takeover. Still, it does make one more critical of classified spending.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:16 · Score: 1, Informative

>>>
Re:Suckaz (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>it seems like a whole lot of people on the right have been duped.

Oh here we go. You (and other posters) slam the right as gullible or stupid, and you get modded "+4 insightful" or "interesting". I'm tired of feeling as if I'm in a "hated class" just because I have strong convictions about following./obeying Constitutional Law. (I'm also tired of being accused of being racist.)

The left has their fair share of dummies but discussing them will get me modded (-1 troll) or (-1 flamer) or whatever. ----- Like the Leftist Congressman talking about the "island tipping over" if too many soldiers are stationed there. ----- Or another Left Congressman talking about how the Pelosicare bill is legal because the "Good and Plenty" clause of the constitution allows it.

LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfGCMORVoY

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:16 · Score: 0

an idiot democrat who is certain that 9/11 was an inside job.

9/11 "trutherism" is more of a right-wing phenomenon than a left-wing one.

Unless you think Alex Jones and his outfit are lefties.

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

>> They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.

> Fixed that for you.
> I guess you forgot about that.
> Or else you endorse it.

I don't recall Democrat politicians calling Bush a Nazi or a chimp or saying he bribed the Supreme Court. Lots of that going on in the populace, of course. And if you think people weren't killed in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, you're kidding yourself. And there WERE massive voting machine irregularities during the 2000 election, for sure, in addition to ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering. There's a difference between reality and fantasy.

> POINT = There are idiots in both parties.

Absolutely.

The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.

Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President (though the valid complaints of his mismanagement seem to be coming from the Left, not the Right).

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 06:16 · Score: 1

Seriously? You're going to claim that the group lied in some of their numbers but in others they were telling they actually went out and did good research? If I were you I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of Research 2000. In fact, being me I don't trust anything that comes out of Research 2000. They are dead to me as far as credibility.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:16 · Score: 1

Please, do you not understand the difference between 'knew about beforehand' and 'inside job?' Your bloviation means nothing until you address that point.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:17 · Score: 0

Are you suggesting that a "citation is needed"? Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:17 · Score: 0

At least we don't have a Leftist Congressman talking about the "island tipping over" if too many soldiers are stationed there.

Or another Left Congressman talking about how the Pelosicare bill is legal because the "Good and Plenty" clause of the constitution allows it.

You're absolutely right - those aren't leftists, they're Democrats. Huge difference.

Re:Suckaz by HeronBlademaster · 2010-07-21 06:20 · Score: 1

Logically, if the government knew what would happen and allowed it to happen, then it may as well have been an inside job.

In both cases, the government would desire the outcome, not the event itself, so whether the event was carried out by a third party or by internal agents is irrelevant.

And in either case, there is a conspiracy involved. If Jim believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, it's irrelevant whether it was an inside job or a "let's let it happen" thing; the fact remains, Jim believes it was a conspiracy.

(In case I wasn't clear, I'm speaking hypothetically; personally I think 9/11 conspiracy-believers are morons.)

Re:Suckaz by aliddell · 2010-07-21 06:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, the burden of proof is on you. You make a broad, reckless and unverifiable claim by saying "all right-wingers are racist failures". Accusations of racism are impossible to disprove, which is why they're a handy first resort for people like you.

So get started polling those right-wingers. We'll wait.

--
What do you think, sirs?

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:21 · Score: 0

... party talking points drilled into her ...

So that's what they call it these days, eh?

Facebook commentors, anyone else? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:22 · Score: 0

As funny as this is, what site other than Facebook had commentors thinking this was true?

It would be much more humorous had this been carried by some right-wing blog.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:22 · Score: 1

Wrong. 'knew about beforehand' could mean a lot of things. It could mean 'had some credible knowledge of the possibility' all the way to 'actively helped plan.' But what it does not mean is 'carried out' which is what 'inside job' implies.

Spin all you like, it is still a false equivalency.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:23 · Score: 0

The bush administration organized and executed the falsification of a WMD threat as a pretense of invading Iraq.

The Bush administration, AT THE VERY LEAST, engaged in a cover up of the source of the anthrax poisonings in the wake of 9/11. After years of "we have no leads", the day after a viable scapegoat "commits suicide", they reveal a mountain of evidence pointing out that he was involved in the anthrax scare.

Who was involved directly in the Iran Contra scandal at the highest levels?

Who was involved with Enron when they caused California brownouts, risking riot in the street and the lives of patients on life support, just to raise the price of electricity?

Would you really put it past these people to let 9/11 happen?

Classified by Jamza · 2010-07-21 06:24 · Score: 1

You know what I think of this? Those opinions are Classified.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:25 · Score: 0

On "Socialist" - he is.

No, he isn't. Ask any real socialist.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:25 · Score: 1

>>># 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

She is. Obama thinks the Constitution is a piece of paper that is obsolete. He doesn't seem to realize that it's the Supreme Law of the land and still in full effect. Nor does he acknowledge the existence of Amendments 9 and 10 (preservation of individual rights and separate of Individual, State and Federal powers).

That automatically makes him a violator of his own oath.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:25 · Score: 1

Research2000 used to be a very well regarded polling firm used by both right and left. There were specific statistical anomalies in the weekly polling data that folks on the left noticed and reported on. There were no statistical anomalies in this poll. Furthermore, the numbers in this poll have been replicated in other polls. All you need to do to refute me is to find one credible source calling this poll into question. Go on, I'll wait.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 06:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was.

Incorrect. Each state can name their 'birth certificate' document anything they want. What was supplied was what the state of Hawaii gives out. There were also birth notices in the newspapers of the time. Completely insane to think this was ever even a possibility of being true.

The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility.

The CLAIMS of the core of the tea party being fiscal responsibility don't line up with the history of the people in the tea party. If those people had ever been concerned with size of government or government spending, they would've been up in arms (literally, like now) at what Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did. They're all out of their mind. And then there's the simple fact that taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 years. This is not only a non-issue, it's a flat-out LIE. And then compare our low taxes with those of European nations who have a substantially higher standard of living. To think this is a problem is to have a complete disconnect with reality.

Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?

Well, you certainly don't fit in the Republican party, and, at age 43, I can say that the Republican party I know of has never in my lifetime been one in which you would've belonged. You're WAAAAY closer to a modern Democrat than a Republican of any modern era. Democrats don't like taxes either, you know, but realize that the bills have to be paid if we want services from government. I don't know why Republicans think paying the bills is a 'liberal' thing. Fiscal responsibility certainly doesn't describe the GOP.

Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:26 · Score: 0

While the Onion's broad satires should be obvious to a precocious 6 year old, that does not reduce the obligation to monitor our "leaders". If we do not, this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Suckaz by lgw · 2010-07-21 06:27 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right - those aren't leftists, they're Democrats. Huge difference.

Clearly! No True Scotsman would ever make such a mistake!

When a congresscritter asks if the mars rovers can drive to the Apollo 11 landing site, or talk about North and South Vietnam living happily together, she doesn't need to be ridiculed because of hre politics. She need to be ridiculed for being a moron.

If we had fewer morons in office (and fewer thieves!), their personal politics would matter a whole lot less. Few of the problems America is facing right now have anything to do with ideology, and in fact are best addressed with as little ideology as possible. "left" vs "right" is a distraction; it's the tap on your shoulder while you pocket is picked!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Correction by snowwrestler · 2010-07-21 06:27 · Score: 1

She did not complete her first term as governor of Alaska.

--
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Re:Correction by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 06:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, I said that, but re-reading it, I guess my wording was a bit unclear. She racked up the millions of dollars of debt while she was the Mayor of Wassilla, not while she was Governor of Alaska.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:27 · Score: 0

Citation needed.

Why is this modded up? I spent 2 seconds copy pasting one of the poll answers into google and got this as the top result:

http://www.thegrio.com/opinion/republicans-fear-of-a-black-president-reaches-new-heights.php

Daily Kos poll:

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437lays

Re:Suckaz by paiute · 2010-07-21 06:28 · Score: 1

On impeachment: Why is that "crazy"? Impeachment is merely calling a formal inquiry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuous

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-21 06:28 · Score: 1

You need to look more closely at the poll Spun is getting his numbers from. The agency has been caught in a scandal where they were just making up numbers they thought their liberal clients liked. Most reputable sites, or even the more rabid left leaning sites, are cutting off all ties to their results on anything.

But back to your "Dems don't allow their odd ideas to affect their decisions while Repubs do", I'll see your Palin and raise you a Biden. And don't even pretend you want that man anywhere near the nuclear football. I personally think Obama's a terrible leader (he seems more interested in letting other people do all the lifting and decision making) but even he is smart enough to keep good ole Sheriff Joe as far away from anything of importance as is humanly possible; not that that stops Joe from putting both feet squarely in his mouth on a weekly basis.

And while you're putting down Palin, could you explain to me Obama's glorious track record that made him such a great candidate (and no, giving nice speeches don't count). The man has almost no real work history since almost every position he held was either largely ceremonial or merely treated as a stepping stone to a higher office. If Dems had used their heads instead of just going for the flash, Clinton would most likely be President right now. She at least had a clear track record and solid history of getting things done.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:28 · Score: 0

Fine, I'll help out here. Here's a links to the Harris poll and the Research2000 poll. I believe those are the ones being referred to here.

Re:Suckaz by TheRaven64 · 2010-07-21 06:28 · Score: 1

So only 35% of democrats believe that Bush read stuff that was put on his desk by the intelligence services? Sounds about right...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:29 · Score: 0

Just because you're parinoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.....

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:29 · Score: 0

The possibility of cancelled elections is not too far out of reality. When term limits required that Giuliani leave office at the end of 2001, there was much discussion of allowing him to stay on as mayor.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:31 · Score: 1

>>>Google 'poll of right wing beliefs'

Yes and here's what I found: "A bit over two weeks ago, a group of statistic wizards (Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman) approached me with a disturbing premise -- they had been poring over the crosstabs of the weekly Research 2000 polling we had been running, and were concerned that the numbers weren't legit."

"Conclusion: We do not know exactly how the weekly R2K results were created, but we are confident they could not accurately describe random polls."

So in other words the anti-Republican numbers you just quoted a bunch of made-up bullshit. Also known as propaganda.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

too close to real life by ewenix · 2010-07-21 06:34 · Score: 1

Sadly, if you don't know what The Onion is, this is just as believable as Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) thinking that Guam will tip over if there is too many people on it. http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize

Gullible.. by Paracelcus · 2010-07-21 06:34 · Score: 1

Paranoia will destroy-ya!

And you thought that the right-wing nutjobs were uneducated. To be completely fair, has anybody heard of "The Garden Plot" circa 1959, or "Shiva" circa 1970?

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd

Re:Suckaz by iluvcapra · 2010-07-21 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

At some point, we can only hope, people are going to accept the most simple explanation, that Germany and Russia both wanted a chunk of Poland and that's why there was an alliance between the two, and at one point further down the road, Germany needed oil and eastern territory more than it needed Russian acquiescence, and so the alliance collapsed.

The idea that communism and fascism are some sort of ideological fusion, and that this fact has any effect on history, is hokum, and both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were driven by their leadership's self-interest and geopolitical pressures, and that their ideology had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately we are damned to live among people who expect history to have an ideologically consistent basis, so that the "bad guys" and the "good guys" can have nice, narrative-ready reasons for losing and winning, instead of having to accept that the outcome was simply a consequence of many practical decisions made in the heat of the moment that could have just as easily gone the other way. Asking someone what their ideological attitude about private property is, or what they believe constitutes a "nation" or "people," tells you almost nothing about wether they are "good" or "Evil" or if they'll naturally agree with someone else on issues that happen to have a confluence of interest.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.

Re:Suckaz by lgw · 2010-07-21 06:35 · Score: 1

Sheesh, that post is missing half the letters I thought I typed. C'mon Slashdot: in this century we can edit posts!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:35 · Score: 0

No True Scotsman

Not an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, sorry. I didn't say that they aren't leftists because they're dipshits or because they made Mistake X - what was implied was the fact that there is a consistent definition of "leftist" that only one or two Democrats fall into.

Re:Suckaz by Hognoxious · 2010-07-21 06:36 · Score: 1

Like it says on Christopher Wren's tomb - look around you.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:37 · Score: 0

Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook?

And they can all vote.

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:37 · Score: 1

Ah, go for it then. I'm sure you will prove your point. You wouldn't be simply bloviating with nothing to back up your claims, I am sure.

I voted for Hillary in the primaries, but a vote for McCain/Palin? Seriously? Damn.

Glad you respect the office of the president. I do as well, although I am quite disappointed in Obama, probably for the exact opposite reasons you are. The far left thinks the man is a corporate tool, the far right thinks he's a socialist, but I think he's actually a Reagan style centrist. He is on record as saying that Reagan is his favorite president, you know.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:37 · Score: 0

We'll get right on it. Which Klan meeting can we reach you at?

Hmmm by copponex · 2010-07-21 06:37 · Score: 0, Troll

And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger. And for a stretch of a few hundred years, when white people would say the word nigger, they would then go out and rape, beat, and kill black people.

So, that's why they get upset when a white person says it, and not when a non-white person says it. It's part of their cultural memory. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Re:Hmmm by AndrewBC · 2010-07-21 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative

What is so difficult to understand about that?
Maybe it's difficult to understand because you're wrong.
Re:Hmmm by frost_knight · 2010-07-21 07:25 · Score: 5, Informative

It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
The two words are not derived from the same place.

Definition and history of "niggardly". Possibly Scandinavian origin, 14th century.

Definition and history of "nigger". French and Spanish origin, 17th century.

--
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
Re:Hmmm by jnaujok · 2010-07-21 07:25 · Score: 4, Informative

And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.

Wow, you're over-sensitive and ignorant. The words are not etymologically related. Two seconds of research could have told you that. Niggardly comes from the same root words as "niggling details", Niggle comes from the Old Norse word "Nigla" which means, "To fuss about small matters."

However, the more inflamatory term comes from the Latin "niger," meaning "black".Although it is more likely to come from the Americanization of the Spanish version of "negro", namely negero.

Not only do they not come from the same source, they don't even come from the same root language.

Do Italians get to declare a racist epithet when someone yells out "Swap" because it's close to the sound of "wop"? I'm of German descent, can I complain when someone talks about their "route" because it's close to "kraut"?

Words mean things, and even the head of the NAACP said that people who take "niggardly" as a racial slur need to be given a dictionary.

--
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Re:Hmmm by MozeeToby · 2010-07-21 07:28 · Score: 4, Informative

And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
False.
Niggardly: From the Norse word nigla - "to fuss about small matters"
Nigger: From the latin Niger - "Black" through Spanish, Portuguese, or French.
They are false cognates of each other, words that sound the same but have different meanings and origins. It's entirely possible that given how common your misinformed view is that there are people who say 'niggardly' in a racist way, but from a purely linguistically and historical view there is nothing racist about the word. Ignoring that fact and calling everyone who uses the word racist is dishonest at best.
Re:Hmmm by gfreeman · 2010-07-21 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative

What is so difficult to understand about that?
The fact that's it's just plain wrong?
You just proved you did not read the explanitory page offered to you.

And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
From that linked page:
"Niggardly" (noun: "niggard") is an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly", perhaps related to the Old Norse verb nigla = "to fuss about small matters". It is cognate with "niggling", meaning "petty" or "unimportant", as in "the niggling details".
"Nigger" derives from the Spanish/Portuguese word negro, meaning "black", and probably also the French nègre, which likewise has become a racist insult in American culture. Both negro and noir (and therefore also nègre and nigger) ultimately come from nigrum, the accusative case of the Latin word niger, meaning "black".
So the words have different origins, different meanings, they just sound similar.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Hmmm by SpeZek · 2010-07-21 07:42 · Score: 4, Informative

And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
Wrong. This is the problem. Just because words might sound similar, doesn't mean they come from the same place.
Nigger's earliest appearance in English was in the 16th century, coming from the Spanish word Negro as a pejorative for blacks.
Niggardly comes from Niggard, which first appears in the 14th century and is likely to come from a Swedish word, which just means "stingy".
Re:Hmmm by JWW · 2010-07-21 08:50 · Score: 1

Wow, did you even look a the wikipedia link? Perhaps the part in the first paragraph might interest you. It says:

the two words are etymologically unrelated.
To make it simple for you. That means that neither word is derived or associated to the other.
You are doing _exactly_ what the GP post explained that people did before.
Re:Hmmm by scot4875 · 2010-07-21 08:57 · Score: 1

Do Italians get to declare a racist epithet when someone yells out "Swap" because it's close to the sound of "wop"?
Not to dispute most of what you've said, but I don't recall hearing about anyone making a fuss over the use of the word "snigger".
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Hmmm by copponex · 2010-07-21 09:25 · Score: 1

This is exactly my point. Snigger is a well known word. When there are synonyms for niggardly, why use that obscure word when "stingy" and "miserly" are more well known and thus more effective?
Re:Hmmm by c++0xFF · 2010-07-21 10:01 · Score: 1

Other phrases:
- To call a spade a spade
- The pot calling the kettle black
- Black holes
- Water buffalo
- Tar baby
And this isn't just limited to racial slurs. Many "politically correct" euphemisms are there just to avoid a phrase that someone took offense at, even when the phrase was not originally offensive.
What this boils down to is people choosing to take offense. At that point, they're just making themselves look stupid and inviting further offense.
Re:Hmmm by precariousgray · 2010-07-21 11:10 · Score: 2, Funny

can I complain when someone talks about their "route" because it's close to "kraut"?
I just wanted to congratulate you on being able to pronounce "route" correctly. I can't say the same for most, sadly.

--
not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 11:19 · Score: 0

Words mean things, and even the head of the NAACP said that people who take "niggardly" as a racial slur need to be given a dictionary.
It seems to me if you're educated enough to know this, then you would realize most people aren't and you would choose not to use it. Likewise, if you're part of "most people" and you use this word, you intended to create racial overtones where none should exist. Done enough, the word will eventually carry the meaning regardless of how it originated. Perhaps niggardly has already reached that point. Anyway, time to return to my gay life.
Re:Hmmm by sumdumass · 2010-07-21 16:24 · Score: 1

So are you suggesting that we stop using words because uneducated twits might mistake them for something else?
Please point me to the list of permitted words or banned words.
Re:Hmmm by Larryish · 2010-07-22 01:20 · Score: 2, Funny

You mean "root" and "kroot"?
Re:Hmmm by CeruleanDragon · 2010-07-27 06:47 · Score: 1

I'm of German descent, can I complain when someone talks about their "route" because it's close to "kraut"?
Wait... I thought kraut was pronounced sound like "out", while "route" was more of an "oot". If that's not right, should I be pronouncing sauerkraut as "saw-er-kroot"? That sounds a lot like http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chirkoot ... you racist bastard!

--
ad astra per alia porci
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-01 00:11 · Score: 0

just coz niggardly means the same as jewish, doesnt mean its just a tight-ass thats black.

Re:Suckaz by Mashiki · 2010-07-21 06:38 · Score: 0, Troll

He is socialist that's the thing, it's not a untruth if it's true. As a canuck looking in, I see the same ideas and policies that political parties here(NDP, Green, Liberal and sometimes Tories) do, including pushing or ensuring state ownership of public property, etc.

It's not limited at the federal level either, but it exists at the state level too. Mainly in democrat heavy states.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Commentators are elected politicians now?
Hint: the right is actually (re)ELECTING people who say this stuff.
On the left, I think we only have that one crazy georgia congresswoman (cynthia mckinney), and we had the decency not to reelect her.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by HeronBlademaster · 2010-07-21 06:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Isn't "slow news day" what Idle is for?

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:40 · Score: 1

>>>I don't recall Democrat politicians calling Bush a Nazi or a chimp or saying he bribed the Supreme Court

- www.bushorchimp.com

- 2006 Pelosi runs ad comparing Bush to Fascism http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2a_1252696809&c=1

- CNN - Bush stole election http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/billpress.column/index.html
.

>>>And if you think people weren't killed in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, you're kidding yourself

Right back at ya: If you think Obama has done no wrong, then you're kidding yourself. Those "death panels" didn't come from thing air. The original bill did indeed provide people over 80 with free counseling services. They do that for soldiers in hospitals already, with pamphlets that read, "Is life worth continuing, or is it time to move on?"

Yes the R's exaggerated. It's true. But so too did the D's when they said "50 million don't have insurance". The actual Census number was 37.5 million, and then it was later revised to 17.5 million after an error was discovered.

Kettle:
- meet Pot.
You are BOTH dirty.

D's or R's makes no fucking difference.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:41 · Score: 1

Glad you quoted that right, "weekly Reasearch2000 polling." You see, this was not one of the weekly polls, it was a special poll and the numbers have never been called into question. This poll was such a big deal, and it ticked off so many people, if there were any serious debate about the accuracy of this poll, you could find it. But there isn't, so you won't. In fact, I'll hazard a guess that no one will find any credible source questioning this particular poll.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:42 · Score: 0

What are you talking about? That news show with Jon Stewart as the anchor man is always spreading left wing lies!

You mean the one on the Comedy Central channel? But that's beside the point. What lies in particular are you referring to?

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 06:42 · Score: 1

lol you claim that the numbers have been replicated in other polls. I already had to work to find your original source and found it wanting. What other polls have asked these questions? You should have used those polls instead of getting your sources from a discredited polling companies. Also, I don't know why you say it was a very well regarded polling firm (did Kos tell you that?), as far as I can tell it was mostly used by small news outlets. I don't care if there weren't statistical anomalies found in the poll: that just means they did a better job hiding them. Even if they actually did go out and talk to people, how much do you trust that they did a good job finding a random cross-section of society? It's really hard to have any confidence in that poll.

Find good sources to support your claims. I have made no claim, other than that your source sucks. And I stand by that claim. You shouldn't have used them.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 06:43 · Score: 1

I can't think of any religious leftist propaganda, so either it's so ingrained in my head (perfect success!) that I can't see it anymore, or they do NOT excel at propagating misinformation (perfect failure!)

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-21 06:44 · Score: 1

Obama does not think the constitution is obsolete. Why would you lie about something like that? You just called the president a traitor.

It is this sort of absolute off the deep end kind of thinking that this poll highlights, people below are debating whether or not the poll is true, and here we have you, in all seriousness, demonstrating that the poll is in fact correct and right wingers have the most insane beliefs imaginable.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Nethead · 2010-07-21 06:45 · Score: 1

Nor could she state a Supreme Court case that she liked even though just weeks before the SCotUS ruled in favor of Alaska over Exxon on a Valdez oil spill case. You would have thought that as Governor, she would be all over that one.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:45 · Score: 3, Informative

>>>Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko

No. He's being treated badly because he's Bush Part 2. Bush increased the national debt +0.5 trillion per year, while Obama made it jump +1.5 trillion in just. The CBO projects +1 trillion every year until 2020. So Obama is increasing the debt at double the rate Bush did.

Obama's broken promises:
1 - Stop snatching people off streets. Provide a Right to fair trial. (No longer have Miranda rights even for U.S. citizens.) (Can be held indefinitely w/o trial)
2 - Right to Privacy (They now spy on us via warrantless wiretaps and track our cellphones) (Patriot Act renewed by Obama.)
3 - No interrogation. Close Guantanamo. (Revoked - now they interrogate American citizens too.)
4 - End the war. (Now it's been extended two more years.)

Obama's not being criticized because of his color, but because he lied to us. It wouldn't matter if he was as pale-white as Bill Clinton - he'd still be disliked by those of us who Fear government (and for good reason - study history).

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by HeronBlademaster · 2010-07-21 06:45 · Score: 1

By definition, "knew about beforehand" could not possibly mean "had credible knowledge of the possibility". No, the latter would be more like "suspected beforehand".

"Knew" is a strong word - if you're not certain, then you don't know, so if you only "knew it was possible", then you didn't "know about it beforehand".

It doesn't matter how much you argue, the fact remains that knowing something will happen is quite different from knowing something is possible.

For example, I know it's possible I'll get hit by a truck on the way home from work today. However, it would be absurd to argue that if I do get hit by a truck on the way home from work today, then obviously I knew about it beforehand.

Yet that's exactly what you're arguing.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

P.S.

I'm also pissed because Obama signed the Patriot Renewal Act. What the hell??? Didn't Obama say he's repeal that piece of shit? Obama should have vetoed it as soon as it crossed his desk.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by Ogive17 · 2010-07-21 06:48 · Score: 1

The differences I've personally noticed from my friends who fall on the far left or right... those on the left will relay 'joke' stories through email while my friends on the right will use facebook.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 06:49 · Score: 1

The polls are done, as he said, go google the existing polls. Right wing crazy thoughts are held to be true by about 25% of polled republicans.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 06:50 · Score: 1

Incidentally, I don't think it's false equivalency at all in the case of martial law. I would love to see numbers, but I would bet that liberals were just as worried (if not moreso) about Bush declaring martial law before the last election. In fact, you may have even worried about it yourself. I knew one guy who was literally counting airplanes that were landing at the airforce base near his house at night, trying to see if there was any change that would indicate another terrorist attack (like blowing up the golden gate bridge) that could be used as an excuse to call martial law. The paranoia around that idea among liberals around here was really insane.

And frankly there was no excuse for it. The people I talked to were well-educated. They should have known better.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:50 · Score: 1

>>>Palin pardons turkey while other die around her

Didn't Obama do that same thing? He pardoned a turkey, and then the camera showed him walking into a banquet hall filled with..... that's right! Dead turkeys

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:50 · Score: 0

And you believe a soft-headed tit like Palin would be better by default? That woman made Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison. No hyperbole or overstatement here - she is the dumbest person to ever run for any elected office, and all of Alaska should be deeply ashamed of themselves for giving her any small measure of power.

Re:Suckaz by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-07-21 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

>>>When the idiots don't realize the Communists fought against the Nazis.

There's no stronger fight than brother against brother. They were originally partners (prior to 1920s) and only split later on

Not true. The SA (brownshirts) in the early nazi party, being recruted mostly from the working class, where in favor of social reform but they sent out street brawlers to beat up communists and disrupt communist gatherings (in fact they were partly formed out of anti-communist militias battling communist putsch attempts.) They were also later put aside when the nazis were firmly in power. There was the infamous non-agression pact with Stalin of course but that didn't keep both countries from secretly preparing for war with each other.

The only difference between the National Socialists and the Communists is that the Natsi Party wanted to keep companies privatized. The Communist Party did not. In all other aspects they are almost identical - strong centralized power. - Elimination of undesirable populations. - Rise of a cult figure (Mussolini and Stalin respectively). Control of the media to spread propaganda. 5 or 10 year economic plans.

And on and on and on

You have a point when comparing Stalinism (which you are describing as opposed to communism) to Naziism which seems logical because they were both dictatorships. There have also been a lot of capitalist dictatorships that have shared all those traits.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

Re:Suckaz by Bemopolis · 2010-07-21 06:53 · Score: 1

They can not believe a black liberal is president

Wait, Obama's not president any more?

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain

Re:Suckaz by jc42 · 2010-07-21 06:53 · Score: 1

Ok, for the birth-ers you're gonna have to bear with me a second. I don't buy it, nor do I think it would matter even if it was true. The claim was that he wasn't born in the US, lets say they are right, his mother was still a US citizen so he would still be able to claim us citizenship from birth anyway. They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given.

Actually, this was somewhat a recap of the similar claims when Barry Goldwater ran for president. Like Obama, Goldwater was born in an American-controlled territory (Arizona) before it became a state.

That "debate" didn't last long, though. First, the anti-Goldwater crowd were mostly just making a political joke and having a bit of fun trying to confuse people; they laughed at people who took them seriously. Second, lawyers quickly pointed out that under that interpretation, George Washington couldn't have been president, since he was born before there was a United States. And, since the president has to be at least 36 years old, the first 9 presidential terms were of necessity filled by people "not born in the USA".

But that was all based on the "reasonable man" interpretation of the relevant parts of the Constitution. The fun thing with the modern "birthers" is that they mostly seem to take the issue seriously, and can't be bothered to look up the earlier cases, from George Washington on, that make for obvious precedent. Similarly, it has been pointed out that a lot of children of American diplomats have been born on foreign soil, and it's obvious that the Founding Fathers didn't intend them to be excluded from becoming president.

But the issue is still good for a bit of humor, especially when we have a group of dummies who take it seriously.

(Also, NPR recently had one of their political trivia quizzes in which one question was to name the last president not born in an American state or territory. I've forgotten who it was, though. It wasn't important for anything, since his parents were both American citizens. )

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 06:54 · Score: 0

Nor is there a worthwhile excuse for the level of hatred toward the left. There are plenty of calls for debate, but in general, people on both sides would rather flame anybody who disagrees with them.

Captcha: pinhead

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:55 · Score: 1

>>>This poll was such a big deal, and it ticked off so many people, if there were any serious debate about the accuracy of this poll, you could find it.

If it's such a big deal, why can't you provide us with a fucking link? I've searched google, and I've still not found these Number Percentages quoted above

I suspect you're just making it all up, and the poll doesn't exist.

Are you Glenn Beck perchance? Pulling numbers out of noplace, and then failing to provide a link because it doesn't actually exist??? (ponds)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 06:57 · Score: 1

>>>You just called the president a traitor.

+1 insightful. Yes. I did. Along with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, LBJ, JFK, FDR, ...... well I'd have to go all the way back to the 1800s before I finally found a president who did not violate his Oath or the 9th/10th amendments.

It's sad.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by Hognoxious · 2010-07-21 06:59 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that "knew about beforehand" actually means "had some intelligence reports that possibly suggested it beforehand, especially when seen through the filter of hindsight".

Not really the same thing at all. There was probably intelligence indicating the attack a week before, a month before - and the day after...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Suckaz by lwsimon · 2010-07-21 06:59 · Score: 1

There's always going to be someone more extreme. His actions have resulted in increased government ownership of the means of production. Hence, Socialist.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.

Re:Suckaz by lwsimon · 2010-07-21 07:00 · Score: 1

On impeachment: Why is that "crazy"? Impeachment is merely calling a formal inquiry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuous

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeach

--
Learn about Photography Basics.

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-21 07:00 · Score: 1

Heronblademasters already gave a good explanation below, which you try to dismiss.

So how do you dismiss all the other various polls, such as the various Zogby, Scripps Howard, Ipsos-Reid and numerous newspaper/magazine sponsored polls which all seem to hit around the same overall average as the Rasmussen poll linked above.

I guess their questions are just too darn difficult for liberal brains to comprehend, since when separated by ideology it's always the liberals who are shooting upward of 30%+ agreement while most other groups are in the teens or below. Or maybe, just maybe, a significant percentage actually do believe the conservatives in power were evil enough to actually allow or help plan 9/11. Just reading any Slashdot post on politics would certainly lead one to believe the latter is quite possible.

Here's another sample question from a non-Rasmussen poll:

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" (for the record 27% of liberals answered yes to that question).

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

You are confusing apples and pears... by denzacar · 2010-07-21 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

As well as Germans, Nazis, Russians and Communists.

All four of those are VERY different things and no two of them are synonymous to each other.

Or maybe I am wrong.
Maybe in your universe Fascist is synonymous with Italian and American is synonymous with racist cowboys?

Also, as someone has pointed out below - Nazis and Fascists were ALWAYS actively against Communists.
Regardless of the Hitler-Stalin pact - which was a ruse for both sides, only it was German dictator who decided to break it first.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:Suckaz by amRadioHed · 2010-07-21 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

And then there's the simple fact that taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 years. This is not only a non-issue, it's a flat-out LIE

Right, what was one of the first things that the Obama administration did? They advocated for and passed what could be considered the biggest tax cut in US history. And mere weeks after this happens these tea party clowns rise up and start ranting about Obama and taxes. If they believed a word of what they claim to believe then you really have got to wonder where they were while Bush was spending us into huge debts with needless wars and when Bush signed off on the massive bailout bill just months earlier.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Re:Suckaz by hesiod · 2010-07-21 07:05 · Score: 1

Technicalities aside, what really matters is what question those being polled THOUGHT they were being asked. It matters how THEY defined "knew about" at the time -- and that's even assuming the word "knew" showed up in the question they were answering.

Re:Suckaz by aliddell · 2010-07-21 07:06 · Score: 1

No, YOU provide the link.

--
What do you think, sirs?

Re:Suckaz by biryokumaru · 2010-07-21 07:06 · Score: 1

Ad-block is a waste of time. Get Privoxy and stop waiting for crap to download before you block it.

--
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!

Re:Suckaz by aliddell · 2010-07-21 07:08 · Score: 1

So you really believe *all* people in group X exhibit characteristic Y.

How did this happen? We're smarter than this.

--
What do you think, sirs?

Re:Suckaz by Idiomatick · 2010-07-21 07:09 · Score: 1

Bush was informed that there was a high chance of an alqaeda attack on us soil probably in the form of hijacked planes. So no, he wouldn't have been shocked when the WTC got hit. This is freely available information.

As dangerous as Dihydrogen Monoxide by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:10 · Score: 0

Many people have been ignoring the negative effects of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is a silent killer.

http://www.dhmo.org/

It is only natural... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:12 · Score: 0

Grandfathers and great-grandfathers of most people here fought a war against the Right.
Maybe you heard of it - it was called World War 2.

So, slamming those fuckers is not just common sense - it is in our genes too.

Re:Suckaz by Machtyn · 2010-07-21 07:13 · Score: 1

Actually, what Bush 43 did was what gave rise to the TEA party. Bush 41 was a one term president because of what he did. ("Read my lips, no new taxes.") You may have a point about Reagan EXCEPT that he dropped taxes and spent more.... because he had more to spend. It turns out, lower taxes encourages private sector growth. Private sector growth means more revenue being taxed. More revenue being taxed means more tax money being brought in.

Of course, there is a point where dropping taxes too much will result in lower tax monies. I guess the Democrats believe we are at that point and Republicans believe we are above that point.

Republicans realize the bills need to be paid (our recent representatives may not realize that), but we disagree that raising taxes is the answer but a detriment. Also, what the Democrats are currently doing is certainly not fiscally responsible (2.5 years of unemployment benefits and not using the money from the slush fund they've created which also has no answer on repayment, a health bill that does not make financial sense, a bailout of the auto industry which may not be paid back, and, now, more regulation on Wall Street... what was wrong with the old regulation - except that the regulators didn't do their jobs.)

Re:Suckaz by Vintermann · 2010-07-21 07:13 · Score: 1

For every idiot republican who thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan terrist who wants to make them get gay married, there's an idiot libertarian who is certain that 9/11 was an inside job.

Fixed that for you. Spend some time with 9/11-truthers (if you can stomach it). They can be called many things, but "democrats" is rarely one of them. Most are fanatically anti-government, believe global warming is a conspiracy, etc.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.

Re:Suckaz by HeronBlademaster · 2010-07-21 07:16 · Score: 1

You're quite right. It's probably stupid to argue about semantics unless we have the actual poll in front of us.

I sometimes think it would be better if polls were only answerable in essay form, but then they would take so much more time to compile into usable results, and they would be subject to the interpretation of the poll gatherers...

Anyone have a good solution?

Re:Suckaz by Machtyn · 2010-07-21 07:18 · Score: 1

Yet, you would trust Obama to run this government? What has he accomplished besides getting elected? He voted present! And he has his fair share of backroom deals with banks and "Free Home Improvements".

Re:Suckaz by jayme0227 · 2010-07-21 07:20 · Score: 1

Man.. "troopergate?" Really? Stop it. Please.

--
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.

Re:Suckaz by SpeZek · 2010-07-21 07:21 · Score: 1

On the birther nonsense --- I don't believe that he was born elsewhere, but again, it is reasonable to ask for investigation into it.

Why is it reasonable? Because he doesn't "look" American?

---Disclaimer--- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. It's an honest question. Why is the first black president the first one to have his allegiances questioned so vehemently?

Re:Suckaz by pitdingo · 2010-07-21 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, Regan's tax cuts brought in so much money the national debt went through the roof. Wait...that does not sound right. Regan's policies were a complete failure.

Re:Suckaz by endymion.nz · 2010-07-21 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Calling the Nazi party 'national socialists' makes about as much sense as calling North Korea the 'democratic peoples republic of korea'. I hope you read this because it's an important lesson for you.

--
mediocrity rules, man

Re:Suckaz by SpeZek · 2010-07-21 07:27 · Score: 1

A bit off-topic, but as someone who has spent countless hours amongst truthers, I just have to ask: How the hell does somebody become an ex-truther? I could've sworn it was something genetic.

Oh, and on that note, congrats for getting away from that stuff. I know how conspiracy theories can suck people in and never let go.

Death Panels by Kagato · 2010-07-21 07:28 · Score: 1

The actual thing Palin and the Tea Baggers spun and outright lied about was a change in Medicare that would reimburse doctors for having a sit down with Elderly patients to talk about end of life care. There was no panel, there was no committee, it was merely a medical billing/policy change to talk about end of life with the patient. It something that is needed so badly in the health system, and couple reduce suffering and costs.

How that spun into Death Panels I don't know. Why the Media gave legs to the story I don't know. Why the democrats dropped the language I do know. They don't have a collective spine.

Re:Suckaz by Machtyn · 2010-07-21 07:29 · Score: 1

The color of his skin has NOTHING to do with why Republicans are upset with him. His out of control taxing and spending, overthrow of private businesses (GM bailout), massive expansion of government, mishandling of international politics (his world-wide apology tour and general display of disdain to US allies), mishandling of domestic emergencies (oil spill), and selective judiciary (i.e. attacking AZ for attempting to follow Federal law by making it a State law and not equally attacking "sanctuary cities" for blatantly breaking Federal law.)

No, color has nothing to do with it. His political views and direction have everything to do with it. If it were Hillary in there doing the same thing, Rahm Emanuel, whomever, the Republicans would still be stomping mad about it.

Re:Suckaz by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 07:30 · Score: 1

Pull your head out of the sand, Surt. How about President Obama appointing Van Jones, a 911 Truther and otherwise complete idiot, to a high office position?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html

Yes, surprise, surprise, he denied it after he was found out. As if anyone would believe that.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 07:31 · Score: 2, Informative

It was a lot faster to type than "that time that she fired the Public Safety Commissioner of Alaska because he refused allow her to abuse her power by firing her ex-brother-in-law as as an act of revenge during a family squabble". Plus, both google and wikipedia will redirect any uninformed parties very quickly if search for the term.

Re:Suckaz by Teancum · 2010-07-21 07:33 · Score: 1

The challenge of what was delivered as a birth certificate is that supposedly Obama was issued a delayed birth certificate.... something that is typically issued for a home birth or something that doesn't happen in a hospital. Such birth certificates were very common in America for at least the first half of the 20th Century, although they are now extremely uncommon with standards for filing such certificates significantly improved. It is a case of understanding history and how things used to work rather than how they currently work, so most people alive today aren't really familiar with these kind of things and especially most slashdotters.

Mind you, I'm not completely convinced that Obama was born somewhere else and he was certainly raised as an American, but there really is a kernel of truth to the whole thing. Back when I was born (and when Obama was born.... he is about my age) most people received a hospital certificate that had a stronger claim of birth documentation than a birth certificate. I used mine to receive my Social Security card originally. Now they aren't even recognized. Obama doesn't have a hospital certificate.

The best fitting story I've heard is that Obama was born in Kenya and his birth witnessed by his grandmother, but with his dad worried about the future of young Barack flew to Hawaii and filed for a delayed brith certificate when Barack was just a few days or weeks old. That is what the hubub is all about demanding to see the "original" birth certificate, as those trying to "prove" that Barack Obama doesn't qualify as a native born citizen want to see if it was with data that originated from a hospital or if it was something merely certified by his parents. The laws at the time would not recognize children born abroad of mixed nationality parents as citizens and Barack Obama would have been required to go through a naturalization process. That is the claim and yes I've seen the refutation.

Some historian is eventually going to get to the bottom of the whole thing, but I don't think it will ever happen while Obama remains in office. For myself, I don't care about the whole thing and there is about zero chance of anything happening that would get Obama kicked out of office over this issue. I don't think it is insanity, however, to at least question the issue and wonder "what if?"

As for claiming anything in the Tea Party..... please at least define what it is that you are talking about and note that there is no monolithic group of people involved in that organization, if you can even call it an organization. It is made up of a bunch of people (mainly Gen X-ers who are finally old enough to have money and wanting to get involved politically for the first time) who are fed up with "the establishment" and trying to get their voice heard. I do think it is a generational thing, and many slashdotters are actually younger than the typical folks getting involved in the Tea Party movement.

Essentially, it was a one day event flash mob that some other folks have been hijacking ever sense to turn it into a formal political movement. It would be about the same as if somebody tried to make a political movement out of Woodstock in the early 1970's. Arguably some actually did try so far as anti-establishment movements against Nixon. There is some frustration about what the government is doing and some anger that the "hope and change" is changing too much too quickly and in ways that many folks don't like. Beyond that, how can you claim that you know anything about a typical "Tea Party" participant or what they believe, as those involved are united only in their hatred of what is happening in the government.

Yes, I consider Sarah Palin to be an opportunist and hardly represents what was going on at those events. The Tea Party certainly isn't a Republican related activity although some of the more politically motivated that participated in those parties seem to be getting more traction within the Republican Party in terms of winning delegate spots and taking over the leadership positions of precinct-level party organizations. What that means for the long term of the American Republic still remains to be seen.... if it means anything at all in the long run.

Re:Suckaz by Amouth · 2010-07-21 07:33 · Score: 1

i think your missing the humor of what she is saying while in that situation.

I don't understand why people think they have to make everything onto a this person vs that person.. sorry but i didn't mention Obama you did - i didn't mention anyone compared to anyone else.. if you show me something with any other person in a similar situation i will laugh at it.. even if it was me.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'

Re:Suckaz by smellsofbikes · 2010-07-21 07:33 · Score: 1

the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.

Perhaps because religion left or right excels at propagating misinformation?

I think it's more likely that you tend to trust people who are in your church, so you're biased to believe what they say even when it's something about which they're probably not an expert.

Jon Krakauer wrote about this in "Under The Banner Of Heaven", about how effective scammers were in the Mormon church, once they got themselves established as Good Mormons.

And, really, this is just a False Negative problem: if you can get yourself past a security barrier through social engineering, you can do a lot of damage.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.

Re:Suckaz by roman_mir · 2010-07-21 07:33 · Score: 1

Libertarian party was never in charge.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Suckaz by 2obvious4u · 2010-07-21 07:34 · Score: 1

On the birth thing, I just remember getting one of those stupid chain emails and I could see how people would get hooked, that was the only credible argument in the thing. I like to put myself in other peoples shoes before passing judgment. But like I said I didn't care either way, to me it was a non-issue.

The earliest TEA party stuff I remember came from Ron Paul and was coming from the campaign for liberty site. It was fair tax stuff and then got mainstream attention and got picked up by people like Sarah Palin and morphed into this ultra conservative mob that it is now.

As for being closer to the Democrats, I may be a little left leaning, but I could never call myself a Democrat, just like I can't call myself a Republican. The Democrats want to much to take care of everyone, I don't have a problem with basic survival care like in the form of soup lines, but I do have a problem with perpetual unemployment checks. I believe in the free market, with a safety net. The minimal safety net possible; the problem I get from my libertarian friends is they believe the that net will always grow and you'll end up going all the way to the left. That is why I can't fit in with the Libertarians either, you do need regulation because people are evil and game a totally free market system.

Basically I believe that the politicians have won by polarizing every issue. Both side are correct on many issues and much of what we need is a compromise from both sides taking what works from both parties and combining it into something better than what we have. The problem is that everything has to be black and white and is completely polarized leaving no room for grey ideas. Single payer health care for things like vacinations, but free market health care for things like distaster care insurance? A completely public system with a completely private system on top of it? Not going to happen both sides have polarized the issue to where for the left it is single payer or nothing and the right has it free market or nothing and they just flop control back and forth and everyone in the middle gets screwed.

I was happy with the Republican's being the party of no because it slowed down legislation, which to me is a good thing. The news has been saying how good it is that congress has been passing so much legislation this session. To me that is a bad thing, there needs to be much more thinking and debate about laws and less actual writing of laws. Congress was designed to be slow because passing knee jerk legislation has consequences.

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 07:35 · Score: 1

Here's two, one by harris, one by research 2000. You may not believe the one by research 2000, but their numbers are quite similar to Harris, so no particular reason to discredit this particular poll.

http://washingtonindependent.com/75525/the-ultimate-poll-of-republican-beliefs

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/scary-harris-poll-24-republicans-obama-may-antichrist/

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:36 · Score: 0

I'm aware of what Research2000 did. Daily Kos is the site that commissioned the poll, and also the site that called them on their bullshit numbers. It was pretty obvious that the numbers just weren't supported by other polls out there. This is not that fraudulent poll though. This poll doesn't show anything that other polls don't agree with. The Harris poll says much the same.

I'm not saying that Dems don't allow odd ideas to affect their decisions. You go far enough to the right or left and you find all kinds of crazy stuff. I think that we find a lot more of it from the right because the entire country has a right-leaning bent compared to the rest of the western world, so there are a lot of people who don't have very far to go on the spectrum before they enter the crazy zone. Look at the political spectrum as a circle rather than a line. At the bottom is pragmatic centrism, and at the top is batshit crazy. I think that the country as a whole tends toward the SE quadrant of that circle. Oh, and I agree that Biden should be kept away from anything important. I still don't understand why he was picked for VP, other than that he's good at the campaigning game and he's a comfortable image of the old white guy to balance out the ticket.

As for Palin vs Obama, I don't really care that Palin was mayor or governor of a tiny little town and a sparsely populated state. She didn't do anything impressive in either position. What I want in a president is someone who can think about the issues they're faced with and make good decisions. I think you need to be articulate in order to have those discussions, and I think you need to have an ability to think for yourself. Obama has that, and Palin quite obviously does not. She's shown no ability to do anything but regurgitate talking points in a folksy way. She's basically a robot. I don't want that for a president.

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 07:38 · Score: 1, Troll

I'm not a fan of Obama, but choosing between him and Palin is a no-brainer. I probably would have voted for McCain if he hadn't chosen Palin as his running mate, but it would be completely irresponsible to put that woman one heart attack away from being president. Biden is an asshole, but at least he's an asshole who I believe knows how to tie his own shoes.

Re:Suckaz by jc42 · 2010-07-21 07:38 · Score: 1

Kettle:
- meet Pot.
You are BOTH dirty.

D's or R's makes no fucking difference.

There was a good explanation of the difference a couple of years ago, in a Doonesbury cartoon. One character was complaining that the Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt. The other characters replied "Yeah, but when the Democrats do it, they know it's wrong."

Small consolation, I know, but with a bit of truth. We just saw another form of it in the adjacent discussion about google's new arrangement with the China government. The discussion has the usual flock of posts claiming that a (public) corporation's only obligation is to its stockholders. This includes the common claim that corporations can be prosecuted for actions based on morality or the public good, since profit is a corporation's only valid duty. These are people who fall right into Doonesbury's characterization of Republicans as people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, only profit and loss.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Constitutions get obsolete all the time... by denzacar · 2010-07-21 07:42 · Score: 1

Why, US Constitution alone was officially declared obsolete by Congress 17 times so far.

And each time it was amended to be more up to date.
Until it goes obsolete again.

Oh and...
Since you believe that every US president back to 1800s was a traitor and all - does that mean that Sarah Palin is more qualified (in your book) than ALL THOSE PRESIDENTS?
Based on the fact that she is NOT the president, so she had no chance to break 9th and 10th amendment?
Somehow, I really don't think that NOT BEING PRESIDENT makes her instantly qualified FOR ANYTHING.

Also... I've seen public toilet janitors more intellectually qualified than her.
And let's not even start about their mental qualifications compared to her.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Life imitates art by Drakkenmensch · 2010-07-21 07:42 · Score: 1

This whole premise sounds like something you would read on the Onion itself: "OFFICE COWORKER THINKS ONION IS REAL NEWS."

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:42 · Score: 0

Naturally the color of his skin has nothing to do with it. It's just when a white guy with a big (R) next to his name is also guilty of each and every fuck-up you listed (save the GM bailout), the silence is deafening. If you're going to throw a Dem under the bus for massive expansion of government, out of control taxing and spending, gross mishandling of international politics, mishandling of domestic emergencies, etc. etc. etc., doesn't it strike you as the least bit disingenuous that the Republicans weren't 'stomping mad' when Bush was guilty of D) All of the Above?

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 07:45 · Score: 1

Again, appointed not elected. And nothing there indicates to me that Obama knew about the possibility that he signed said petition before the appointment.

Did you read the update on the very link you posted?

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Suckaz by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-07-21 07:48 · Score: 1

Libertarian party (and non-members sharing the ideology) is a tiny minority of the American people. What they think is completely irrelevant in the bigger context.

Seems like by copponex · 2010-07-21 07:56 · Score: 1

I meant to write, "It seems like it's derived from the same place..."

But why use the word? It's going out of your way to use an obscure word than can confuse people in the first place.

Do Italians get to declare a racist epithet when someone yells out "Swap" because it's close to the sound of "wop"? I'm of German descent, can I complain when someone talks about their "route" because it's close to "kraut"?

Calling a german kid a kraut today is meaningless - he doesn't experience any racism due to his German heritage. Same goes for almost any other Euro country, at least in most of the US. Maybe just after the War it would be a different story. Certainly at the turn of the 19th Century, being Irish was almost as bad as being black, but it wasn't institutionalized racism. There weren't separate legal rules for any non-black citizen.

It's only been 50 years since legal racism ended, and less than 20 years since plainly racist attitudes ceased to be tolerated. Go talk to any person from the south over 60, and they can tell you about how they were humiliated by Jim Crow laws, or even humiliated because they were white and enforced them. Talk to their kids, and they can tell you all about the racism they have encountered, even as a kid in the 80s (which I remember.) I worked for people as a teenager who would not allow me to hire black people, even for construction work.

I have never even heard an anecdote about an employer who refused to hire Germans or Italians, unless it was retold from the 1930s.

Words mean things, and even the head of the NAACP said that people who take "niggardly" as a racial slur need to be given a dictionary.

And anyone who uses that word for race baiting purposes should be called a fucking prick, because that's what they are.

Re:Seems like by coolsnowmen · 2010-07-21 08:02 · Score: 1

Obscure word? It was required vocab in [Public] High School in 1997 in the United states (which is when I learned it).
Re:Seems like by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 09:02 · Score: 0

I meant to write, "It seems like it's derived from the same place..."
Well, I can't prove that you're backpedaling here...

I have never even heard an anecdote about an employer who refused to hire Germans or Italians, unless it was retold from the 1930s.
Racism against people of various European derivations is still alive and well in parts of the US, although much more muted than, as you note, the 1930s. In the SE New England tri-state area, it is still fashionable to discriminate (even occasionally in hiring and promotion) against Italians (Wops, Dagos), Irish (Micks), Polish (Polocks), Portuguese (Portagees, Greenhorns, Mannys), and others. The oldest Synagogue in America is in Newport, RI, and Jews *still* experience real discrimination in that state.
It's part of the regional culture, and it will be very slow to change. A common question in casual conversation is "What kind of name is that?" Few people even think of the question as an indicator of the underlying regional over-sensitivity to race/heritage.
- T
PS: Ah, Slashdot, brain-child of people so incompetent they can't even fix trivial problems such as the width of the Idle comment box.
Re:Seems like by khallow · 2010-07-21 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Calling a german kid a kraut today is meaningless - he doesn't experience any racism due to his German heritage.
In other words, racism is ok as long as the target isn't a member of an approved ethnic group.To rebut your argument here, by being called a "Kraut", the German kid is indeed experiencing racism due to his German heritage.
Re:Seems like by copponex · 2010-07-21 09:21 · Score: 0, Troll

I didn't elucidate my point clearly. If I call a white kid a honkey, he's not going to feel threatened in any way. It's still racist, but the act is going to be meaningless to him in most situations. He does not connect that word with violence. (This is a generalization: if you grew up in a mostly black neighborhood, I don't doubt that the word honkey could carry the threat of violence in certain situations.)
The vast majority of white-looking people have not been subjected to racial discrimination, or if they have, it's been to their benefit. The vast majority of black-looking people have been subjected to racial discrimination, and more often, with far more experience involving actual violence, abuse of authority, etc.
So, when there are many synonyms for the word niggardly, why use it? "Because you want to" seems like a sorry excuse to start shit, like a guy who just happens to like collecting Nazi memorabilia.
Re:Seems like by khallow · 2010-07-21 10:37 · Score: 1

If I call a white kid a honkey, he's not going to feel threatened in any way. It's still racist, but the act is going to be meaningless to him in most situations.
"Most situations" is not "all situations". I see you spend the next few sentences undermining your original claim.

The vast majority of white-looking people have not been subjected to racial discrimination, or if they have, it's been to their benefit.
More racial bias against my white-looking ethnic group.

The vast majority of black-looking people have been subjected to racial discrimination, and more often, with far more experience involving actual violence, abuse of authority, etc.
How much is a "vast majority". Is it anywhere an actual majority or for that matter, larger than the corresponding fraction of "white-looking" people? Also while looking for information on interracial crimes, it appears that the FBI had some 1992 study which indicated several times as many black on white crimes as vice versa, even though the latter ethnic group is several times larger.

So, when there are many synonyms for the word niggardly, why use it? "Because you want to" seems like a sorry excuse to start shit, like a guy who just happens to like collecting Nazi memorabilia.
Where did that rant come from? Niggardly is just a word with a fine history. It may well die due to its unfortunately resemblance to "nigger". Similar things have happened before. But it seems to me that you are indulging in a grossly idiotic degree of fundamental attribution error. Why blame Granny's fifth grade teacher for teaching her the word "niggardly" when it's clear she's trying to start Nazi-level shit?
Re:Seems like by Steauengeglase · 2010-07-22 05:45 · Score: 1

"I have never even heard an anecdote about an employer who refused to hire Germans or Italians, unless it was retold from the 1930s."
I'm guessing you have never seen a lone German walk into a bar filled with Russian before.
The kid was born in Berlin but spent the rest of his life in a rural town in the American south. He had no idea that there was any kind of animosity in this day and age. I mean the was was over a half century ago. There was quite a bit of unpleasantness and their words were far worse than kraut.
Re:Seems like by Steauengeglase · 2010-07-22 06:02 · Score: 1

"This is a generalization: if you grew up in a mostly black neighborhood, I don't doubt that the word honkey could carry the threat of violence in certain situations."
Nope, but I know what it is like to be called a, "cracker". As in, "If you look at me, I'll cut your head of you mother fucking cracker. Look at me cracker, I said look at me so I can cut your mother fucking cracker head off!"
I grew up in a small, southern town that was roughly 60% black and 40% white and hearing cracker often implied the threat of intimidation and violence.

ACORN needed to go by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 07:56 · Score: 0

"Brietbart is the guy who destroyed ACORN with false accusations and edited video"

Not true, ACORN destroyed themselves. And for the record, they were and are a problem, since they apparently hate the democratic process ("laws? we don't need no stinkin' laws!")

Donald Regan by Noren · 2010-07-21 08:01 · Score: 1

I agree that Regan advocated for and implemented a lot of the excesses of the early 80s- but I think his boss, Ronald Reagan, is the one who should be held responsible.

Re:Suckaz by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 08:02 · Score: 1

And Obama is any better? Really?

Lipstick on a pig? Running for the highest office in the land, and he did not realize how it would be taken...the controversy it would cause after having been so effectively used by his opponent only a week earlier? He did not have enough socializing to know that it would be correctly be taken as a lowbrow insult? Either he knew how his words would be interpreted and is given to nasty insults, or he was completely unaware of all the press around Palin using that comment to so much applause and is therefore an idiot. Given that after only weeks in office, he uses his bully pulpit to say that he doesn't have all the facts but that the police are stupid, I still don't know which way to categorize him.

Moving troops into Pakistan? As a candidate for the highest office in the land, he will proclaim far and wide that he will invade one of our few tenuous allies in a war torn region? How in the HELL can anyone read that as anything less than complete shoe-size-IQ asinine is beyond me.

How about, "We need to spread the wealth around." And conservatives are idiots for calling him a socialist? WTF?

I can see why he picked a dolt like Biden for a running mate. They can share stories about the taste of shoe leather after they both get their feet out of their mouths.

The people interviewing Palin were definitely out to get her. Their entire demeanor screamed it for the entire interview. On the other hand, Chris Matthews was talking about getting a chill up his leg as he was peeing his pants watching an Obama speech. I mean, when Saturday Night Live does a skit about it, you know it is blaringly obvious.

Palin spoke as well, if not better, than Obama. Still does. Not that the bar is very high.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2010-07-21 08:04 · Score: 1

From the headline, I thought this *was* an Onion story.

--
Pi Ran Out

Re:Suckaz by NetNed · 2010-07-21 08:05 · Score: 1

You mean as opposed to the massive amount of young left that think The Daily Show is a creditable news source and get all their news from it and think Jon Stewart, a comedian, is somehow on level with real news reporters?

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that there is a equal amount of stupidity on both sides of the isle. Still makes me wonder why anyone would align themselves with either party unless they are running for office and even then I would question their motives if they didn't look in to running as a independent.

Re:Suckaz by aliddell · 2010-07-21 08:06 · Score: 1

You can't from those numbers extrapolate that

right wingers... can not believe a black liberal is president, that a black man is smarter and more powerful than they are.

That's drawing your own conclusions and presenting unrelated data as "proof". Try again.

--
What do you think, sirs?

Re:Suckaz by Opie812 · 2010-07-21 08:16 · Score: 1

The Nazi's purged the "Socialist" people from the movement during the night of the long knives. After that point they left whatever socialist leanings they had behind.

--
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 08:17 · Score: 1

That's a supposition to explain the fact that right wingers hold crazy beliefs, and signs espousing racist ideology. And in any case, it wasn't my supposition.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Suckaz by cayenne8 · 2010-07-21 08:17 · Score: 1

"She did fine when she had a script in front of her, but every time she was interviewed without pre-screened questions, she looked like a deer in the headlights."

Well, to be fair, we've also seen how well someone like Biden does when allowed to speak unbridled.

And any time Obama doesn't have his teleprompters, he gets that stuttering and deer in the headlights thing going too...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Biased moderation by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 08:19 · Score: 0

This is not a "troll" post at all. It's so typical of partisans to censor things they disagree with.

Re:Biased moderation by Concern+Is+A+Faggot · 2010-07-21 12:37 · Score: 0

Left-wing moderators are modding up spun's comments and modding down bonch's comments. It's typical liberal censorship.
I know the feeling.

--
Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!

Re:Suckaz by tuxgeek · 2010-07-21 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Arguing that communists and nazis can be considered the same is the like categorizing apples and oranges are of the same family because they both grow on trees

You tea baggers are all the same. Ignorant and dumb as a bag of rocks

--
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain

Re:Suckaz by dhermann · 2010-07-21 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am also quite impressed with how many people have been convinced that the executive branch of our federal government is some mysterious shamanistic coven that totally baffles the dunderheads that plague the legislative branch. Although I do not work in Washington D.C. politics, it seems likely that Senators (not an easy job to get in the first place) have plenty of experience working closely with most, if not all, of the executive branch. Also, I'm not sure it helps your position when your political party chose to run someone with "zero executive experience" in the last presidential election.

Re:Suckaz by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 08:21 · Score: 1

# 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

And there weren't any Democrats saying that Bush should be impeached? What this statistic shoes is that a large percentage of the opposing party doesn't like our leader. Jeesh, how is this a crazy belief? It might actually mean something if not for the fact that 49% of the people in the US overall disapprove of the job he is doing (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php)

# 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

And how many Democrats believe that Bush was a draft dodger, when the facts and his commanding officer show that he was trying his best to get into the Vietnam conflict as a fighter pilot (like his father was).

# 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

You have Eric Holder, who Obama appointed as Attorney General, intervening in the case of a black man standing outside a polling site with a club, threatening white people. The same man who stands on a street corner yelling that black people need to rise up and "kill some white cracker babies." Even though there was clear video/audio evidence that lead to a conviction, Holder intervened to set the weirdo free (he got a token slap on the wrist...he's not allowed to be at that polling booth during the next election.) I see your point. No reason to think Obama might be racist.

# 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not

"We need to spread the wealth". He appoints socialist to high positions. No. You're right. Nothing at all to suggest he might be a socialist. That's just crazy.

# 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.

2 months dithering over whether or not to fulfill the commanding general's request for more troops MIGHT have something to do with that. Or maybe not?

# 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.

And Bush leaves office to Democrats still proclaiming that Gore won by a hanging chad.

# 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.

How is that crazy, as opposed to a desire to live under a more responsive and less repressive government? (I didn't just say "oppressive". I said, "less oppressive".)

# 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

Winnie the friggin' Pooh is more qualified to be president that Obama. What's your point?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:"Idiots" aren't allowed to vote in several stat by julesh · 2010-07-21 08:22 · Score: 1

Although to be fair, Arkansas recently repealed their ban on "idiots" voting

It is quite hard to run a decent election when there are only two legal voters.

Re:Suckaz by Shotgun · 2010-07-21 08:24 · Score: 1

And none of that makes Obama more qualified. "I did things badly" still trumps "I did nothing at all."

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Suckaz by Skuld-Chan · 2010-07-21 08:25 · Score: 1

I don't get this myself (at least from a Christian viewpoint) - having read the life and times of Jesus in the Bible he often saved his most scathing review of character towards the often conservative and rather inconsistent high priests.

Every single parable he ever told - the savior of the story is the most hated person in society to whoever he was telling the story to. Best most well known example of this - the good Samaritan. Supposedly the Jews he was talking to hated Samaritans (I suppose if he told the story today it would be called the good Palestinian).

That story alone is a very liberal outlook on society - don't judge, there is good in all people, give people a chance etc.

On labor relations - the Bible is full of examples respect for labor. In Jesus's last days he washed the apostles feet - not the other way around (to his followers he was the King of Kings...).

Re:Suckaz by dabudah · 2010-07-21 08:27 · Score: 1

And I seem to remember many liberals thinking that Bush should be impeached. I don't know what the numbers were, but you didn't cite a source for yours, so...

That's because Bush should have been impeached...We really ought to hold our leaders to higher standards (present case included) and stop killing people for profits (er...killing terrorists for freedom...right...).

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, "guaranteed incompetence" does not trump "possible incompetence".

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by History's+Coming+To · 2010-07-21 08:29 · Score: 1

Erm....I can't view Facebook, due to having personal data and all, but there isn't a single comment in the link that doesn't look like a well crafted sub-parody. I suspect the linked article is a bit of shameless self-promotion akin to the ones you won't see on MY BLOG!!!!

Whoops.

Seriously, there's far better parodies out there. The Onion for instance, or even better, Tom Chiver's non-parody blog...

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 08:31 · Score: 0

I don't think it actually shows Americans are crazy, I think it reflects the deep-set distrust Americans have of their government. And this is something that extends from the left to the right. And it's probably a good thing.

Well, the only argument I can come up with is look at how Bush started his first term, it wasn't an election everyone was happy with or even agreed with. I would say, if there had been ANY plans for him extending his presidency for more than 2 terms for ANY reason, it couldn't have happened because of his ultra low approval rating. But if say, 80% of the country was behind him, who's to say he couldn't have managed SOME WAY of staying?

Sure, there's laws you say, such as for trying to impeach Clinton for things not related to office, but lets over look breaking clearly written laws and regulation such as keeping all work email on govt servers...

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 08:35 · Score: 1

>> Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko

> No. He's being treated badly because he's Bush Part 2. Bush increased the national debt +0.5 trillion per year, while
> Obama made it jump +1.5 trillion in just. The CBO projects +1 trillion every year until 2020. So Obama is increasing the
> debt at double the rate Bush did.

Wow, way to remove what I said:
>> Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President

I'm not sure what the point of this was. You agree with me, but then take my quote out of context and tell me I'm wrong?

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 08:36 · Score: 0

"Germany needed oil and eastern territory more than it needed Russian acquiescence, and so the alliance collapsed" Hmm.. sounds like the reason we went into Iraq, and oh yes that oil pipeline through Afgan...

I think the big connective is power hungry totalitarian regimes, both use(d) big lies and ideology to control the people that wanted to have power over. That is the funniest thing about the accusations of the right about the current administration. It is ideological and a lie and false and the sole purpose is to try to get support of people who are willing to be a part of a 'movement', to have some gossip that they can hold as truth and feel good about.

That is the problem with the left. It is much less ideological, and more of the people with the peoples concerns, which as you can see is less monolithic. The people are more diverse in their views, needs, opinions and the democrats reflect that. It makes no sense that the other half of the country is of one mind about everthing, especially at opposing essentially every legislation that the government trys to pass. I think the count of held up legislation is over 300 by now. So what we have are not really pure conservatives but power hungry controllers that want to use the big lie to get people to give control over to them. They don't care about the truth, they don't really care about people in general, they care about their profits and their friends. They want a trickle down economy where they are on top and what trickles down from them the new mega rich waters the fields of the new mega poor. The sad thing is that people actually believe the lies, like the lies about wanting to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. Look at the most recent Republican administrations against the most recent Democratic administrations. Its the big lie told over and over about what they stand for when actually its give me your votes, and by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to look at, and cheap too.

Re:Suckaz by Skuld-Chan · 2010-07-21 08:37 · Score: 1

There are people who do honestly believe the things in that poll tough. I've counted (on my nightly walks around the neighborhood) no less than 3 bumper stickers that say "show me the birth certificate" on various pickup trucks. I figure if your willing to advertise your ignorance on that back of your vehicle you believe that pretty strongly. I'd be willing to bet actual money that you could walk down the street in any city - find 5 republicans and out of that find at least one person who believes this.

The belief that Obama wasn't born in this country is one widely held by a decent amount of the Republicans I personally know. They often refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama to imply he's a foriegner (or to associate him with Sadam Hussein - also not born here).

Is it a wacky belief? Consider this - applying to be the president probably has you go through the most rigorous background check you'll ever have in your life. I'd assume... that they would be able to determine weather or not you were born here in the US or not before you can take the oath of office. With that in mind - I'd say its an insane notion.

Re:Suckaz by dave420 · 2010-07-21 08:40 · Score: 1

... and ensure that the sites you wish to use will lose money. Awesome! Selfishness FTW!

Re:Suckaz by dave420 · 2010-07-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Sure, if you are retarded enough to think that name is an accurate description of the party, and the guiding philosophy behind it. (Hint: it's not).

Re:Suckaz by asylumx · 2010-07-21 08:43 · Score: 1

I agree, I had respect for McCain before he picked Palin, but after he picked her and the world found out who she was and what she's like, I simply couldn't even consider voting for him in good conscience. It's sad, really, but what's worse is that so many in the GOP seem to have followed her flamboyant, emotion-driven lead. That, and that so many people are gobbling it up... it scares me.

Re:Suckaz by aliddell · 2010-07-21 08:43 · Score: 1

First of all, what signs? Where is that in the links you gave me? Second, stop dancing around the subject. I asked for proof of that statement that all right wingers are racist failures and you jumped in, defending what apparently now isn't your supposition with irrelevant poll data. That's enough out of you. You come back to me when you've actually got something to say, or, better yet, just don't come back to me. You've added absolutely nothing to the discussion and wasted everyone's time.

And tell that guy who follows you around layers of discussions which are tangential at best, that guy who automatically mods you up one point, to get a life.

--
What do you think, sirs?

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 08:43 · Score: 1

I believe in the free market, with a safety net.

Then you believe in a total fantasy - there is no such thing as a free market. It's gamed from end to end, and neither party is going to do anything about it.

I was happy with the Republican's being the party of no because it slowed down legislation, which to me is a good thing. The news has been saying how good it is that congress has been passing so much legislation this session. To me that is a bad thing, there needs to be much more thinking and debate about laws and less actual writing of laws. Congress was designed to be slow because passing knee jerk legislation has consequences.

That's a great intellectual argument, but it's hardly the reason the Republicans oppose everything the Democrats do. They also oppose things that _Republicans_ propose (even the same Republican politicians!) when it winds up in a Democrat-sponsored bill. Single payer health care? That used to be a Republican thing not so long ago, along with the 'death panels' (end of life counseling).

I think the party system (no matter how many parties) is the absolute worst thing about our system of government. The politicians become beholden not to their constituents, but to their party.

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 08:49 · Score: 1

The funny thing to me is that John McCain actually wasn't born in the US. Literally, established fact. It's hilarious. Mention it to a birther. It'll really screw them up.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 08:49 · Score: 1

You may have a point about Reagan EXCEPT that he dropped taxes and spent more.... because he had more to spend. It turns out, lower taxes encourages private sector growth. Private sector growth means more revenue being taxed. More revenue being taxed means more tax money being brought in.

Reagan dropped taxes on the wealthy. Lowering taxes on the wealthy really doesn't do that much for the economy as the rich just sock that money away; they already HAVE everything they want. Dropping taxes on the middle class actually DOES stimulate the economy, as when they get that tax money back, they go spend it on things. The lie that lowering the taxes on the wealthy spurs the economy is called 'Trickle-down Economics', and has been disproven pretty decisively for a couple of decades now. FOX News is not going to actually educate you on any economic or political topics. I can see lowering taxes on _small business_, since that's where most of our jobs are, but that's never what the GOP seems to try to do. I don't understand why people always falls for the GOP line of 'lowering taxes' when all they REALLY want (and have ever DONE, in my lifetime), is raise taxes on the middle class so they can lower them for the wealthy.

Re:Suckaz by dave420 · 2010-07-21 08:52 · Score: 1

The tard runs deep with this one. Only one of those points has any merit, namely the Pelosi advert (even though Bush did, as every shred of evidence has pointed to, start a major war based on lies, which is a very simplistic analogy with what Hitler did). Bushorchimp.com was not paid for, commissioned by, or approved of, by a Dem politician. The irregularities surrounding the 2000 election have been widely documented, but due to the nature of the irregularities, there is no evidence of actual tampering, just shit-loads of evidence of people ensuring that the system could be tampered with. The statistical anomalies alone were enough to make people sit up and take notice - the testimony from the makers, testers, and independent analysis was enough to make people straight-up shit in their cornflakes.

What the OP was referring to was that the crazy you referred to (albeit rather inaccurately) does exist on both sides. The difference is, on the Republican side, it's actually accepted at higher levels. Actual elected officials are saying this nonsense.

You can't see the difference? Wow. No wonder.

Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 08:52 · Score: 0

This typifies the split between Left wing nut jobs and Right wing nut jobs. Left wing nut jobs will carefully interconnect various loose fragments of established facts (IE the Carlyle Group includes members of the the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family, and that the Carlyle group met on the morning of September 11th, 2001 at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington DC) into grandiose conspiracy theories (IE Bush and Bin Laden conspired for 9-11 to happen). Right wing nut jobs tend to either a make shit up out of whole cloth (IE Becks various chalkboard conspiracy diagrams that derive from an anagram he makes up of Obama’s name or that Obama is a Secret Muslim or Obama is not an American Citizen by Birth) or as in this case: take something that is a fairly obvious parody and construe it as fact.

I suppose the moral is that Left Wing Nuts research their craziness more then Right Wing ones.

Re:Suckaz by tuxgeek · 2010-07-21 08:54 · Score: 1

Bush is still catching flack because of how badly he and his party have fucked up the country, national economy, and world.
Bush will continue to catch flack as all the lies and incompetence continue to come to light.

Obama is catching flack because of the crazy shit the dems in congress have done over health care and other legislation.
Obama is catching flack over the gulf oil spill even though he has no control over how BP manages the repairs and clean up
Obama is catching flack over Bush's wall street bail out plan.
Obama is catching flack over the republicans in congress resisting, blocking and obstructing any and all economic recovery for the nation.
Obama will catch flack because it snows next winter
Obama will catch flack because it rains

--
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain

Re:Suckaz by HoppQ · 2010-07-21 09:02 · Score: 1

And as pointed out below the 'polling' company who put forward those results has been caught cooking the books. They were so bad even most liberal sites have been trying to disassociate themselves from their findings.

Using Reasearch2000 as an accurate polling source is akin to using Tiger Woods as a source for marriage advice.

Yes, Research 2000 did cook the books. In fact, the right wing is even more lunatic than the R2K cooked results showed. There were other polls. Search around.

--
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 09:05 · Score: 1

Obama is catching flack because of the crazy shit the dems in congress have done over health care and other legislation.

True.

Obama is catching flack over Bush's wall street bail out plan.

Only TARP was Bush's plan - everything since has been well under the auspices of Congress and the current White House. Certainly there has been essentially no repercussions for the execs of Goldman Sachs, etc., and the new financial rules are a JOKE.

Obama is catching flack over the republicans in congress resisting, blocking and obstructing any and all economic recovery for the nation.

Obama and the Congressional Democrats are bending over backwards to accomodate Republicans they know will not support anything they propose, even if those proposals were originally Republican proposals not so long ago (like single-payer health care, end of life counselling ('death panels'), etc., probably because they know they then have an excuse for not actually improving anything.

Obama will catch flack because it snows next winter
Obama will catch flack because it rains

Hardly. Obama is catching flack for continuing SO MANY of Bush's fucked-up politicies, including vast problems with civil rights. Things that he was elected specifically to FIX. I campaigned for him, donated the max I could to his campaign, etc, but I consider him a total traitor to the vast majority of what he promised during his campaign.

At least with Bush, as a Republican, you KNEW he was going to screw over everyone but the wealthy.

Re:Suckaz by HoppQ · 2010-07-21 09:09 · Score: 1

OK, it's just intellectually dishonest of you to use the results of that poll once it was shown that the numbers were made up. It's one thing if you want to push your Democratic agenda, but you better be using real data if you don't want to be compared to the scum of the earth. And by the scum of the earth, of course, I mean......marketers.

Seriously, that just made you look really bad. Learn to find good information.

Well, here's some good information showing that Republicans are nuts.

--
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 09:09 · Score: 0

This is probably more related to the current culture than to people on the right being more prone to falling for things and overreacting.

Re:Suckaz by snowgirl · 2010-07-21 09:09 · Score: 1

It's even easier than that. The Nazis did not solely target Jews in their efforts. Communists were the next biggest scapegoat. And heaven help the communist jews.

--
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS

Re:Suckaz by khallow · 2010-07-21 09:10 · Score: 1

Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's mismanaging the office of President .

Fixed it for you. Don't know why you had to add all that extraneous stuff. Also keep in mind that Obama has gone back on a bunch of promises (I'd say he's been the worst president for this sort of deception since LBJ or Nixon). I'm sure that being part black and non-crazy has hurt Obama's electoral chances with some voters, but those people never voted for Obama in the first place.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 09:10 · Score: 0

Research 2000 did the poll. It was conducted in Iowa. It took me more time to type this than to look it up on Google.

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 09:11 · Score: 0

Where are the polls asking similar questions of those who consider themselves left wing when Bush was president?

You'd have probably seen a pretty similar spread of bizarre beliefs then too.

But wait, this wouldn't help you bash the right wing so you're not going to provide any further details on the matter than "current".

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-21 09:13 · Score: 1

The point is the Obama's color has nothing to do with it. People would still dislike him, even if he was as white as Clinton

I am sick and tired of people (like you) playing the racist card. 99% of amercians are color blind and don't give a fuck if the president is white, black, or pink-with-yellow poka dots. Color is irrelevant

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 09:18 · Score: 1

Fixed it for you. Don't know why you had to add all that extraneous stuff. Also keep in mind that Obama has gone back on a bunch of promises (I'd say he's been the worst president for this sort of deception since LBJ or Nixon). I'm sure that being part black and non-crazy has hurt Obama's electoral chances with some voters, but those people never voted for Obama in the first place.

The extraneous stuff was explained further down, which you didn't quote. The reasons for bashing Obama are different for left vs right. The right is bashing him for crazy shit, and the left is bashing him for being way too much like Bush for anyone's liking (though of course the right should be loving this guy's continuation of Bush's policies).

Re:Suckaz by coaxial · 2010-07-21 09:20 · Score: 1

Proof or GTFO.

It's quite simple. The question isn't where to begin, but rather where to end. Let's start at the present and work backwards shall we?

We've got over racist elements in the Tea Party. ("Obama-nomics: Monkey See Monkey Spend", "Zoo Has an African, and the White House has a Lyin' African!".

Obama as witchdoctor, isn't intrinsically racist, but is racially charged given the context. On the other hand, telling Obama to return to Kenya, isn't racist, it's a mistaken, but not a fringe belief with right wing activists.

Are these fringe elements of the Tea Party? I hope, and believe so. But it's hard to dismiss when the leaders of the "movement," exhibit racist signs themselves. As seen with Daje Robertson, self-refered founder of the Texas Tea Party, and operator of teaparty.org, holds a sign that reads "Congress = Slave Owner; Taxpayer = Niggar [sic]." Most people would have used,"slave," also they would have spelled the word correctly.

Also, we've got the pre-Tea Party the president is a pimp, and the first lady is his (presumably) number one ho, and Michelle Obama is a monkey, and who could forget, "Obama Bucks"?

Now how does the leadership of the GOP respond to statements like this? That's the real question. You might not be able to help it if idiots show up to your public rally, but nothing stops you from calling them out. Well silence.

Why? Well the Republic party has long used racism as a main tactic for stirring up votes.
Jesse Helms' infamous "Hands" ad for instance. So was the ad racist? It certainly was immediately perceived that way, but let's use the words of the Helms' campaign manager, and later CHAIRMAN of the Republican Party, Lee Atwater:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968, you can't say ‘nigger,’ that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] Blacks get hurt worse than Whites ”

This is called "The Southern Strategy", and hinges almost exclusively on promoting racism, and racist policies. One legacy of this is the fetishization of the Confederacy and Civil War. It is not a coincidence that Confederate flags regained prominence at the start of the Civil Rights movement, long after the symbol had become associated with explicitly racist groups such as the Klan. (See South Carolina,1962; Georgia, 1956) ("It's pride, not prejudice," the apologists say. Yet, many of these people aren't from the Confederacy, regularly make racist statements, and invoke "freedom" and "patriotism" while lionizing, traitors who began an armed rebellion for the "freedom" to keep slaves. The mind reels at the irony.)

Re:Suckaz by snowgirl · 2010-07-21 09:20 · Score: 1

NO LONGER HAVE MIRANDA RIGHTS?!

Are you fucking SERIOUS?!

Ok, the SUPREME COURT made a ruling that Miranda Rights had to be EXPLICITLY invoked, and thus staying silent itself was not sufficient reason to police to assume that someone is invoking their right to remain silent, and have an attorney present during questioning. (The reason this is a "good thing" in legal standards is note the above prior requirement... the police had to make an assumption that the individual invoked their rights.)

And even then, Obama had nothing to do with that decision, and has no way to do anything about it anyways. (He could sign an Executive Order requiring federal officers to assume the arrested individual has invoked their right to remain silent, and have an attorney present during questioning unless the individual explicitly waives their rights, but that would only apply to federal officers, not your local police.)

--
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS

Re:Suckaz by The+AtomicPunk · 2010-07-21 09:29 · Score: 1

Obama is a socialist. Well, more of a corporatist whore, but certainly embracing socialism and fascism as well. Your diatribe to the contrary doesn't change the fact that he embraces wealth redistribution, state control of private companies, and crony capitalism.

However, the idea that republicans aren't just as bad is pretty laughable.

While you easily distracted people on both sides of the aisle defend your 'team', we all get screwed by the same establishment party.

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 09:29 · Score: 1

The point is the Obama's color has nothing to do with it. People would still dislike him, even if he was as white as Clinton

I am sick and tired of people (like you) playing the racist card. 99% of amercians are color blind and don't give a fuck if the president is white, black, or pink-with-yellow poka dots. Color is irrelevant

You and I may think his color is irrelevant, but you should take a look at some of those tea party signs some time and tell me that 99% of Americans are color blind. That's ridiculous.

I'm not 'playing the racist card' - I'm saying that a large percentage of the right who are foaming at the mouth over Obama are at least partially motivated by his race. A large portion of them are also motivated by his not being a right-wing christian wacko. And a smaller portion of the right are correctly outraged that he is spending a lot of money. But most of them weren't all the vocal about Bush doing the same thing. Or Reagan. And none of them, as far as I can see, realize that some of what Obama is spending is necessitated by the absolute clusterfuck that Bush left behind him. My problems are less with the amount being spent (but that IS very worrying), but that he and Congress (either party) are not putting in ANY accountability on Wall Street or anyone else, to prevent this shit from happening again. Goldman Sachs does the same shit every generation, and gets away with it and comes out smelling like a rose financially every time. That's a business model, not chance, and it's crooked, and both parties take part in it and enable it.

But that doesn't mean that the Republican party isn't fucking chock-full of racists. :)

If there are people in the Republican party that actually ARE for less taxes (on anyone other than the wealthy), smaller government, less government spending, but who aren't racist or homophobes, then they should probably form a new party, because that's not what the Republican party is about, and it's certainly not what the TEA party is about (Republicans and their corporate handlers are in charge of all 'mainstream' TEA party activities, in case you hadn't noticed).

There are legitimate, serious discussions to be had about what 'fiscal responsibility' entails, and what services the government should provide, but you're never going to have them if the representatives of the 'conservative' populace in this country foam at the mouth at the slightest thing that isn't covered in a flag, a cross, and a white hood.

Re:Suckaz by ArsonSmith · 2010-07-21 09:32 · Score: 1

It's probably the same people that think Bush planned 9/11.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

No, I am not by HBI · 2010-07-21 09:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

It wasn't until after the Stalin regime that the Comintern or "international communism" was considered to be a joke. It was considered a real entity in 1939, and had real adherents.

The cooperation of Western communists, on Stalin's orders, was invaluable to the Nazis before June 22, 1941. That isn't Russian - French, British, etc communists.

I think you might have a pear/apple issue yourself, or are badly misinformed.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:No, I am not by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 06:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

You are a completely brain-washed to believe what you write,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-communism

The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism.[91] Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[18]
During the late 1930s and the 1940s, several other anti-communist regimes and groups supported Nazism: the Falange in Spain; the Vichy regime and the Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (Wehrmacht Infantry Regiment 638) in France; and the Cliveden set, Lord Halifax, and associates of Neville Chamberlain in Britain.[92]
But I'm sure in your head Nazi loved communists even though they managed to murders 10s of millions of them during the war. Communists were as hated by the Nazis as were jews, gays and handicapped. All had priority entry to extermination camps.
Anyway, congrats on your revisionist history.

They didn't denounce the New Black Panthers by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 09:37 · Score: 0

Uh, the NAACP didn't denounce the New Black Panthers. They're actually involved in the dismissal of their voter intimidation case.

Also, they DID accuse the Tea Party of being a racist movement, and they're holding a march against the Tea Party before the mid-term elections.

YOU'RE flat out wrong. It's unfortunate you got modded up by liberal moderators, because you're spreading total misinformation.

Not just facebook - they even got Ron Paul! by kroyd · 2010-07-21 09:37 · Score: 2, Funny

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/57427

Just that makes this pretty big news I think..

Re:Suckaz by jeff4747 · 2010-07-21 09:38 · Score: 1

. Private sector growth means more revenue being taxed. More revenue being taxed means more tax money being brought in.

It's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, it's been tried several times now, and it has never, ever worked. Even under Reagan, revenue never returned to the pre-tax-cut trendline.

Re:Suckaz by Tumbleweed · 2010-07-21 09:42 · Score: 1

Obama is a socialist. Well, more of a corporatist whore, but certainly embracing socialism and fascism as well. Your diatribe to the contrary doesn't change the fact that he embraces wealth redistribution, state control of private companies, and crony capitalism.

Both a socialist and fascist? Neat trick.

However, the idea that republicans aren't just as bad is pretty laughable.

They are much worse. Much, much worse. But 'much much worse' compared to 'fucking horrible' is not exactly a great situation to be in.

While you easily distracted people on both sides of the aisle defend your 'team', we all get screwed by the same establishment party.

My team? I don't know what 'team' that is. I'm against the party system (of any # of parties) entirely. It's the #1 thing that's strangling this country. The fiscal conservatives can't have any kind of rational discussion because of all the crazies, and the fiscal conservatives are lumped in with the social conservatives (which MOST of this country is NOT). If there was a 'fiscally reasonable, socially mostly-liberal' party, they would win every national election, according to most polling I've seen. The people who call themselves 'fiscally conservative' seem to react more on uneducated gut instinct than actual fact, and seem to still think that 'trickle down economics' works, when it's well-known that it doesn't. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn't work, and that's the only solution the GOP ever puts forth. Both parties are corporatists to the bone, and as far as I can tell, and I really hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, seem to be engaging in a big act that they're different, so that nothing ever actually changes.

Re:Suckaz by jeff4747 · 2010-07-21 09:44 · Score: 1

The challenge of what was delivered as a birth certificate is that supposedly Obama was issued a delayed birth certificate

Not even close.

Obama supplied a "Certified Abstract of Birth". It's a substitute for a birth certificate that is issued by states where copies of the original birth certificate can no longer be issued.

Usually, it can't be issued because of security considerations. Most of us have original birth certificates that are trivially easy to forge, so state governments no longer issue official copies of those birth certificates. In my particular case, my CA birth certificate was a blank form xeroxed a billion times, and then filled in using an IBM Selectric Typewriter, with an illegible scrawl for the Doctor's signature. The last time I asked for a certified copy, CA sent me an abstract since it actually contains security features.

Birthers have been trying to claim that the abstract is not sufficient, and they want the original certificate. If Obama produces it, they will immediately claim it's forged, since it's so easy to forge birth certificates that old.

Re:Suckaz by jeff4747 · 2010-07-21 09:49 · Score: 1

Like Obama, Goldwater was born in an American-controlled territory (Arizona) before it became a state.

Except that Hawaii became a state in 1959, and Obama was born in 1961.

You're probably thinking of McCain, who was born in Panama (To US Parents, making him a US citizen). It's much closer to the Goldwater situation.

Re:Suckaz by jrade · 2010-07-21 09:57 · Score: 1

So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?

Libertarian of course.

--

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)

Re:Suckaz by jeff4747 · 2010-07-21 09:57 · Score: 1

His out of control taxing and spending, overthrow of private businesses (GM bailout), massive expansion of government, mishandling of international politics (his world-wide apology tour and general display of disdain to US allies), mishandling of domestic emergencies (oil spill), and selective judiciary (i.e. attacking AZ for attempting to follow Federal law by making it a State law and not equally attacking "sanctuary cities" for blatantly breaking Federal law.)

If your reasons were true, then Republicans would be upset with Bush 41, Bush 43, and Reagan. All of whom did similar actions while in office.

The reason the R's are upset is Obama has a D after his name.

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by nomorecwrd · 2010-07-21 09:57 · Score: 1

OMG!! be prepared for *CLASSIFIED* from *CLASSIFIED*. Immediately take all your *CLASSIFIED* with you to a *CLASSIFIED* and *CLASSIFIED*.

Failure to comply WILL result in *CLASSIFIED* That is the only way for *CLASSIFIED* to survive the massive *CLASSIFIED*.

Any questions, please call *CLASSIFIED*, between *CLASSIFIED* hours.

Re:Suckaz by scot4875 · 2010-07-21 10:08 · Score: 1

I don't care if there weren't statistical anomalies found in the poll: that just means they did a better job hiding them.

Can't say I blame you -- that's also how most people justify their belief in a god. "It's so well hidden that it has to be there."

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal

Re:Suckaz by sqrt(2) · 2010-07-21 10:09 · Score: 1

To borrow a phrase, the constitution is not a suicide pact. When it's not working, we change it. We've done so many times already. We've even undone changes that we thought would be good ideas (prohibition). Strict constructionalism has all but been abandoned because today the needs of government and society are not the same as when the constitution was written. It is not carved in stone, it's not a sacred text to be followed to the letter. It's just a rough outline of government, and, IMO not even a particularly good one. It left out a lot of things we consider vital today, and made some truly horrible compromises to get it accepted. There were some truly brilliant people behind it, and they had the foresight to make sure it was possible for the constitution to remain relevant by adapting to the needs of the nation while giving us a link to our shared past.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 10:12 · Score: 1

And tell that guy who follows you around layers of discussions which are tangential at best, that guy who automatically mods you up one point, to get a life.

You mean Slashdot? I assume you're seeing my karma bonus, none of my posts in this thread have been upmoderated.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:Suckaz by AtomicOrange · 2010-07-21 10:14 · Score: 1

Citation horribly needed. Where do you get these numbers from?

--
"What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 10:23 · Score: 0

So what's it like knowing, after blowing countless millions of sperm into that troll wife of yours, that this hideous creature is the best you could do? Pretty depressing shit, man. I mean, unless you planned on selling her for organs.

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 10:30 · Score: 1

Do you have a point man, or are you just using words?

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz is Commodore64_love by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 10:30 · Score: 0

If you can't add, then don't show your ignorance in public! The entire deficit is the fault of the Bush years - trillions in tax cuts for the extreme wealthy, trillions in unpaid bills for two wars, the most expensive one against a country that had nothing to do with any attack against the USA but which embarrassed the Bush family, an attitude of waste that will affect our people for generations. President Obama is trying to work the nation out from under this incredible pile of debts without destroying our American way of life.

It is a lie that President Obama doubled the growth of the deficit. The destruction of our economy didn't just rise from the incredible deficits created by the Republican Greed, but also from the relaxation of banking rules created in the 1930s to protect us from depression and financial manipulation, the lax enforcement of what financial rules were left in place, a failure to maintain the nation's physical capital, Interstate Highway bridges falling down, sewers collapsing, boil water orders in areas with water systems unable to maintain sanitary water supplies.

All of these were features of the Republican regime, along with gifting contractors with millions of dollars with no product required, no oversite, rape being a protected job benefit of the rapists, all brought to you by the Republican administration of President Cheney and his puppet George.

Once George figured out whose interests were being served by President Cheney, he stopped doing what Dick told him, and as a result nothing was done until the towering institutions of Wall Street began to fall, nearly crushing all of us. Then the Republicans struck us all again in our wallet, to save the banks too big to fail.

The mainstream media is owned by those who benefited from Bush tax policies, the mega-rich! Anyone who really believes in a liberal media is snookered by the reich-wing noise machine. They kill and maim liberals for their beliefs, and attack our own government, and still media people act like the Republicans are patriots, instead of trying to end freedom by turning us all into wage slaves.

Mark my words. If the Republicans currently in charge of the party control the government again, it will become a prison offence to be in debt, and you will have to work off your debt in prison, at a prison wage of $0.25 an hour, for the rest of your life. Slaves! That's the plan behind the current treatment of the unemployed by the Republicans riding their filibuster in the Senate. Not President Obama's plan, but Newt's and Mitch's and Ron Paul's and Dick Cheney's.

These crack-pots taking hate about the government, attacking census workers and inspectors, they're talking hate against US because we are the government. That's what a Democracy means, or a Republic. The government is run by we the people via elections taking place, and winners running things as long as they do a good job. The Republicans just can't get over losing because they did a crappy job.

Statistically, when the American government is in the hands of the Democratic Party, things go well, economically, socially, in the work place, people work hard, make a good living, repair the American infrastructure, and depend upon their government gto do a good job. When Republicans take charge, stocks don't go up, income is stagnant, work is hard to find and poorly paid, infrastructure is left to fail and fall apart, even the rich fail to do as well as they do when the Democratic Party is in charge.

I cannot imagine how the Rs continue to hoodwink people every decade or two, when for a hundred years their governance has failed by every means of measurement, every time they put big powerful Wall Street poobahs in charge, and they run the nation into the ditch. And still they expect to be given the keys again. P. T. Barnum was right, there's a sucker every minute!

Re:Suckaz by Archades54 · 2010-07-21 10:31 · Score: 1

...and ensure the sites don't get money for obtrusive annoying ads. I have adblock but most nice decent little ads I leave alone. Only the stupid ones that cover half the content, make dumbshit noises (though these are getting rare these days) get the block. Selfish? Maybe but only as selfish as sites that wish to try invade your little browser window as much as possible with the most annoying ads imaginable. There was a reason adblock was invented...

--
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.

Communism and National-Socialism by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 10:36 · Score: 0

in reality had a lot in common, especially in their approach to individual rights and freedoms, but also in the power institutions they developed and in the methods of control they used. The structures of the NSDAP and VKP(b) were almost indistinguishable. Even the art they produced looked pretty much the same, their favorite marches set to the same music (check out Horst Wessel and Marsh Aviatorov), which is not surprising, considering that to be a writer in Nazi Germany one had to belong to the Imperial Chamber of Writers, and in the USSR, to the Soyuz Pisatelei (union of writers), both party control organizations. It it important to know this to understand the relationships between them.

Of course, ideological similarity does not preclude conflict, and may in fact exacerbate it, just like similar rival religious cults may have more hatred for each other than for the rest of the world.

The comment about decisions that "could have been just as easily gone the other way" suggests complete lack of understanding of how totalitarian ideologies work. One does not suggest to go back on the basic tenets of such an ideology, no matter how disastrous they are. It takes at least the change of the leader, often by death of the latter.

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 10:38 · Score: 1

Just so you know, I consider DailyKos to be about as reliable as FoxNews. Both are places people go to hear what makes them feel good. If you give me a link to either one, you're asking me to do the extra work of verifying the information. Don't do that.

That said, don't have any particular reason to doubt the data presented in that link. Given that, I don't see how they show Republicans are nuts. Uninformed, yes, but so is 99% of the country. Unless you can explain why you think your data shows that Republicans are nuts, I'm going to say that what you've just done is on par with Bill O'Reilly calling Democrats loons for whatever they do.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz by HeckRuler · 2010-07-21 10:40 · Score: 1

1 - Stop snatching people off streets. Provide a Right to fair trial. (No longer have Miranda rights even for U.S. citizens.) (Can be held indefinitely w/o trial)

Citation needed. Actually, I'd be surprised if they really did this during Bush either.

2 - Right to Privacy (They now spy on us via warrantless wiretaps and track our cellphones) (Patriot Act renewed by Obama.)

That's not part of the patriot act. FISA law, with or without the patriot act, forbids the mass wiretapping of citizens that happened under Bush, and continues with Obama. It's blatantly illegal. Yeah, that's a dick move by Obama. We got a taste of that during the election though, so it's not really a shocker. Remember when he voted to let off the telcom companies from being prosecuted for it?

3 - No interrogation. Close Guantanamo. (Revoked - now they interrogate American citizens too.)

He never said no interrogation. I believe he fought against torture, which he indeed banned. Now, the CIA probably just has their Syrian buddies do it for them, but at least the president is not defending torture. It's an important detail. And yeah, Guantanamo really should be closed. Citation needed for the american citizens held there.

4 - End the war. (Now it's been extended two more years.)

Aye, it'd be great if we had some sort of time-table for that, now wouldn't it? But oh, no, that would be heresy and treason according to the republicans from 2008. Anyway, they really are trying to ramp down the (Iraq) occupation.

But really, where are you getting this from?

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 10:41 · Score: 0

The R's turned surpluses into deficits for no reason other than to prevent the public noticing by their tax bills how much the wars of choice were costing.

Obama pumped up the deficit to fill in the Great Recession's output gap, which made sense up to a point. The Chinese stimulus package was sized according to the Keynesian math, and was a total success to the point of making the Wall Street Journal. The American one was, for political reasons, too small, and landed in the twilight zone between success and failure.

Re:Suckaz by khallow · 2010-07-21 10:44 · Score: 1

though of course the right should be loving this guy's continuation of Bush's policies

I think this ends any possibility for a rational debate right here. The right is not uniformly approving of Bush policies, much less under the delusion that Obama just continues Bush policies. Please remember that presidents continue many policies of their predecessors. Bush continued policies of Clinton, Clinton continued policies of Bush elder, Bush elder continued policies of Reagan, etc. To elaborate on the first part of my comment, financial conservatives and libertarian conservatives, both who usually are considered part of the "Right", abhor Bush policies.

Re:Suckaz by dbitter1 · 2010-07-21 10:52 · Score: 1

The libertarian party?

--
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.

Fine piece of disinformation you got there... by denzacar · 2010-07-21 11:05 · Score: 4, Informative

For fuck's sake, they used Communists as an excuse to form the Axis.
Oh, and this little anecdotal piece of history should give you a clue just HOW Nazis treated Communists.

And if you are particularly dense about believing in YOUR lies instead of proven truth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps#Camps_before_the_war

The first camp in Germany, Dachau was opened in March 1933,[5] The press statement given at the opening stated:
"On Wednesday the first concentration camp is to be opened in Dachau with an accommodation for 5000 persons.
'All Communists and--where necessary--Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security are to be concentrated here, as in the long run it is not possible to keep individual functionaries in the state prisons without overburdening these prisons, and on the other hand these people cannot be released because attempts have shown that they persist in their efforts to agitate and organise as soon as they are released.'[5]

But yeah, sure...
Nazis were cooperating with Communists AND putting them into concentration camps at the same time.
Shit.. those must have been some awkward meetings.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:Fine piece of disinformation you got there... by commodore64_love · 2010-07-22 06:25 · Score: 1

>>>When the idiots don't realize the Communists fought against the Nazis.
There's no stronger fight than brother against brother. They were originally partners (prior to 1920s) and only split later on..The only difference between the National Socialists and the Communists is that the Natsi Party wanted to keep companies privatized. The Communist Party did not. In all other aspects they are almost identical - strong centralized power. - Elimination of undesirable populations. - Rise of a cult figure (Mussolini and Stalin respectively). Control of the media to spread propaganda. 5 or 10 year economic plans.
And on and on and on

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Fine piece of disinformation you got there... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 08:30 · Score: 0

And on and on and on the diatribes of revisionist "truthiness" continues.
Fact:
1. Nazi's viewed Communists as the enemy of the state
2. Nazi's singled out Communists as politically the most undesirable group
3. Nazi's prioritized deathcamps for Jews, gays and communists
Ideologically they are opposites. Facts:
1. Communism was born of premise that the *workers* are the owners. Today's worker's cooperatives are what Marxists wanted. Communist ideal is NO STATE.
2. Nazi priority was the state, not the worker. A worker that can't work is useless to the state!! Private industry is allowed ONLY PROVIDED it adheres to the wishes of the STATE! Fascist ideal is SUPER-STATE, ala 1984.
And equating Stalin with communism is low and shows lack of understanding of both. You might as well compare George Bush with Jesus - about same comparison (hey, both said they believe in God, right??).
Simply because you have two systems that turned out totalitarian does not make them the same. You might as well call feudalism communism or fascism, but it is not remotely close.
Or say that
* US gov't is communist because it has unemployment safety net, or say that
* US gov't is capitalist because it allows private companies, or say that
* US gov't is fascist because it it's spinning nationalistic propaganda.
Of course tea-baggers will pick what they want - damn the facts!

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 11:17 · Score: 0

lol u just hate him cuz hes black
umad?

Lost in the translation..... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 11:25 · Score: 0

All your base are belong to us..... hahaha

Re:Suckaz by dave420 · 2010-07-21 11:27 · Score: 1

The real problem with people calling other people socialist, is that being socialist isn't a bad thing. Socialism is the realisation that most people are too god-damned selfish to realise they don't exist in a vacuum.

Vast majority, right here by copponex · 2010-07-21 11:28 · Score: 1

This is what I'm talking about. For some reason, black men are outliers in: not receiving an education, not getting a job, and landing in jail far more than any other racial group.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf

These dynamics are partially true in regard to drug offenses, where African Americans are particularly overrepresented in drug arrests. Evidence of racially disparate treatment of drug arrestees is apparent by viewing the rate of reported drug use among African Americans. According to self-report data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, African Americans constituted 14% of drug users in 2006, only slightly higher than their percentage in the general population. Yet African Americans represented 35% of those arrested in 2006 for drug offenses, 53% of drug convictions, and 45% of drug offenders in prison in 2004 (the most recent year for which prison data are available)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html

The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20's who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school.

Re:Vast majority, right here by khallow · 2010-07-21 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't magically cure the deficiencies afflicting urban cultures, but I think some changes in federal and state policies would help. For example, eliminate the minimum wage, institute school vouchers, legalize recreational drug and other victimless crimes (including complete amnesty for people convicted of these crimes), and eliminate laws that discriminate based on ethnicity (such as hiring quotas and related law). Many of these seem counterintuitive. For example, laws that prohibit discrimination based on race have the unintended consequence of making it legally risky to hire or even interview people of particular ethnicity.

Eliminating the minimum wage seems unintuitive as well until you realize that the alternative to paying someone a higher wage is simply to not pay them at all. Given the high unemployment rate in blacks, that's precisely what is happening. Many of them simply are unemployable at current minimum wage.

School vouchers are pretty straightforward. Urban schools are notorious for failing to do their job, even with the reduced resources at their disposal. School vouchers would give parents some bargaining power that they currently don't have with dysfunctional public schools.

Finally, the legalization of a broad category of crime is a pretty straightforward benefit for blacks and similar urban minorities. It both frees a number of minorities from jail so that they can be more productive members of society than merely holding down a jail cot, perhaps even opening up some legal avenues of work (such as prostitution). And it vastly lowers the cost of living with an addiction to a drug. They no longer need to run a high risk, criminal career in order to feed a habit. Finally, it reduces the power of criminal cultures and their pernicious influence on modern (not just urban) culture.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 11:32 · Score: 0

Not like anyone on /. ever made unsubstantiated bat-shit claims before...

Re:Suckaz by yukk · 2010-07-21 11:56 · Score: 1

99% of amercians are color blind and don't give a fuck if the president is white, black, or pink-with-yellow poka dots. Color is irrelevant

Damn ! Where do you live ? Somewhere with no blacks I'd assume.

--
The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin

Re:Suckaz by yukk · 2010-07-21 12:00 · Score: 1

Agreed. One of the biggest gripes against Obama is his spending. Well, if he hadn't been handed a country on the brink of disaster (actually I think it was over the brink) maybe he wouldn't have had to do all those bailouts. As for all his broken promises, I don't know what the fuck he's thinking though after pushing through his health reform promises maybe he thinks keeping his other promises will make him even more unpopular.

--
The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by craklyn · 2010-07-21 12:03 · Score: 0

You shouldn't use examples as definitions, as it's hard to find a consensus in what constitutes a generalization of that term.

Re:Suckaz by jwhitener · 2010-07-21 12:05 · Score: 1

I doubt it's intellectual dishonesty. More likely the poster didn't know of that analysis. It is less than a month old.

Classified ? by MooPi · 2010-07-21 12:18 · Score: 1

Jesus classified ?

Re:Suckaz by phantomfive · 2010-07-21 12:21 · Score: 1

He knows. He was posting on this story.

--
Qxe4

Re:Suckaz = How is this "Insightful"?? by iamhassi · 2010-07-21 12:40 · Score: 1

"I have yet to meet a single person from the left mistake Onion with real news.... seems like a whole lot of people on the right have been duped."

Poster is saying Republicans are idiots, someone explain how this is "Insightful" and not Flamebait? I marked him as flamebait but apparently too many people have modded him as insightful already.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:Suckaz by Machtyn · 2010-07-21 12:49 · Score: 1

Well, I think that's why the TEA parties have risen so fast. Besides being "taxed enough already", they're tired of government spending. A lot of trending has been to toss everyone out and get a new set of D's and R's in there ... hopefully a set of D's that aren't so socialistic and a bunch of R's that aren't so spend hungry.

Re:Suckaz by HornWumpus · 2010-07-21 13:17 · Score: 1

The meek shall inherit the earth.

So what if the meek inherit the earth. We'll just take it back. Bunch of meeks.

Steven Wright IIRC

Also the entirety of Marxist thought. It is discredited and has failed in all it's historical predictions. Anybody still holding a Marxist philosophy does so for religious reasons.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 13:26 · Score: 0

Jewish Lies about Race Are Crumbling

Liberals are clear-eyed, cool-headed rationalists, implacably opposed to dogma and superstition. That’s why they reject the fairy-tales of the creationists. Like this one: The Universe was created in six days and is now only 6,000 years old. Laughable. Or this one: Noah’s ark rode out a world-wide flood for forty days and nights with a huge collection of animals on board. Ludicrous. Or this one: Mass immigration by non-whites into White societies will produce peace, prosperity, and happiness for all. Ridic– Whoops, sorry, my mistake. I’m mixing my fairy-tales up. That last one belongs to the liberals, not the creationists.

Yes, the truth is that liberals don’t really object to dogma, superstition, and fairy-tales at all, they just object to the wrong kind: the old Christian kind. They’re perfectly happy with the new kind – their kind – and they hate science just as much as creationists when it threatens to contradict their irrational dogmas. Race does not exist. IQ tests measure nothing but the prejudices of IQ testers. Differences in the psychology and behavior of men and women are solely the product of social conditioning. Those are three of the biggest liberal dogmas, and for the past forty years, led by pseudo-scientists like Stephen Jay Gould (Jew), Richard Lewontin (Jew), Leon Kamin (Jew), Steven Rose (Jew), and Jared Diamond (guess), they’ve fought tooth-and-nail against the ever-growing scientific evidence that all three are completely wrong. Race does exist, IQ tests do measure something real, and men and women are innately different in psychology and behavior.

More evidence of how liberals can’t tolerate true science comes from their ignorance about one of the most important of all scientific tools: the controlled experiment. When you have an idea or invention to test, use a small space to start with and compare what happens with a control where you don’t do anything. One of the advantages of this method is that if something goes wrong, you can easily contain the problem. Suppose you have a new chemical that might help crops grow faster and feed more people, but might have unwelcome side-effects too. You need to test it to make sure it’s safe, so the obvious thing to do is manufacture huge amounts of the stuff and use it on every farm in the country. That way, if every plant turns yellow and dies after two weeks, shortly before farmers and their families start developing strange and deadly new cancers, you’re up shit creek without a paddle. But you can at least say that your heart was in the right place.

If you think that sounds wrong, you’re obviously not a liberal, because that is actually a good description of how liberals have been testing the effects of race mixing. Mass immigration by non-whites is an experiment on a huge scale with no controls whatsoever, and if it all goes horribly wrong the ordinary Whites of Europe and America, who never asked for or wanted the experiment to take place, will be left up shit creek without a paddle. It will be no consolation that many liberals will be sharing the canoe with them. Other liberals, with the money to buy their way out of a self-created disaster, may be able to flee somewhere still safe like Iceland or the far north of Canada. If so, then maybe after a few years, when the memories of massacre and rape by non-whites have begun to fade, their crazy liberal religion will re-assert itself and they’ll begin agitating for more “diversity” in the hideously White societies that surround them.

That’s why the native Whites of Iceland and northern Canada, if they have any sense, will arrest those fleeing liberals as soon as they step off the plane and deport them straight back where they came from: the racially mixed hell-holes their criminal ideas and actions helped create. After all, there’s no way the refugees could plead innocence or ignorance. The disastrous effects of mass immigrati

Re:Suckaz by mjhacker · 2010-07-21 13:34 · Score: 1

A healthy application of skepticism towards my own views rather than those that did not agree with me. It wasn't easy, but once I decided that I cared more about holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, I quickly discovered just how shaky and indefensible my position was.

Also, I was an Alex Jones disciple for a while, and over time I noticed that he was actually insane, and when he tried to talk about science it was a big red flag. That man is an idiot and he doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time.

Re:Suckaz by zippthorne · 2010-07-21 14:12 · Score: 1

Something's fishy about your poll:

# 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
Story continues below

Wait.. what? Just 63 percent? of Republicans, the party that he's not in? Even after he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around"?

# 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

That doesn't sound like something a Republican would say about a Democrat.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-21 14:28 · Score: 1

Read up on "Liberation Theology" for religious leftism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 14:38 · Score: 0

Calling the Nazi party 'national socialists' makes about as much sense as calling North Korea the 'democratic peoples republic of korea'. I hope you read this because it's an important lesson for you.

The most important thing I learned in high school is that any country that has to come out and tell you it's democratic or a peoples republic is clearly trying to hide something.

Re:Suckaz by kyrio · 2010-07-21 14:47 · Score: 1

Karma has nothing to do with the availability of disabling ads, at least not in the short term. I choose to leave them on because I like /.

Re:Suckaz by SCPRedMage · 2010-07-21 14:57 · Score: 1

Makes you wish /. had a "-1 Full of Crap" mod...

The "full of crap" here is that Adblock can and will make Firefox to simply not request filtered content.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.

Re:Suckaz by Danse · 2010-07-21 14:58 · Score: 1

And Obama is any better? Really?

Lipstick on a pig? Running for the highest office in the land, and he did not realize how it would be taken...the controversy it would cause after having been so effectively used by his opponent only a week earlier? He did not have enough socializing to know that it would be correctly be taken as a lowbrow insult? Either he knew how his words would be interpreted and is given to nasty insults, or he was completely unaware of all the press around Palin using that comment to so much applause and is therefore an idiot. Given that after only weeks in office, he uses his bully pulpit to say that he doesn't have all the facts but that the police are stupid, I still don't know which way to categorize him.

Moving troops into Pakistan? As a candidate for the highest office in the land, he will proclaim far and wide that he will invade one of our few tenuous allies in a war torn region? How in the HELL can anyone read that as anything less than complete shoe-size-IQ asinine is beyond me.

How about, "We need to spread the wealth around." And conservatives are idiots for calling him a socialist? WTF?

I can see why he picked a dolt like Biden for a running mate. They can share stories about the taste of shoe leather after they both get their feet out of their mouths.

The people interviewing Palin were definitely out to get her. Their entire demeanor screamed it for the entire interview. On the other hand, Chris Matthews was talking about getting a chill up his leg as he was peeing his pants watching an Obama speech. I mean, when Saturday Night Live does a skit about it, you know it is blaringly obvious.

Palin spoke as well, if not better, than Obama. Still does. Not that the bar is very high.

Really? Katie Couric was out to get her? She asked her some very basic, straight-forward questions and Palin was a train wreck and couldn't form a coherent response. Which questions in particular did you think were the ones where she was out to get her?

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

The Funniest Part. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2010-07-21 15:21 · Score: 1

The funniest part is that over 500 comments had to be entered in the postage-stamp sized box Slashdot provides in the Idle section.

Hm. It strikes me now that the idle section fits perfectly on a phone screen. Idle indeed!

-FL

Re:Suckaz by dbIII · 2010-07-21 15:32 · Score: 1

Moving troops into Pakistan?

It's happened every now and again over the last couple of years since there are operations going on at the border.

Re:Suckaz by totally+bogus+dude · 2010-07-21 15:57 · Score: 1

You do get the option to disable ads if you have high enough karma. I saw this when my last subscription ran out.

Re:Suckaz by amRadioHed · 2010-07-21 16:40 · Score: 1

Where do you get this "Certified Abstract of Birth" name from? The certificate he provided clearly says "Certification of Live Birth" at the top. From a quick google it seems that only Texas and California issues something called a Certified Abstract of Birth, so I don't see how Obama could possibly have one.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace

Re:Suckaz by rrohbeck · 2010-07-21 18:13 · Score: 1

"National Socialist" is correct though and "Nationalsozialisten" is very common use in German, but only in historic context. For current groups, "Nazis" or "Neonazis" is used.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 18:17 · Score: 0

To be thorough, they called themselves the national socialist party. It isn't like anyone is making that up and mis-applying it. Politically the Nazi part was in fact a socialist party. The nationalism was heavily emphasized. To the point of a mistaken "German purity", but the rest of the Nazi part was socialist having been founded and based on socialism.

I really hope you read up on the history of the National Socialist Party. Just because Hitler was a massively evil person doesn't mean you get to evict the Nazi Part from socialism.

Now on the other hand, calling a country that has no democracy and no republic in it's structure is of course perpetrating a lie. That is not the same as saying the Nazis were socialists. Because, well, they were.

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-21 18:23 · Score: 1

My point is almost entirely that I would HAVE to read up on any such thing. This message just plain ISN'T out there to any meaningful degree like it is with the right wing religious agenda.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Conspiracy theorist theory. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-21 19:03 · Score: 1, Funny

Some laugh and spread it.
Some love to fear it.
Some like to ruin it.

www.itanimulli.com

Darn. More chain emails on the way. by wazzzup · 2010-07-21 23:31 · Score: 1

I guess this means a new round of ALL CAPS EMAIL CHAIN LETTER WARNINGS IN 48 PT COMIC SANS TELLING ME TO SEND THIS TO ALL MY FRIENDS AND NOT TO LET THEM TAKE THIS COUNTRY AWAY FROM US WITHOUT A FIGHT. TEA PARTY FTW!!!

What's strange is that the all caps part bothers me more than the crazy far-right subject material of those things.

Re:Suckaz by TheCarp · 2010-07-21 23:50 · Score: 1

Well.... any new religion has to differentiate itself from the old, so it can't be too conservative in its own beginnings.

Christianity isn't new anymore. Now, there are many Christian cults, and each of them has their own slant on the interpretation of those stories.

Some interpret it very "liberally", like you seem to. Others see things more black and white and prefer literal interpretations.

Now, to go to a conservative christian and show him your interpretation of the bible, you are calling into question his very moral core, not only that, but the moral core of his parents and grandparents. He would no more like to hear that you interpret the Bible the way you do, than he would like to hear about the Koran.

Lets also not forget the Bible is more than the life and times of Jesus. You may be all nice and liberal and willing to gloss over Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (women should be subservient and never hold a position over a man or be teachers ... among other quite enlightened and liberal viewpoints) but not everyone does.

-Steve

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:Suckaz by jeff4747 · 2010-07-21 23:52 · Score: 1

Where do you get this "Certified Abstract of Birth" name from?

It's the name given to such documents by most states when differentiating between a birth certificate and something that means the same, but is not actually a birth certificate.

Re:Suckaz by VShael · 2010-07-22 00:08 · Score: 1

Ah, you see what you did there?

You *believed* a politician.

Possibly because some deep seated liberal guilt made it difficult for you to accuse the first potential black President of being just another politician. (i.e. A lying scumbag)

But I couldn't be sure.

Re:Suckaz by kyrio · 2010-07-22 00:16 · Score: 1

I had the worst karma possible just last week and I still had the option.

Re:Suckaz by stdarg · 2010-07-22 00:45 · Score: 1

National debt is a way for people to invest in the government. It's not necessarily bad.

If you look at treasury rates in the 1980s you see that in 1981 rates were from 13% to 18%.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/cvfr/index.html

By the end of Reagan's term, rates had dropped to 6% - 7%.

Treasury rates are the cost of the government borrowing money. They fall when confidence in the government increases. So calling Reagan's policies a complete failure is a complete exaggeration. Plenty of people with money seem to think it made the government stronger and most financially sound.

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-22 01:30 · Score: 1

Oh, definitley, I was just trying to provide an example because I'm guessing most people wouldn't even know where to start looking for an example of a left wing religious philosophy. :)

Re:Suckaz by Zeek40 · 2010-07-22 01:48 · Score: 1

That was the joke. The closest thing the left gets to the level of crazy in an average Fox News broadcast is a comedy news show on a comedy news network hosted by a comedian. The right wing political discourse in this country is literally that absurd.

Re:Suckaz by lwsimon · 2010-07-22 02:26 · Score: 1

Because he has failed to publicly and forcefully thwart allegations to that end. His father was from another country, and he lived outside the US for much of his childhood. Based on that, it seems like he would want to show as much documentation as possible that he qualifies for the job.

For what it's worth, McCain defended himself from very similar charges, since he was born in another country - Panama, to a US military family.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the fact that he went to school in Indonesia, which from my understanding, wasn't really possible at the time unless you were an Indonesian citizen. Also, I'm a little curious as to how he paid for college - I hear there is some evidence that he received a scholarship reserved for foreign nationals.

In the end, I've not really looked into this much because it doesn't matter. Even if the birthers are right, and the guy was born in Mombasa, there is no proof and there can be no proof that would remove him from office. It's nothing more than mental masturbation, and I have better things to do with my time than to chase down rumors that cannot have any real impact even if proven.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.

Re:Suckaz by 2obvious4u · 2010-07-22 02:37 · Score: 1

That is what I've been voting for lately, however the party platform doesn't believe in any social safety net. Is for the gold standard, where a fiat system works just fine. So the pure libertarians are just as wacko as pure democrats and pure republicans. Really if you want to take the best parts of each party and work with that you get mocked by all parties. All three have good ideas, but are to blind to see the benefits each other bring to the table.

Re:Suckaz by birukun · 2010-07-22 03:23 · Score: 1

I spawn nearly 500 REPLYS and get modded down as a troll?

I was talking about people in the office primarily, who also believe in half the stuff that snopes has proved to be false. Although I should have mentioned I live in California......

WOW

--
Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com

Re:Suckaz by Shotgun · 2010-07-22 03:52 · Score: 1

Time and again Obama is linked to one radical after another. In every case, his excuse has been that he didn't know. He didn't know Rev. Wright was a racist. He didn't know that he was at Bill Ayers house. He didn't know. He didn't know.

After a while, one has to just say bullshit.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Suckaz by Shotgun · 2010-07-22 04:02 · Score: 1

There were two days of filming. Have you ever sat for a two day exam? You will eventually trip up. These weren't written questions. The manner and demeanor of the questioner carries a lot of information, and Katie Couric was offensively haughty. The question about what she read was particularly snarky, and delivered in an offensive way. If I were forced to suffer through that, my response would have been, "Fuck you. I read whatever I damn well please, and it usually talks about how Katie Couric is butch."

Yeah, I'll never be President. Tell me this, why didn't they air all the times that Couric asked Palin about abortion. Wouldn't want to give the impression that it was an extended badgering session would we?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

There's a VERY easy way to tell that's fake by TheABomb · 2010-07-22 05:52 · Score: 1

I could tell that wasn't legit without even watching it. The 12th District of Pennsylvania is the one held formerly held by Jack Murtha. There hasn't been a Republican elected there since 1972.

--
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.

Re:Suckaz by commodore64_love · 2010-07-22 06:29 · Score: 1

False.

USA Today, New York Times, and several other newspapers did an actual physical count of the Florida ballots. And with differing methods (handing chads as votes, or as rejects). They were trying to prove the Gore won.

They were surprised to discover that not only did Bush still win Florida, but the actual gap between the two grew wider than the official tally. i.e. "Evidence" shows Bush won that state.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Suckaz by spun · 2010-07-22 07:20 · Score: 1

Not all Republicans are frothing racist loons. Just the majority of them.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by gknoy · 2010-07-22 07:22 · Score: 1

I would think that doing things in an ethically unsound manner is worse than doing nothing.

Re:Suckaz by Straif · 2010-07-22 08:08 · Score: 1

The briefing in question was a generic summary of Al Qa'ida activity and attempted attacks on US installations worldwide. It effectively said "Al Qa'ida still doesn't like us".

It contains very little detail and mostly just confirms that Bin Laden, since at least 1997, has wanted to hit the US somehow. The closest it comes to any actual warning is the final line:

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

The "Nevertheless" is in reference to the proceeding line:

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [--] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists."

There is nothing remotely actionable in the briefing and nothing even close to suggesting anything the size of 9/11. Even the references to hijacking imply the traditional strategy of taking a plane to demand something else, not to use them as weapons so I'm pretty sure everyone was shocked at the taking down of the twin towers.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

Re:Suckaz by Surt · 2010-07-22 09:29 · Score: 1

I frankly don't care. He went to a church with a pastor who turned out to have some anti-white feelings. Frankly, what sane black man in this country wouldn't after what they've been through? He went to Bill Ayers house. The guy was a radical decades ago. Who fucking cares?

Anyway, the whole point of this discussion was really not about Obama, but rather the people who elected him. Has Obama himself espoused any demonstrably counterfactual crazy claims? If so, I suspect liberals will NOT reelect him.

Seriously, find me the thing that Obama himself believes, and which has been rigorously proven false, ala the birther beliefs.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Your knee appears to be jerking by spun · 2010-07-22 12:28 · Score: 1

You DO realize that the NBPP is all of three guys, don't you? Of course it is nothing like the Tea Party and I never said it was. Where do you see me comparing the two?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 14:21 · Score: 0

There were two days of filming. Have you ever sat for a two day exam? You will eventually trip up. These weren't written questions. The manner and demeanor of the questioner carries a lot of information, and Katie Couric was offensively haughty. The question about what she read was particularly snarky, and delivered in an offensive way. If I were forced to suffer through that, my response would have been, "Fuck you. I read whatever I damn well please, and it usually talks about how Katie Couric is butch."

Yeah, I'll never be President. Tell me this, why didn't they air all the times that Couric asked Palin about abortion. Wouldn't want to give the impression that it was an extended badgering session would we?

Asking her what she reads is snarky? When you're campaigning for the VP position in the country, nobody should be able to ask you what you read? That's pathetic. Her demeanor was too offensive so Palin couldn't manage to make coherent sentences? Seriously? And you want her to be representing the country to other world leaders and engaging in negotiations on our behalf when she can't even handle a simple interview? God, I hope the other diplomats don't offend her, she might accidentally give away Alaska or something.

Re:Suckaz by Danse · 2010-07-22 14:23 · Score: 1

There were two days of filming. Have you ever sat for a two day exam? You will eventually trip up. These weren't written questions. The manner and demeanor of the questioner carries a lot of information, and Katie Couric was offensively haughty. The question about what she read was particularly snarky, and delivered in an offensive way. If I were forced to suffer through that, my response would have been, "Fuck you. I read whatever I damn well please, and it usually talks about how Katie Couric is butch."

Yeah, I'll never be President. Tell me this, why didn't they air all the times that Couric asked Palin about abortion. Wouldn't want to give the impression that it was an extended badgering session would we?

Asking her what she reads is snarky? When you're campaigning for the VP position in the country, nobody should be able to ask you what you read? That's pathetic. Her demeanor was too offensive so Palin couldn't manage to make coherent sentences? Seriously? And you want her to be representing the country to other world leaders and engaging in negotiations on our behalf when she can't even handle a simple interview? God, I hope the other diplomats don't offend her, she might accidentally give away Alaska or something.

**Reposted this reply since it somehow got set to anonymous on the first try.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re:Suckaz by zippthorne · 2010-07-22 23:28 · Score: 1

Racist or not (and frankly, the charge is becoming tiresome), I'd at least expect republicans to be partisan.

Run this poll during the Bush administration and I'd be similarly surprised if at any point during the bush administration (even right after 9/11 when everyone was "patriotic") the number of democrats who thought Bush should be voted out of office dipped below 70%, let alone 30%.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

"Gulf-level war" by Chmcginn · 2010-07-24 03:06 · Score: 1

The only way that could have been closer is if he'd dropped the 'level'. And then it woulda been creepy.

--
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

Re:Suckaz by mr_mischief · 2010-07-25 17:12 · Score: 1

I distrust both major parties, most of the minor parties, and anyone who wants to totally undo either of the major parties only to set themselves up in the same place. I don't trust political parties because they're full of politicians. The only thing you can trust a politician to do is to play politics. Now, there are a few real leaders who want what's best for the people within both major parties, but most of the people who really want what's best are out in the field working for it with some nonprofit, as a donor to nonprofits, as people who write letters to politicians or to news editors, or who just try to get through their day without imposing their will on others more than necessary.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-26 07:29 · Score: 0

Time and again Obama is linked to one radical after another. In every case, his excuse has been that he didn't know. He didn't know Rev. Wright was a racist. He didn't know that he was at Bill Ayers house. He didn't know. He didn't know.

After a while, one has to just say bullshit.

Whatever. There's no evidence that his association with Ayers had anything at all to do with Ayers' politics or past transgressions (which of course happened back when Obama was just a little kid). They both served on a charity board and he went to Ayers' house once, fifteen years ago, when he was invited by a state senator. That's all the connection anyone has ever heard of apparently, and thus your attempt to imply that Obama somehow supports Ayers' politics and beliefs, or is allied with him in any way is pretty ridiculous. As for Rev. Wright, he's a screwball preacher just like tons of others out there. People don't always go to church for the preaching, they go for the community and because that's where their friends and family go. You don't have to agree with all the stuff the preacher says, and many don't. Obama said as much himself. You'd probably be hard-pressed to find a preacher that hasn't made incendiary remarks about some group, whether they be those of another race, religion, or just non-believers in general.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-26 07:52 · Score: 0

Obama will catch flack because it snows next winter Obama will catch flack because it rains

Hardly. Obama is catching flack for continuing SO MANY of Bush's fucked-up politicies, including vast problems with civil rights. Things that he was elected specifically to FIX. I campaigned for him, donated the max I could to his campaign, etc, but I consider him a total traitor to the vast majority of what he promised during his campaign.

At least with Bush, as a Republican, you KNEW he was going to screw over everyone but the wealthy.

I wouldn't consider him to be reneging on the "vast majority" or even a majority of what he promised. Yeah, he's done it on a few important things and pissed me off several times, but in the grand scheme of things, he's keeping about as many of his promises as he can. Having a Democratic congress isn't an easy thing to deal with. Republicans don't really have any moderates in their ranks to deal with, so they march in lock-step. Democrats have all sorts of factions that they have to herd to get something passed. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Re:Suckaz by Danse · 2010-07-27 09:14 · Score: 1

Obama is a socialist. Well, more of a corporatist whore, but certainly embracing socialism and fascism as well. Your diatribe to the contrary doesn't change the fact that he embraces wealth redistribution, state control of private companies, and crony capitalism.

Both a socialist and fascist? Neat trick.

However, the idea that republicans aren't just as bad is pretty laughable.

They are much worse. Much, much worse. But 'much much worse' compared to 'fucking horrible' is not exactly a great situation to be in.

While you easily distracted people on both sides of the aisle defend your 'team', we all get screwed by the same establishment party.

My team? I don't know what 'team' that is. I'm against the party system (of any # of parties) entirely. It's the #1 thing that's strangling this country. The fiscal conservatives can't have any kind of rational discussion because of all the crazies, and the fiscal conservatives are lumped in with the social conservatives (which MOST of this country is NOT). If there was a 'fiscally reasonable, socially mostly-liberal' party, they would win every national election, according to most polling I've seen. The people who call themselves 'fiscally conservative' seem to react more on uneducated gut instinct than actual fact, and seem to still think that 'trickle down economics' works, when it's well-known that it doesn't. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn't work, and that's the only solution the GOP ever puts forth. Both parties are corporatists to the bone, and as far as I can tell, and I really hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, seem to be engaging in a big act that they're different, so that nothing ever actually changes.

That pretty much sums up my own position as well. I live in a solidly republican state, and I consider myself a fiscal conservative (within reason), and social liberal. So I basically can't stand either of the major parties. There are others that get on the ballot, but they tend to be nutjobs with an ideological hammer that see every problem as just another nail. If I could vote for one of those nutjobs, it would be the one that has the single issue of reforming the election system.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

Re:Suckaz by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-07-29 02:26 · Score: 1

doesn't help any. ): *has excellent karma, browses with ads turned off, still a.fsdn.com slows down /.*

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)

Re:Wait, wait... there are some morons on Facebook by Chrisq · 2010-07-29 22:23 · Score: 1

Finding morons on FaceBook is not news. Finding someone on FaceBook that is NOT a moron would be big news, when and if it ever happens!

The funny thing is even people who are not normally morons seem to become so on Facebook. I know a perfectly intelligent guy, but on Facebook he's wittering on about farmville, zombies, mafia and how he has nearly 2,000 friends.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 22:36 · Score: 0

"Perhaps because religion left or right excels at propagating misinformation?"

Examples perhaps? Should be easy, since there are many progressive religious organizations in the US. The fact that you don't hear much about those is because of the bias of liberal media... Or maybe it's because they don't spout nonsense about the origin of life and the age of the Earth.
http://www.crossleft.org/?q=organizationlinks

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 22:55 · Score: 0

Well, you're partly right and partly wrong. The NSDAP initially had a strong socialist wing with considerable revolutionary tendencies, look at people like Ernst Röhm and Gregor Strasser for examples. Needless to say these people eventually got liquidated, being in Hitler's way because they made the army hesitant and a hindrance to obtaining funding from the German mega corps of the day.

So, you don't need to purge the NSDAP from socialism, Hitler already did that. He just kept the name.

Hope that cleared things up.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 23:22 · Score: 0

Yep, because voting for candidate A) who is a fully owned subsidiary of evil "Mega Corp. X" or candidate B) who is a fully owned subsidiary of evil "Mega Corp. Z", whom you both generally loathe is so much better than voting for someone - who happens to have few wacky followers - but is significantly more likely to care about ordinary citizens. It's like voting for getting pestilence or cholera, but dammit, your vote counts!

Remember the "wasted vote" is only actually only wasted if you and everyone else thinks it is.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-30 07:36 · Score: 0

HurrDur... Who the fuck modded this insightful? Elaborate god damned, if you want to completely overthrow someones comment.

Re:Suckaz by gothzilla · 2010-08-02 16:00 · Score: 1

Still waiting for an anti-tea party person to explain why they so violently attack anyone who opposes the wasting of tax dollars on bailouts for the banks. Is there something about spending trillions of dollars that we don't have to make rich bankers even richer that is so incredibly emotionally stirring that you get all violent thinking about someone who is against it?

Or are you just ignorantly parroting CNN and MSNBC without having a clue what the tea party is about and why it started? There are both liberals and conservatives, whites and blacks, and many other people that fall on both ends of many spectrum in the tea party. It's usually necessary to understand something at least a little before harboring such immense amounts of anger and hatred for it.

Re:Suckaz by gothzilla · 2010-08-02 16:03 · Score: 1

Look at the long list of people he's appointed that have no respect for ethics, morality, or the law and it should be trivial to see that it's all been deliberate.

Re:Suckaz by gothzilla · 2010-08-02 16:06 · Score: 1

You need to watch CSPAN more often if you don't think that Democrat politicians regularly referred to Bush and other Republicans by those terms. They still do to this day with the help of the media, especially with those associated with the tea party movement.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-02 16:14 · Score: 0

What you posted is the very definition of "playing the race card." I've only met a very small number of people who dislike Obama because of his color, and I live in the south I really expected to find more. I've also met a large number of blacks who dislike Obama and hate his policies. Are they racist too? According to you and your seriously flawed logic they have to be.

The race card is a trick that blacks have learned to play because it gets them what they want. All you gotta do is lie about someone and accuse them of being racist with nothing but your own deluded imagination to back you up and people shut up and give you your way. Fortunately it's being over used and it's starting to lose it's power. Falsely accusing someone of being racist is just as evil as being a racist yourself.

You also should learn what the tea party is about. It's a movement that opposes the spending of trillions of dollars that we don't have to bail out the banks and make rich people even richer. It has nothing to do, even remotely, with race and there are large numbers of blacks whom are members of the tea party. It's obvious you've never attended an event or listened to what any of them have to say. There are far more racists in the Democrat party than the Republican.

Re:Suckaz is Commodore64_love by gothzilla · 2010-08-02 16:20 · Score: 1

Go back and take basic government and basic economics, then go look at the actual economic numbers for the past 10 years.

The President has very little control over the economy. That power belongs to Congress. The actual economic numbers say we were doing great until 2006 when the Democrats took control of Congress. They immediately set forth destroying the economy all the while blaming Bush for it. They got away with it because there are so many people just like you that completely fail to understand the basics of how everything works.

It's also a proven fact that the tax cuts to the rich not only improved the economy but total tax revenue went up. Did you understand that? The total amount of taxes we collected went UP after we cut taxes on the rich. Again, basic economics that you fail to understand.

It's also been the Democrats who consistently blocked efforts to prevent the housing meltdown. Even Clinton tried to prevent it but was blocked by his own party. Again, simple facts you completely fail to grasp.

Re:Suckaz by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-02 20:02 · Score: 0

"Didn't Obama say he's repeal that piece of shit?"

No he never said that. If he had, i would have voted for him.

agree by nyatty · 2010-08-02 20:52 · Score: 1

Media does the hype many times

--
me

Re:Suckaz by geekoid · 2010-08-03 05:04 · Score: 1

Actually, the Tea baggers make arguments without facts, and there agenda and reasons read like a list of logical fallacies.

As to your initial question:
I talked to a lot of people abut the bank bailout.
It comes down to this:

It;s better that a few fat cats cat bailed out, then the whole country be cast into economic ruin. For the clueless: Are current state is no where near economic ruin, nor is it as had as the 80s.

Here is an example:
You said :
"t spending trillions of dollars"

This is blatantly wrong, and it is they type of fear mongers and appeal to emotion tea baggers are so fond of.

try 87 billion dollars.

The tea baggers spend a lot of time explaining how all their members are from across the bards as if that's relevant. Stupid people are every where, people who believe the worse regardless of facts are every where.
You all sound stupid and ignorant to anyone actually educated or has bother to research any of the FUD tea baggers present.

Hell, the Tea party is FUD manifested.

I will leave you with this last bit:
Look at similar real estate collapse and economic events that have happen in other countries, and previously in US history. This one is ahead of the curve. The steps taken in the bailouts and economic recovery are working. The only [people who think it isn't are idiots who think it working means everything return to 2007 levels over night. well, them and people who make money specifically from bashing Dems.

My gut reaction to the bailouts was that it would be bad, but research and time as shown that my initial reaction was wrong. Maybe you should actually think and research?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Suckaz by gothzilla · 2010-08-03 17:40 · Score: 1

You speak as if we've never had an economic crisis before. The very first thing you do in a crisis is tell everyone that everything will be okay. The dems did not do this. They immediately began to preach doom and gloom. Every single time they did this the stock market dropped shortly after because a big chunk of our economy is based on faith. When people believe everything will be okay then they don't panic nearly as badly.

Check the news history and compare it to the stock market. The dems consistently made the problem they created in the first place worse.

Please also tell me any time in history that bailouts have actually worked. They never have, and the continuing worsening of the economy proves that they still don't. It's trivial common knowledge that you can't spend your way out of debt. It's beyond retarded that anyone could possibly think that the bailouts are doing anything but making the problems worse.

Remember the tech bubble burst in the 90's? What was the first thing the Republicans did? They told everyone don't worry, everything will be fine. That was a huge crash and it didn't take but a few weeks for recovery to begin. It's been how long now since the housing crash and the economy is still crashing. Unemployment is still rising. Even the scam the census bureau pulled didn't help the numbers, by firing and rehiring the same people over and over and counting each time as a new hire.

Another thing you're so horribly wrong about, conservatives generally are not moved by emotion. People that do are usually liberals and is one of them main things that separates the two. That's why you rarely see conservatives out protesting and starting riots like libs do, because we prefer to use our brains, to research, and to make our voices heard at the voting booth. It really takes a lot to get us out in numbers. The socialist policies Obama has been pushing along with all the wasted money in the bailouts was more than enough to do it.

Try going to a tea party event and actually talking to people in real life instead of parroting CNN and MSNBC. You might learn something. Contrary to popular liberal belief, it is beneficial to speak to those with different opinions than yours instead of demonizing them and treating them like second class citizens who don't deserve to speak their minds.

Slashdot Mirror

Onion Story Gets Blown Out of Proportion

641 comments