Slashdot Mirror
Onion Story Gets Blown Out of Proportion
A 3-year-old Onion video titled "Martial Law Plans Revealed?" has swept across the internet recently, and taken the gullible along with it. The video has some preaching from the highest mountain top about the evils of a government turning fascist, and an equal number explaining until red in the face what The Onion is.
I think this is the very definition of a Slow News Day.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
When we already have a press like this?
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
You mean "blue in the face". Red would imply embarrassment. Those would be the other folks, not the ones getting blue in the face.
"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.
Hah. Hilarious. Some people will believe anything I guess.... Tinfoil hats: engaged!
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
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.
All of a suddan I crave fried onion rings so the article isn't totally a waste of time.
More like swept across 2 dozen facebook entries.
Worst. Editorial promotion to frontpage. Ever.
It's War of the Worlds 2010.
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.
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!
...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.)
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.
is here.
First against the wall when the revolution comes
to prepare for the day when something like this turns into a stand alone complex?
Moving on, our next topics are Santa Clause, Jesus, the Tooth Fairy, and honesty in government.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
This is definitely humorous (and sad), but it still doesn't top China
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.
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.
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
...That you can find here.
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
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.
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
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?"
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
It sounds like you should introduce both sides to your 12 gauge friend.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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?
Idiocracy
Is it just me, or does that sound like an awesome description of Z-Day?
are .
Write Only Memory: Another pointless blog.
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.
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
Doh. Meant to include that both idiots will ignore facts when they conflict with the elaborate conspiracies that they have concocted in their heads.
...is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
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
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?"
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.
-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.
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
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
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.
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...
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)
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
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?
Another Poe's Law casualties.
There's no scientific consensus that life is important.
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.
Whoa! You're friends with Bush?
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?
I believe this was the article you refer to.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Citation needed.
Facts have a liberal bias.
Ignorant people are easy to find, especially among the younger set.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Yes, but only the right has a TV network devoted to spreading The Crazy.
Reminds me of Christina Maldonado's fail back in May. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and scary.
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.
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
We slam the right because the right is stupid. Isn't it obvious?
I keep reading that "Muslim Keynesian Terrorists"
What the Hayek was I thinking?
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.
"Is your son a computer hacker?" which trolled a certain techie site hard...
Best Slashdot Co
What are you talking about? That news show with Jon Stewart as the anchor man is always spreading left wing lies!
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!
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
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.
Humor us.
Dark Reflection
The misinformed strike again. Nobody should be surprised at all.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that... it's horrifying.
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!
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.
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
Build some good karma, you then have the option to have /. with no ads.
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
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.
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
... 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.
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?
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.
the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.
Perhaps because religion left or right excels at propagating misinformation?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
That people will believe almost anything (and of course spam all their friends with it) if it eases that "cognitive dissonance".
>>>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
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
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.
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
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!
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
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?
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.
>>>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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
>>>
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
>> 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).
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
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
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.)
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?
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
You know what I think of this? Those opinions are Classified.
>>># 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
>>>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
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
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
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.
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.
Like it says on Christopher Wren's tomb - look around you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
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
Isn't "slow news day" what Idle is for?
>>>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
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
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
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
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
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.
>>>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
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.
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
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."
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
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
>>>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
>>>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.
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
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.
>>>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
>>>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
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."
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
No, YOU provide the link.
What do you think, sirs?
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!
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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".
Man.. "troopergate?" Really? Stop it. Please.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
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?
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Maybe it's difficult to understand because you're wrong.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.'
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.
Libertarian party was never in charge.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
This whole premise sounds like something you would read on the Onion itself: "OFFICE COWORKER THINKS ONION IS REAL NEWS."
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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
From the headline, I thought this *was* an Onion story.
Pi Ran Out
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.
That's drawing your own conclusions and presenting unrelated data as "proof". Try again.
What do you think, sirs?
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.
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
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.........
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
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.
# 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
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.
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
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...).
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...).
No, "guaranteed incompetence" does not trump "possible incompetence".
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.
>> 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?
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.
... and ensure that the sites you wish to use will lose money. Awesome! Selfishness FTW!
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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).
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:
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.)
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just that makes this pretty big news I think..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Do you have a point man, or are you just using words?
Qxe4
...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.
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
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?
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.
The libertarian party?
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
I doubt it's intellectual dishonesty. More likely the poster didn't know of that analysis. It is less than a month old.
Jesus classified ?
He knows. He was posting on this story.
Qxe4
"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
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.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
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'
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.
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?!
Read up on "Liberation Theology" for religious leftism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
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 /.
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.
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 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
It's happened every now and again over the last couple of years since there are operations going on at the border.
You do get the option to disable ads if you have high enough karma. I saw this when my last subscription ran out.
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.
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
"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
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
Some laugh and spread it.
Some love to fear it.
Some like to ruin it.
www.itanimulli.com
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.
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"
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.
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.
I had the worst karma possible just last week and I still had the option.
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.
You mean "root" and "kroot"?
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
I would think that doing things in an ethically unsound manner is worse than doing nothing.
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!
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
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
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
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?!
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?
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Media does the hype many times
me
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
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.