Author Topic: Idiot of the Day (Read 253022 times)

Cotigo · « **Reply #775 on:** July 23, 2009, 04:10:26 AM »

Still not as terrible a representative as Michelle Bachman.

NotMiki · « **Reply #776 on:** July 23, 2009, 10:35:59 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/marsha-blackburn-apologiz_n_243471.html

and apparently she knows when to fold 'em.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1859513,00.html

Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners
see how many you can guess in advance! I got 5. they're listed in decreasing severity (something that becomes obvious after quote 1, of course).

metroid composite · « **Reply #777 on:** July 23, 2009, 11:07:28 PM »

Quote from: NotMiki on July 23, 2009, 10:35:59 PM

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1859513,00.html

Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners
see how many you can guess in advance! I got 5. they're listed in decreasing severity (something that becomes obvious after quote 1, of course).

Seriously lacks "You People".

Cotigo · « **Reply #778 on:** July 24, 2009, 03:30:24 AM »

Said by whom? "You People" is a little less specific and the mistake is made by a lot more people than the quotes that made it to the list.

NotMiki · « **Reply #779 on:** July 24, 2009, 05:11:27 AM »

Quote from: Makkotah on July 24, 2009, 03:30:24 AM

Said by whom?

You people.

Cotigo · « **Reply #780 on:** July 24, 2009, 08:56:39 AM »

Sassy.

metroid composite · « **Reply #781 on:** July 24, 2009, 06:16:50 PM »

Quote from: Makkotah on July 24, 2009, 03:30:24 AM

Said by whom?

Ross Perot.

Cotigo · « **Reply #782 on:** July 24, 2009, 08:46:33 PM »

Uh. Yeah. No. See that was probably bad but for that to be a huge enough deal to get on the list, the person who said it had to be some type of elected official. And Ross Perot, being a 3rd party candidate, never had a real chance at that. Notice how on the list the two people who weren't president were congressmen? One of whom ran for president in a party with a real shot at it?

Yeah, Ross Perot is hardly a blip on the radar.

Jo'ou Ranbu · « **Reply #783 on:** July 24, 2009, 08:49:06 PM »

Ross Perot was a school principal, though!!!111

NotMiki · « **Reply #784 on:** July 24, 2009, 10:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Makkotah on July 24, 2009, 08:46:33 PM

Ross Perot is hardly a blip on the radar.

He's a third-party candidate we actually remember after well over a decade. Counts for something.

Cotigo · « **Reply #785 on:** July 24, 2009, 11:15:39 PM »

Well, yes. He's definitely on the same plane as Ralph Nader. I'm just saying that doesn't qualify him for any list except maybe that one or some cracked.com list.

Xeroma · « **Reply #786 on:** July 25, 2009, 02:12:41 AM »

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

Pyro posted this in chat. Just fucking disgusting.

metroid composite · « **Reply #787 on:** July 26, 2009, 10:45:52 PM »

Quote from: Makkotah on July 24, 2009, 11:15:39 PM

Well, yes. He's definitely on the same plane as Ralph Nader. I'm just saying that doesn't qualify him for any list except maybe that one or some cracked.com list.

Are you kidding? He's miles above Nader, he was actually a serious competitor.

"At one point in June [1992], Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)."

"Bill Clinton won the election to be the 42nd President of the United States by a wide margin in the U.S. Electoral College, receiving 43 percent of the popular vote in the three man race against Bush's 37 percent and Perot's 19%."

Saying he's on the same level as Nader is an absolute Joke
Nader 1996: 0.71% of the popular vote
Nader 2000: 2.74 percent of the popular vote
Nader 2004: 0.38% of the popular vote.
Nader 2008: 0.56 percent of the popular vote

Seriously, if these were results from Canadian Elections, the Ross Perot party would be a major opposition force, while Nader would be nothing (less noteworthy than the Green Party of Canada that can't win a single seat).

Captain K. · « **Reply #788 on:** July 27, 2009, 04:36:20 AM »

Having said that, the "You people" thing was ridiculously overblown. That's a common phrase in Perot's native Texas, and not the least bit derogatory. Seriously, blacks don't want to be identified as people? What are they, animate carbon rods?

Cmdr_King · « **Reply #789 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:08:01 AM »

I dunno, while it's pretty unlikely that there was any racist intent behind the comment, if you think about it "you people" is really, really easy to interperate that way. Since essentially it's a statement cutting the speaker off from the listener, or in other words viewing them as part of two distinct groups. Which really is the core of racism, so reading negative connatations (say, thinking it means you look down on other groupings) is probably a natural reaction for anyone not familiar with the idiom.

Not that this means it wasn't overblown.

Ultradude · « **Reply #790 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:22:12 AM »

http://mashable.com/2009/07/26/report-att-blocking-4chan/

Both for AT&T, and preemptively for most of /b/.

NotMiki · « **Reply #791 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:35:18 AM »

Quote from: metroid composite on July 26, 2009, 10:45:52 PM

He's miles above Nader; he was actually a serious competitor.

Perot and Nader both accomplished the same thing in the end: being the difference between a win and a loss for the two major party candidates. As of today, Perot's popular success hasn't translated into third-party candidates having a legitimate shot, so it's fair to compare them even if Perot was much more successful at the time.

superaielman · « **Reply #792 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:37:06 AM »

Quote from: Ultradude on July 27, 2009, 05:22:12 AM

http://mashable.com/2009/07/26/report-att-blocking-4chan/

Both for AT&T, and preemptively for most of /b/.

That is more disturbing than IotD material. Though I'm always down with 4chan in IotD.

Monkeyfinger · « **Reply #793 on:** July 27, 2009, 11:48:14 AM »

FYI the reason for the block is because their bandwidth was being raped by the DDoS attacks being launched on /b/.

Ultradude · « **Reply #794 on:** July 27, 2009, 01:18:42 PM »

Ah. So people DDoSing /b/ got it blocked. That is pretty funny.

NotMiki · « **Reply #795 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:54:48 AM »

Might wanna put something soft on your desk before you read on...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/why-americans-hate-single-payer-insurance/

At a recent town-hall meeting in suburban Simpsonville, a man stood up and told Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/07/27/michelle-bachmann-blocks-_ws_245888.html

Michelle Bachmann Blocks Bill Declaring Hawaii Obama's Birthplace

Anthony Edward Stark · « **Reply #796 on:** July 29, 2009, 03:21:17 AM »

Old people need to hurry up and die so we can make some goddamn progress in this country. Also, the south needs to re-secede.

metroid composite · « **Reply #797 on:** July 29, 2009, 03:45:22 AM »

Quote from: Rob the Stampede on July 29, 2009, 03:21:17 AM

Old people need to hurry up and die so we can make some goddamn progress in this country. Also, the south needs to re-secede.

The state that needs to scede from the union is California, if anything. Federal taxes flow straight out of the state and don't come back. If the south were to scede now, they'd be largely screwing themselves over (except Texas; Texas could stand on its own).

Shale · « **Reply #798 on:** July 29, 2009, 03:47:12 AM »

You say that like there's something wrong with the south screwing itself over.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #799 on:** July 29, 2009, 03:48:27 AM »

Quote from: metroid composite on July 29, 2009, 03:45:22 AM

Quote from: Rob the Stampede on July 29, 2009, 03:21:17 AM
Old people need to hurry up and die so we can make some goddamn progress in this country. Also, the south needs to re-secede.

The state that needs to scede from the union is California, if anything. Federal taxes flow straight out of the state and don't come back. If the south were to scede now, they'd be largely screwing themselves over (except Texas; Texas could stand on its own).

Because California has already shown itself very capable of handling it's own affairs with regards to taxes?

News:

Author Topic: Idiot of the Day (Read 253022 times)