If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicus USA)   "Thank God for the police, the first responders, the doctors, and the nurses whose swift and heroic efforts saved lives in Aurora, and thank God for Paul Ryan whose budget will cut their funding"   (politicususa.com) divider line 426
    More: Dumbass, god, Boehner, morning, Jonathan Swift, Boehner Praises, first responders, Colorado, austerities  
•       •       •

6888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jul 2012 at 5:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-22 11:34:13 AM

thamike: Jz4p: This article is right on schedule with when I told an Onion reporter that this tragedy would be politicized.

/sadly

An Onion reporter?


A reporter with The Onion. A publication that is a bastion of journalistic integrity.
 
2012-07-22 12:30:20 PM

o5iiawah: No, it is typically the Tea Party folks who object to the Federal government spending money on state and local issues. Government is best run when taxes are collected at the appropriate level of benefit. If your community wants a cop, it should find a way to levy a tax and then pay for that cop.

Currently, citizens pay federal income tax, which goes to the IRS, gets appropriated via the treasury and budget to an office, say DHS. The states will then send senators, reps and lobbyists to petition for a chunk of the pie and a city like NYC then sends reps to Albany to lobby for it so they can hire a cop or buy a truck or what have you. That dollar in Federal income tax is now about $.20 or so when it gets back to the city.


See, this is the sad part about the tea partiers. They really do believe this, and they refuse to look at the evidence sitting right in front of them.

Fact is, it is the red states which wind up getting more money back from the Federal Government than they actually pay in! Take a look at this graph:

farm4.static.flickr.com


As you can see, most red states wind up with more money than they actually pay in! They *think* the Federal Government is keeping most of their money, and sending it to the liberal states to pay for the minorities to have babies and sit on their butts and draw disability, but it's actually the other way around. I like to call this Tea Party Tax Derangement Syndrome. It would be a lovely talking point if it were remotely true, but even when presented with this evidence, tea partiers dismiss it because they *know* it can't possibly be true that the lib states are actually supporting *them*.

Local and state issues should be paid for and voted on by the people who live there. The election of a US Senator in Wisconsin should mean fark all to a local school system in Louisiana

You know, that would be great, except for people, especially in tea party states, tend to vote for the most vile, racist individuals they can find, who tend to look at their racism and other bigotry as a "state right" - as in, "well, that's the way we like to run things around here." Look at the history of the Civil Rights movement, people like George Wallace in Alabama, Tommy Cribbs (sheriff of Dyer County, TN in the 1960's) and, to see a more modern example, look at Sheriff Joe in Maricopa Co., Arizona. The people there are shelling out millions of dollars of their tax money every year in settlements and legal fees due to his actions, yet they blame the people doing the suing, rather than the Sheriff for doing these vile acts to begin with! And they keep electing him!

To put it simply, areas of the country, and not coincidentally areas in which the tea party is most popular, have shown historically again and again that they cannot elect local representatives who treat their constituents with common human decency. In other words, this is why they can't have nice things.

It is NOT a "State Right" to treat others as somehow "second class citizens", regardless of their race, faith, national origin, disability, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Get over it, tea partiers. You're wrong in this.
 
2012-07-22 12:54:59 PM
Only my 3rd greenlight but over 400 comments.

/so proud
//sniff
 
2012-07-22 02:25:15 PM

ox45tallboy: tend to vote for the most vile, racist individuals they can find, who tend to look at their racism and other bigotry as a "state right"


Like Al Gore Sr. And Robert Byrd, who filibustered the civil rights act?

It is NOT a "State Right" to treat others as somehow "second class citizens", regardless of their race, faith, national origin, disability, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Get over it, tea partiers. You're wrong in this.

Like how Wilson fought against Women's suffrage?
Like how FDR imprisoned US citizens without trial?
Like how LBJ said that the great society would get negroes addicted to welfare?
Like how Democrats filibustered the civil rights amendment?
Like how Margaret Sanger favored Birth Control to keep blacks from reproducing?

I think you have your rage confused....It is liberal progressives who have been the largest obstacle to the advancement of women, people of color and other historically disenfranchised individuals. Never forget the radical, leftist blacks who accused MLK of being a house negro and an uncle Tom. Turn on the news and listen to any rag left wing political show talk about conservatives of color. They call them sellouts and fakes.

But keep on with the hillbilly narrative.
 
2012-07-22 02:34:37 PM

o5iiawah: ox45tallboy: tend to vote for the most vile, racist individuals they can find, who tend to look at their racism and other bigotry as a "state right"

Like Al Gore Sr. And Robert Byrd, who filibustered the civil rights act?

It is NOT a "State Right" to treat others as somehow "second class citizens", regardless of their race, faith, national origin, disability, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Get over it, tea partiers. You're wrong in this.

Like how Wilson fought against Women's suffrage?
Like how FDR imprisoned US citizens without trial?
Like how LBJ said that the great society would get negroes addicted to welfare?
Like how Democrats filibustered the civil rights amendment?
Like how Margaret Sanger favored Birth Control to keep blacks from reproducing?

I think you have your rage confused....It is liberal progressives who have been the largest obstacle to the advancement of women, people of color and other historically disenfranchised individuals. Never forget the radical, leftist blacks who accused MLK of being a house negro and an uncle Tom. Turn on the news and listen to any rag left wing political show talk about conservatives of color. They call them sellouts and fakes.

But keep on with the hillbilly narrative.


You forgot about the southern strategy. Because of that, all the historical issues you brought up no longer belong to the party that they used to.

Even when you think you're winning, you're losing.
 
2012-07-22 03:13:07 PM

o5iiawah: ox45tallboy: tend to vote for the most vile, racist individuals they can find, who tend to look at their racism and other bigotry as a "state right"

Like Al Gore Sr. And Robert Byrd, who filibustered the civil rights act?

It is NOT a "State Right" to treat others as somehow "second class citizens", regardless of their race, faith, national origin, disability, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Get over it, tea partiers. You're wrong in this.

Like how Wilson fought against Women's suffrage?
Like how FDR imprisoned US citizens without trial?
Like how LBJ said that the great society would get negroes addicted to welfare?
Like how Democrats filibustered the civil rights amendment?
Like how Margaret Sanger favored Birth Control to keep blacks from reproducing?

I think you have your rage confused....It is liberal progressives who have been the largest obstacle to the advancement of women, people of color and other historically disenfranchised individuals. Never forget the radical, leftist blacks who accused MLK of being a house negro and an uncle Tom. Turn on the news and listen to any rag left wing political show talk about conservatives of color. They call them sellouts and fakes.

But keep on with the hillbilly narrative.


Southern Democrats were not as enlightened as their northern comrades
 
2012-07-22 03:40:20 PM

Sabyen91: shotglasss: Gun control nuts are always happy when a rampage like this happens and you know it.

I see you have a farked up world view.


its more like "never let a good tragedy go to waste", to quote Rahman Emmanuel, iirc. Which is also a fscked up way to look at the world.
 
2012-07-22 03:41:45 PM
Excuse me, Rahm

Stop autocorrecting my ass!
 
2012-07-22 04:18:15 PM

rohar: You forgot about the southern strategy. Because of that, all the historical issues you brought up no longer belong to the party that they used to.

Even when you think you're winning, you're losing.


Wait, so FDR and Wilson were southern democrats and would be conservatives today? Please tell me you dont actually believe that.
 
2012-07-22 04:22:39 PM

o5iiawah: rohar: You forgot about the southern strategy. Because of that, all the historical issues you brought up no longer belong to the party that they used to.

Even when you think you're winning, you're losing.

Wait, so FDR and Wilson were southern democrats and would be conservatives today? Please tell me you dont actually believe that.


On January 12, 1915, a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for women's suffrage was brought before the House of Representatives, but was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174. Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote.

I won't defend what FDR did but I think your derp is showing.
 
2012-07-22 04:26:20 PM

o5iiawah: Like Al Gore Sr. And Robert Byrd, who filibustered the civil rights act?

[...]

Like how Wilson fought against Women's suffrage?


Wilson was a fine progressive as far as his progressivism went. Self determination, in his estimation, was fine for Czechs but not for Africans. If Europe had listened to him, perhaps there would have been no WW2; and if he had been more consistent in his beliefs, perhaps there would have been no Vietnam War.

Like how FDR imprisoned US citizens without trial?
Like how LBJ said that the great society would get negroes addicted to welfare?


*sigh* Citation needed.

Like how Democrats filibustered the civil rights amendment?

Yeah. Liberal Democrats like Strom Thurmond.

Like how Margaret Sanger favored Birth Control to keep blacks from reproducing?

So defund Planned Parenthood. That'll larn them welfare queens to keep pushing out babies.

Now show me where even one of these people is on the ballot, anywhere.

I think you have your rage confused....It is liberal progressives who have been the largest obstacle to the advancement of women, people of color and other historically disenfranchised individuals.

Yeah, liberals like Scott Walker. Liberals like Rick Perry. Liberals like Joe Arpaio. Liberals like the yahoos who run Fox Izvestia. Scary Mooselimbs! Feelthy queers! Greasy spics! Union thugs! Dirty sluts!

It was those durn liberal Mor[m]ons from Utah who campaigned for Proposition 8 in CA. It was liberals like Billy Graham who campaigned for Amendment 1 in NC. It's the liberals who soiled their pants when a mosque went up in Murfreesboro.

i149.photobucket.com

Never forget the radical, leftist blacks who accused MLK of being a house negro and an uncle Tom. Turn on the news and listen to any rag left wing political show talk about conservatives of color. They call them sellouts and fakes.

1) MLK was a liberal by any reasonable definition of the word.

2) It isn't the fault of the "rag left wing political shows" that American conservatives, of any color, have gone full retard.
 
2012-07-22 04:29:01 PM

Halli: I won't defend what FDR did but I think your derp is showing.


You should have read more in the politico piece that you quoted.

In his first term, Wilson had taken a lukewarm attitude toward women's suffrage. In 1917, suffragists picketed the White House and berated Wilson for paying mere lip service to their cause.]

The 1918 midterm elections altered the balance of power on the issue. On May 21, 1919, the House endorsed women's suffrage 304-89. On June 4, the Senate finally followed suit, approving the amendment 56-25 and sending it to the states for ratification.

Wilson opposed suffrage until it was clear that 2/3 of the people wanted it. He caved to pressure rather than lead the charge.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6071.html
 
2012-07-22 04:33:11 PM

ox45tallboy: That dollar in Federal income tax is now about $.20 or so when it gets back to the city.


True, but only because all the city money gets sent to the country, to be spent on hillbillies.

/Cities trend blue, rural trends red.
 
2012-07-22 04:33:50 PM

o5iiawah: Wilson opposed suffrage until it was clear that 2/3 of the people wanted it. He caved to pressure rather than lead the charge.


Article says nothing about opposing suffrage. You're putting quite the spin on this.
 
2012-07-22 04:39:35 PM

o5iiawah: Halli: I won't defend what FDR did but I think your derp is showing.

You should have read more in the politico piece that you quoted.

In his first term, Wilson had taken a lukewarm attitude toward women's suffrage. In 1917, suffragists picketed the White House and berated Wilson for paying mere lip service to their cause.]

The 1918 midterm elections altered the balance of power on the issue. On May 21, 1919, the House endorsed women's suffrage 304-89. On June 4, the Senate finally followed suit, approving the amendment 56-25 and sending it to the states for ratification.

Wilson opposed suffrage until it was clear that 2/3 of the people wanted it. He caved to pressure rather than lead the charge.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6071.html


So "fought against" means "didn't fight hard enough" now. Keep movin' them goalposts and keep changin' them subjects. Whatever you do don't DARE keep talking about how much the hillbillies and the "values voters" and the teabaggers cost the federal government in handouts to support their unprofitable and worthless (by Libertarian standards) asses.
 
2012-07-22 04:42:50 PM

TheBigJerk: o5iiawah: Halli: I won't defend what FDR did but I think your derp is showing.

You should have read more in the politico piece that you quoted.

In his first term, Wilson had taken a lukewarm attitude toward women's suffrage. In 1917, suffragists picketed the White House and berated Wilson for paying mere lip service to their cause.]

The 1918 midterm elections altered the balance of power on the issue. On May 21, 1919, the House endorsed women's suffrage 304-89. On June 4, the Senate finally followed suit, approving the amendment 56-25 and sending it to the states for ratification.

Wilson opposed suffrage until it was clear that 2/3 of the people wanted it. He caved to pressure rather than lead the charge.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6071.html

So "fought against" means "didn't fight hard enough" now. Keep movin' them goalposts and keep changin' them subjects. Whatever you do don't DARE keep talking about how much the hillbillies and the "values voters" and the teabaggers cost the federal government in handouts to support their unprofitable and worthless (by Libertarian standards) asses.


Yeah it's like saying Obama fought against gay marriage.

Fighting against something would be John McCain going apeshiat during the DADT repeal. I have no doubt in fifty years time that US conservatives will claim that victory as well.
 
2012-07-22 04:49:11 PM

o5iiawah: Wilson opposed suffrage until it was clear that 2/3 of the people wanted it. He caved to pressure rather than lead the charge.


The only role that the President has in a Constitutional amendment is a bully pulpit. 2/3 House and 2/3 Senate, after all, is already enough to override a veto.
 
2012-07-22 05:46:02 PM

o5iiawah: Wait, so FDR and Wilson were southern democrats and would be conservatives today? Please tell me you dont actually believe that.


media.animevice.com
 
2012-07-22 06:18:50 PM

hubiestubert: ox45tallboy: hubiestubert: ox45tallboy: Well, it's been more than 24 hours, I guess we can start politicizing a tragedy now....

Cripes, they didn't wait even 12 before spouting gibberish...

Oh, you think that's great?

Why not use this tragedy to sell some stuff!

Perhaps you'd like a Twin Towers commerative coin while you wait?


Weaver95: ox45tallboy: Well, it's been more than 24 hours, I guess we can start politicizing a tragedy now....

Michelle Malkin had something up online about this shooting before I'd even gotten out of bed that day.


Ostensibly the both of were conservatives. I thought I was one, too. Can you please let us know what changed your minds?
 
2012-07-22 06:20:11 PM
ox45tallboy 2012-07-22 12:01:55 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Yes, where do you come up with this? Does it just come to you? That is some amazing stuff.

Dude, I don't know... I'm politically inclined, I guess, kind of fascinated by the real life version of 'Game of Thrones' that runs our country.

A good bit comes from reading what these people say, and then looking at what they actually do and reading their real motivation into it, then trying to fit that into words that make sense in the context of whatever the hell the thread is about.


Frank Herbert would have loved you, dude.
 
2012-07-22 10:14:30 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Yeah. Liberal Democrats like Strom Thurmond.


Like Robert Byrd and Al gore Sr, Democrats even after the "southern strategy"

So defund Planned Parenthood. That'll larn them welfare queens to keep pushing out babies.

It is one thing to support birth control so low income mothers dont have unwanted children. it is another to support it because you believe in Eugenics. I dont care if planned parenthood exists or not, I just prefer that they not get public funds. If people want to privately fund them, that is their own business. You did, however, completely miss my point that the progressive hero Margaret Sanger was a devout eugenicist, just as progressives nowadays see blacks as pets to be taken care of, rather than individuals.

Lee Jackson Beauregard: *sigh* Citation needed.


If you believe the Kessler book Inside the White house, LBJ can be quoted as follows:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Bonus points to you for Slurs. That helps advance your pathetic, paper thin, unsubstantiated argument.
 
2012-07-22 10:54:51 PM

o5iiawah: It is one thing to support birth control so low income mothers dont have unwanted children. it is another to support it because you believe in Eugenics. I dont care if planned parenthood exists or not, I just prefer that they not get public funds. If people want to privately fund them, that is their own business. You did, however, completely miss my point that the progressive hero Margaret Sanger was a devout eugenicist, just as progressives nowadays see blacks as pets to be taken care of, rather than individuals.


And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And Abraham Lincoln, you know, the first Republican President, wanted to ship all the black people back to Africa. Wait, here you go:

Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal. -Abraham Lincoln, on the Dred Scott decision

Dude, give up. If you really believe the ideology present in today's Republican party is responsible for civil rights, you obviously need to do a little more research. You can whine about what Democrats did 60-100 years ago, but that's no more an indicator to their ideology today than that of the Republicans from that long ago.
 
2012-07-23 02:45:55 AM

o5iiawah: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Yeah. Liberal Democrats like Strom Thurmond.

Like Robert Byrd and Al gore Sr, Democrats even after the "southern strategy"


Al Gore, Sr was out of the Senate about 3 years after the "Southern strategy," a Publican strategy I might add. Byrd quit the Klowns a long time ago. Both of them are dead, as are LBJ, FDR, Wilson, Sanger, and all the rest of the bogeymen you listened.

Scott Walker, Joe Arpaio, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and their ilk are doing damage now. Cheered on by goose-stepping Foxbots like you.

No, you're not going after the Uppity Nubians, at least not openly, that's a bridge too far even for you. You go after the Scary Mooselimbs, Greasy Spics, Feelthy Queers, Dirty Sluts and Union Thugs.

So defund Planned Parenthood. That'll larn them welfare queens to keep pushing out babies.

It is one thing to support birth control so low income mothers dont have unwanted children. it is another to support it because you believe in Eugenics.


Show me someone who believes in eugenics. Difficulty: believes, present tense.

I dont care if planned parenthood exists or not, I just prefer that they not get public funds.

img1.fark.net

I Margaret Sanger was a devout eugenicist,

Clap, clap, clap. Now show me where Sanger is on the ballot.

Lee Jackson Beauregard: *sigh* Citation needed.

If you believe the Kessler book Inside the White house, LBJ can be quoted as follows:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."


Yeah, democracy's a bitsch, isn't it.

Bonus points to you for Slurs. That helps advance your pathetic, paper thin, unsubstantiated argument.

Pot, meet kettle. You yell about what a bunch of farkheads the LIBS! are and to prove it you trot out a bunch of dead people, some of them dead for decades.
 
2012-07-23 03:18:18 AM

o5iiawah: just as progressives nowadays see blacks as pets to be taken care of, rather than individuals.


theblackberryalarmclock.com

/Getting a kick, hot like a thing noted for it's hotness, oblig, all that.

You, Sirrah, are a very silly troll with hilariously out-of-date material.

You're practically vaudevillian.
 
2012-07-23 04:17:48 PM

Sabyen91: ox45tallboy: COMALite J: Actually, I suspect that it was an automated thing. From what I understand of the Twitter API (which allows websites to call on Twitter services such as embedding a Twitter feed in a sidebar, etc.), the "trending" thing can be an automated web service that watches for keywords that the developer specifies as being relevant to a company or its products or services (such as "Aurora" because of an "Aurora" line of products), then, if any of those keywords starts trending as a hash-tag, sends out an automated tweet to that effect with a link to the web page relevant to that line of products or services.

In this case, it just went horribly, horribly wrong. I suspect that web developers who've used that functionality are even now assessing whether to remove it, after seeing just how badly it can backfire.

No matter how innocent a keyword may be at the time, one never knows what will happen later. "Katrina" was just a popular feminine name not so long ago. Heck, back in the early 1980s, "going postal" only referred to how one might ship something somewhere.

Now, see, this would make sense. But if it were the case, then why wouldn't they say that? How could the bad flack from "we're not even actually reading or responding to our own twitter feed" be any worse than "we just sent out one of the most insensitive tweets in the history of Twitter"?

Yeah, they did say the "person", didn't they? I can't get too outraged over one employee in a foreign country making a mistake, though.


It happened on a weekend. The execs probably couldn't get in touch with the web developer on short notice, and gave the first excuse they could come up with to the media.

If this hypothesis is true, Twitter should disable the web service in such a way that when websites connect to it, they're given a successful connection response (thus no error messages appearing on existing sites using the service), but no actual data, as if none of their keywords are ever "trending"; until such time as they can add intelligence to this to, for instance, check with various news sources to make sure that keywords that are "trending" do not appear in current news headlines along with negative keywords such as "massacre," "tragedy," "disaster," "deaths," etc. ― they could also cross-reference those terms in the tweets in their own system that show the hash-tag of the "trending" keywords.
 
2012-07-23 04:55:53 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 26 of 426 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report