Posts tagged I can't
Posts tagged I can't
A friend of mine just shared this on Facebook (and tagged a shitload of people) captioned as such:
"If Obummer sees what were [sic] all posting anyhow then this is so crazy it just might work. Imagine his suprise [sic] when the I.R.S. hands him a stack of posts from all walls in America. Oh wait they won’t bcuz all the emails get lost lol!"
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck….. I just don’t even know what to say to this tomfoolery. I quit.
Sometimes, you run across a post that breaks your brain. This would be one of those times.
Chris Kyle was the most deadly sniper in American history, tragically murdered by a good friend at a shooting range. Here’s an alternate perspective on his life and death beside that of nationalism. Chris Kyle was, by many accounts, a loving son, father, and husband who said he had “no regrets” over what he did as a sniper, which was rob others of the opportunities to be loving sons, husbands, and fathers because he was ordered to do so.
From the New York Times on the death of Nelson Mandela:
Mr. Mandela spent 27 years in prison after being convicted of treason by the white minority government, only to forge a peaceful end to white rule by negotiating with his captors after his release in 1990. He led the African National Congress, long a banned liberation movement, to a resounding electoral victory in 1994, the first fully democratic election in the country’s history.
"A peaceful end" — do you see that? After being released, he peacefully negotiated with those who imprisoned him and brought the African National Congress to electoral victory, joining with others to banish government-sanctioned apartheid.
If you’re going to criticize the president for not recognizing the death of Chris Kyle, where should it stop? Must the president speak out on the death of every veteran? Or the death of every person killed by a bullet?
I’m tired of this false equivalency of “Obama did ____ but didn’t do _____ … hmmm.” I’m not sure what this post above is trying to do. Is it documented that Obama was given the opportunity to speak on behalf of Chris Kyle and chose not to? All I can find are insinuations. If Obama orders a burger, does that mean he hates chicken farmers? If Obama gets a chocolate milkshake are we to say he hates White people because he bypassed vanilla? The death of Nelson Mandela has global reverberations and ought to be recognized by the president. I’m not sure how that’s inspiring discontent, but apparently it is.
Perhaps in the next speech Obama gives, he could recognize the growing problem of PTSD among combat vets and the ease of obtaining guns, two factors that played a role in Kyle’s murder. Or maybe he could mention all the men, women, and children murdered by U.S. forces in the name of enforcing democracy. Or just maybe, Obama could state we’re moving towards embracing Mandela’s legacy of ending oppression through non-violence. That’s something I’d like to see the president speak on behalf of today.
The senator helpfully forgets that he led the charge for the shutdown that he says is now threatening the country’s security.
YOU! YOU DID THIS! IT. IS. YOUR. FAULT. YOU AND YOUR TEALIBAN CRONIES DID THIS!
Prof: “Criminal negligence still has a duty of care attached to it, though the law is more likely to punish sins of commission versus omission. What does that mean?” (Prof cold calls student, gunner interrupts).
Gunner: “But if you see a car accident, you’re legally obligated to remain there because you’re a witness. If you watch an accident and you leave, isn’t that fleeing the scene? Can’t you be criminally charged for leaving the scene? You assumed the duty of care by voluntarily watching it.”
Prof: “No. That is not the way the law works. With negligence —”
Gunner: “Yes, it is.”
Prof: “No, I assure you, it’s really not. With negligence —”
Gunner: “But why is there a charge for leaving the scene then?”
Seriously, dude. Your argument is all sorts of wrong sauce. I get that you want to ask questions, and that’s great, but when you’re told you’re wrong, and the prof is trying to explain the concept, wait a tick and see if your question gets answered. But don’t just keep asking it again while insisting you’re right.
Jerry wants you kids to get off your “parent’s” plan.
And probably his lawn. By God, he had Bootstraps™ at 18 — which, by the way, was 50 years ago.
I bet the world’s changed a tick since.
Let me fix that for you:
“I do not like them on a boat.
I do not like them in a moat.
Please do not make me help a poor.
I cannot stand them any more.
I care not if they fall sick
I care not since I’m a dick.
Poors also shall not eat.
The poors shall not have meat.”
I’ll respect your background if you respect mine.
There are some things I can’t abide today. This is one of them. This article is full of choice passages like this one:
"I want to stop lying about the suits I buy for my internship. I want to stop saying they are hand me down’s from my cousin. I want to be able to say thank you when I receive a compliment on them. I was taught that you should always dress for the job you want, not the job you have. I want to be taken seriously at my internship and look professional—and I have the resources to buy nice-looking suits and have my hair professionally highlighted.
I’m tired of justifying my address and the backlash I receive when I tell people I am a student and live in a high-rise apartment. I’m tired of the looks my doorman gives me when he hands me my package (of work clothes) delivered from J.Crew.
So stop making me feel like I’ve done something wrong. Stop making me feel like I am less deserving. I didn’t ask to be born into this kind of circumstance and I’m tired of being judged for it.”
Does she seriously not understand how much she is flaunting her privilege with this post? If this is how she talks to the poors in person, perhaps there’s a different reason people think she’s insufferable. Maybe it’s not the wealth. Maybe it’s regaling others with stories about how uncomfortable you feel making eye contact with your doorman when he brings you your packages of (work clothes) from J. Crew. And maybe your doorman gave you the stink eye because you didn’t tip like a lot of privileged douchecanoes.
I went shopping for (work clothes) at the thrift store. So thanks for implying that I’m somehow less than you because I’m not looking “professional” like you.
And the next time someone gives you a compliment? Just say “thank you” like you want. People don’t care where your suit came from unless they said, “Nice suit. Where did you get it?” Trust me, no one is expending that much mental energy worrying about where you — you special little snowflake, you — got your hair done or your suit. You are not the center of the universe.
Let’s pretend for a second you’re right, even though you’re not. Everyone is critiquing you on whether or not you are dressing for the job you want. Good news, snowflake! If you fail that critique, well, you can always order another round from your pal, J. Crew. Those of us without said resources get judged, too, and there isn’t a goddamn thing we can do about it except pretend it isn’t happening, smile, and move on. Because if someone is judging us for last season’s suit, there’s no way to fix that when the electric bill is overdue and the cupboards are empty.
I just can’t with this shit. Your parents worked hard. Good for them! Mine worked hard too, and they’re living on social security and a pension. Plenty of people are working hard RIGHT NOW and aren’t even able to put food on the table, i.e. a good portion of SNAP recipients who have full time jobs.
The tl;dr version? Maybe it’s not all of us. Maybe it’s you. And that’s the ultimate privilege — not having to look in the goddamn mirror and see what inane vanity it’s reflecting back.
In what would be a dramatic change of course, House Republican leaders are considering a strategy of risking a government shutdown at the end of this month if Obamacare isn’t defunded.
Seriously? The 40+ symbolic votes to repeal it — at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $1.75 million each time — just weren’t enough. And now, in hopes of attaching it to a must pass bill, conservative Republicans are squealing with delight at imaging the blame they can place on Democrats for either voting to shut down the government by voting against a repeal. However, others are speculating that it’s Boehner caving to the tea party caucus and kicking the can to the Senate, where it has no chance of passing.
Either way, it’s more of the same — the House is playing chicken with a government shutdown that has very real consequences. On the 37th repeal vote, Boehner justified it by stating, ““We’ve got 70 new members who have not had an opportunity to vote on the President’s health care bill.” By that logic, there’s over 300 members of the House who didn’t get a chance to vote on the original Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is he going to hold a vote on that?
Actually, don’t answer that. I don’t want to give them any ideas. This is not a party of ideas or solutions. This is a party given to tantrums and hostage taking.
Meanwhile, as House Republicans prepare to
set another million bucks or so on fire vote on the Obamacare repeal yet again, millions of Americans are losing income and vital services daily because of the sequester they pushed for and quickly disowned.
You know that jokey little joke bit of strategery some of us around here like to throw out whenever Obamz&Co come up with any kind of offering of opinion, or God forbid actual policy, and then are arbitrarily screamed at for being commie-fascist-welfare-taxer-Muslim-brothers-from-the-hood, no matter what the opinion was? We jokesters often like to posit that in response the prez should maybe come out in support of Republican ideas, like having another war (so close) or aborting things, or cuttin’ all these rich people’s taxes more than the less than zero they kinda pay now, or maybe just go ahead and kill Obamacare his ownself? And then maybe these haters of all things Oblackma would act like they have always been for taxing billionaires to pay for our abortion wars and we could get something done as a nation already?
Oh we have made ourselves laugh. But we are now thinking that mayhaps we were really and truly on to something? Because all Michelle Obama had to do was go out and tell some kid-folks that they should drink more water, and BAM! Water is now junk science (just like global warming) and no you should not drink it especially if she says so.
Here’s the tl;dr version:
Michelle Obama: “Hey folks, replace one sody-pop with water because that’s healthy!”
Conservatives: “FUCK YOUR PINKO WATER, COMMIE! P.S. Hey you poors — no fizz for you, you still can’t have nice things. Because poor.”
There’s some days I’m convinced we’re all being trolled. This is one of those days. Here’s exactly what I pictured:
USA Today, that bastion of hard-hitting investigative journalism typically found outside your hotel room door, has reached a new apex by covering some drunken twit’s tweet as newsworthy. However, that’s not the true glory of this blurb.
The second sentence sets a new high for lows in national media: “That’s like in the coma and death range levels of ethanol in her blood.” Read it out loud. It’s the dreaded “like” filler appearing IN WRITING. Really?
What’s next? I predict headlines reading “OMG MILEY UR SO CRAY!”
"The Texas lawmaker looks a little different than she did 30 years ago, and one anonymous blog wants to know why"
So this is a thing.
The anonymous blogger’s claims include she can’t be a feminist icon because she wears makeup and dresses, plus “[c]urrent photos of Senator Davis depict someone who is not just more physically attractive, but who arguably seems younger than the woman in her yearbook photo, even though that photo was taken 22 years ago.”
I just… REALLY?!
This is not a parody account.
I’m just going to deal with a logical fallacy here — a weapon is no longer secret once you tweet it could be a secret weapon.
And one might think the GOP might view Black people as more than just votes to be used as a weapon. One might think that. But one would also be very, very wrong. Not unless this is the red and the black Fox Nation is talking about:
I checked. Nope. From the story:
Republicans need not win the black vote, or even a third of it. Securing 15 percent of the black electorate severely erodes the stalwart-Democrat base.
Here’s a hint: Stop supporting laws that force 102-year-old Desiline Victor to wait in line for several hours to vote and you just might have a fighting chance. Oh, and probably stop saying and doing racist shit every chance y’all get.
You know the GOP’s in trouble when 15% is the target. Of course, that’s nearly double what Mitt Romney received in 2012, so perhaps 15% is optimistic.
So how’s that bigoty, WASPy Southern Strategy thingy workin’ out for ya? Probably about as well as it did the year some of my readers were born. Just for funsies, let’s do the time warp again!
"In a number of ways, the Republican Party has sought to make this the year it would break the Democratic hammerlock on the votes of black Americans.
Starting with the windfall of Gen. Colin L. Powell’s announcement of Republican affiliation, and continuing with Bob Dole’s choice of Jack Kemp as his running mate, party officials allowed themselves to hope that their Presidential ticket might pull 15 percent or 16 percent of the black vote this year, up from 11 percent for George Bush in 1992. In the euphoria of the San Diego convention, one top campaign official set the target at 20 percent.
But there is no sign the Republicans are actually gaining; in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, in fact, they are doing worse than in 1992. Only 3 percent of the black respondents in the survey, completed early this month, said they intended to vote for the Dole-Kemp ticket, and only 7 percent said they would vote for the Republican House candidate in their district.” — “G.O.P. Tries Hard to Win Black Votes, but Recent History Works Against It,” The New York Times, Sept. 19, 1996
Aim low, fellas.
Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes and American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios displaying a jaw-dropping lack of awareness when discussing marriage equality.
I nearly choked on my goddamn coffee when I heard this fuckery come out of their mouths. Let’s just hit the basic point: EVERY bill passed for marriage equality has a religious exemption. Period.
And clergy have every right to refuse to marry anyone. Don’t believe me? Go to a Catholic priest, demand he marry you and your significant other on the spot, and mention that neither of you is Catholic, but he just HAS to do it. Hint: He won’t.
P.S. — If you want to uphold “traditional, Biblical” definitions of marriage and think it’s one man and one woman, you clearly didn’t read that book closely.
I just can’t with some people…
MRA: I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help but overhear — are you really suggesting that men haven’t contributed anything to science?
Me: No, I’m suggesting a lot of women’s achievements were usurped or overlooked and my friend is agreeing with me.
MRA: Well, without men, there would have been no one to teach science to women. When will there be conferences dedicated to just celebrating their achievements? Or a men’s history month? Frankly, I think men are under recognized because of the search to always recognize a woman in anything.
Me: Sorry our conversation isn’t celebrating the tyranny of the patriarchal cock. Is there something more acceptable you’d like us to talk about, besides, you know, my friend’s thesis?
MRA: Tyranny of the cock? What are you, a lesbo? *walks off, shaking his head*
My pal: What…. the… hell… Has that guy never, ever read a science or history textbook? Holy shit… like every month is men’s history month, and EVERY conference I’ve been to is celebrating men in science the majority of the time. Is he for real?
Me: Yes. These people exist.
My pal: I’d heard legends of this Reddit tribe… maybe I should get out of biology and into anthropology.