Some Americans think that. Me? I think we lost our dignity once we lost our British accents. You can say whatever you want with a British accent and you still sound fancier than saying the same thing in an American accent.
Actually, they say our accent is the accent the British had at the time, and it changed over about 100 years until the two became different and distinct.
There’s like 1 or 2 British accents where people automatically sound more dignified. The other hundred or so, not so much. In many cases, veeeery much the opposite. (This from a south london lass who counts scousers, midlanders and – horror! – north londoners among her friends.)
Naw, only the republicans, I.E., the ones who squandered it in the first place, think we still have it. The democrats, I.E., the smart people, (with some exceptions) are trying to regain it.
What makes Democrats smarter than Republicans? I want an actual answer not the usual hippy-dippy shit, something that actually makes sense would be nice. Then again most Democrats strongly believe in Socialism, which always works[Sarcasm.], so the must be smarter[More sarcasm.] and my views are flawed. Also Gun Control. You take the people’s guns, you take their only way to fight a Tyrant, why do you think Liberals want guns gone? So they can place a Tyranny. Look at FDR, he not only took away people’s rights to own Gold and Silver, but he attempted to stay in office for more than two terms, which is not okay.
Now we have Obama, who has, in four years, spent more of the tax payers money than George Bush did, put more soldiers in Iraq, insulted the allies we have, thought the English National Anthem was the backround music for his speech and got the United States of America downgraded from a AAA Country to a AA+, while also fucking the value of the U.S. Dollar by printing unbacked bills and because it was the International Trade Currency the economy in several other nations has also plummeted.
So yeah, Democrats must be smarter.
Oh, did I mention all of the vacations Obama has taken? He’s taken a lot.
-Steven G.
…this is sarcasm/parody right? If so, it’s hilarious.
If not…
*facepalm*
Seriously, for one, I side – and I can’t believe I’m going to say this, because this is a sentence I never thought I would utter – but I am going to side with Antonin Scalia on the whole “gun control” thing.
I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns or weapons, but there has to be a practical limit for the simple reason that Weapons of Mass Destruction exist. Oh, you want to be able to “fight the hypothetical tyrant”? So, you want it to be legal to own your own nuclear bomb then? Because that would be pretty effective, right? Or anti-aircraft guns! Or tanks! Yes, let’s totally have privately-owned tanks. I’m sure that would be really great for the Miami roads… nobody would mess with you!
Seriously, most Democrats aren’t rabidly anti-gun; the idea that they are is a myth. The ones that ARE in favor of gun control aren’t in favor of it because “wah, then you could take out the gubberment tyrants!”. They’re in favor of it because they’re afraid of gangland-style massacres. Seriously.
I don’t have any problem with you owning a handgun or rifle or whatnot – or even lots of them. I do however, have a problem with the idea of literally anybody owning weapons that could literally take out the US government (because let’s be honest, when you talk of “taking out tyrants”, that is EXACTLY what you are talking about), because guess what? Usually that’s not what such weapons are used for. And even when they are, exactly how are you going to prevent another tyrant from being installed? Because yeah, that sometimes happens. In fact, more than “sometimes”; I would go so far as to say “often”.
As for the national debt – well, dude. It’s called a Recession, and it hit only at the very tail-end of Bush’s reign after building up for years (in other words, though he didn’t automagically trigger it, him not being in office didn’t trigger it either, nor is it the fault of Obama, who was elected AFTER it started). Though we are thankfully in Recovery for a change, you don’t get out of a Recession as a country by your government skimping; every time a government has tried “austerity”, it has ended badly (economic collapse, etc.), whereas carefully-managed assitance to the poor (so they don’t starve or freeze to death) and carefully-managed public works projects (so that they have jobs to have money to spend to keep themselves and the economy afloat until the job market improves), tend to help (case in point: the FDR era). This… this is seriously just common sense. It really is. You make sure people don’t die because they can’t find work in a crappy job market, you try to get them work so they can stay afloat, and eventually things gradually improve. You don’t cut your nose off just to spite your face.
You pay taxes precisely so that your government can provide for you; that is the ONLY reason you pay taxes, in fact. What else is the government for? For security, duh. Security of borders, security in laws and contracts enforcement, security of you and your property and the roads you drive on.
All that bitching people do about “unemployment benefits”? Those aren’t “benefits for the unemployed”, those are payouts from INSURANCE (much like Social Security is; people talk like it’s a Ponzi scheme, and that’s silly if only because that’s like accusing every form of insurance of being a Ponzi scheme. You get it because you paid into it and because by that point in your life, you need it). You only get “unemployment benefits”, if you have been employed for a certain amount of time and paid into it! It’s insurance against you being temporarily unable to support yourself, after you have SHOWN that you can and have in the past. It’s not a reward for laziness, it’s a backup for until you get back on your feet. The same applies for foodstamps and various “nutritional assistance” programs and so-called welfare, which are managed by states but paid by the federal government; it’s all based on your needs and abilities. If you can’t make rent on your crappy apartment without your child starving despite having a job, that’s supposed to help fill in the gap until say, your hours or wages improve.
And yes, I’m aware of the argument that there are allegedly people who cheat the system – to which my response is always, a.) if you KNOW of s a specific person whom you KNOW is cheating the system, it is on you to report it to the authorities and b.) why on earth would you punish a large number of the working poor who actually need it, just because some people are assholes who know how to game the system? That’s like saying we shouldn’t have any laws at all, because somebody always finds a way around it, or we shouldn’t have any police, because some bad guys will always get away. It’s a silly argument, that assumes any system can be perfect, and en even sillier one that any system that isn’t perfect doesn’t deserve to exist.
Also, there are always elements you might not be aware of, which are worth looking into neutrally, rather than assuming things to be as horrible as you’d like them to be. For instance, a lot of people think it’s stupid and crooked that you can buy “junk food” with food stamps… except, guess what, there are people who are prone to hypoglycemia (dangerously low blood sugar). Guess what the quickest treatment is for hypoglycemia? Yep: what most of us would call “junk food”. So, by allowing so-called “junk food” to be purchased, you’re not automatically hurting hypoglycemics. Yes, it means some people will not make good choices when using food stamps… but they’re also not starving, which is all the program is really for. And a lot of people think folks get high amounts of cash assistance… that’s really quite rare. It’s always based off income and expenses of the household.
I know there wasn’t terribly much about food stamps in your rant, but I had a sneaking suspicion you were unaware of some of the issues there as well, and it does tie in to national debt… though not as much as you might think. Guess what the largest chunk of our debt is from? Military. Spending.
We spend more than any other nations combined on it… if you’re so terribly worried about both our national debt and the gubbmit being able to kick your ass, perhaps you would be wise to nag your Representative and Senators to reduce the military spending budget, much of which has going to crooked third-party contractors anyway and the majority of which is overkill even without taking that much into account.
BTW, I think it’s amusing you complain about sending more troops into Iraq… considering the troop REDUCTION in the last year. At least one war has (on paper, at least) officially ended.
I could get into more, but honestly? I have to cook dinner and it’s not like “Steven” is likely to come back and read this anyway…
Yeah, you really can’t blame the economic collapse on Obama. That’s just dumb. And you seem to be confusing Socialism and Communism; one works in small doses, the other is currently powering the strongest country in the world. Good thinking. But you’re spouting Democrats-are-tyrants conspiracy theories so I suspect you’ve not a full complement of brains to begin with.
Dignity is overrated. The important thing is we can still kick your ass. All of your asses. At once. With one hand tied behind our backs. And our eyes closed. With a cold. While walking backwards. And our other hand trying and failing to cover our enormous junk.
Wait, Americans think that their nation hasn’t yet squandered all of its dignity? How quaint.
Okay, that was a little uncalled for. I’m sorry.
Some Americans think that. Me? I think we lost our dignity once we lost our British accents. You can say whatever you want with a British accent and you still sound fancier than saying the same thing in an American accent.
Actually, they say our accent is the accent the British had at the time, and it changed over about 100 years until the two became different and distinct.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2604480/posts
There’s like 1 or 2 British accents where people automatically sound more dignified. The other hundred or so, not so much. In many cases, veeeery much the opposite. (This from a south london lass who counts scousers, midlanders and – horror! – north londoners among her friends.)
Naw, only the republicans, I.E., the ones who squandered it in the first place, think we still have it. The democrats, I.E., the smart people, (with some exceptions) are trying to regain it.
What makes Democrats smarter than Republicans? I want an actual answer not the usual hippy-dippy shit, something that actually makes sense would be nice. Then again most Democrats strongly believe in Socialism, which always works[Sarcasm.], so the must be smarter[More sarcasm.] and my views are flawed. Also Gun Control. You take the people’s guns, you take their only way to fight a Tyrant, why do you think Liberals want guns gone? So they can place a Tyranny. Look at FDR, he not only took away people’s rights to own Gold and Silver, but he attempted to stay in office for more than two terms, which is not okay.
Now we have Obama, who has, in four years, spent more of the tax payers money than George Bush did, put more soldiers in Iraq, insulted the allies we have, thought the English National Anthem was the backround music for his speech and got the United States of America downgraded from a AAA Country to a AA+, while also fucking the value of the U.S. Dollar by printing unbacked bills and because it was the International Trade Currency the economy in several other nations has also plummeted.
So yeah, Democrats must be smarter.
Oh, did I mention all of the vacations Obama has taken? He’s taken a lot.
-Steven G.
If there are any typos in that, fix them in mind. I don’t focus on my spelling that much whilst ranting.
…this is sarcasm/parody right? If so, it’s hilarious.
If not…
*facepalm*
Seriously, for one, I side – and I can’t believe I’m going to say this, because this is a sentence I never thought I would utter – but I am going to side with Antonin Scalia on the whole “gun control” thing.
I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns or weapons, but there has to be a practical limit for the simple reason that Weapons of Mass Destruction exist. Oh, you want to be able to “fight the hypothetical tyrant”? So, you want it to be legal to own your own nuclear bomb then? Because that would be pretty effective, right? Or anti-aircraft guns! Or tanks! Yes, let’s totally have privately-owned tanks. I’m sure that would be really great for the Miami roads… nobody would mess with you!
Seriously, most Democrats aren’t rabidly anti-gun; the idea that they are is a myth. The ones that ARE in favor of gun control aren’t in favor of it because “wah, then you could take out the gubberment tyrants!”. They’re in favor of it because they’re afraid of gangland-style massacres. Seriously.
I don’t have any problem with you owning a handgun or rifle or whatnot – or even lots of them. I do however, have a problem with the idea of literally anybody owning weapons that could literally take out the US government (because let’s be honest, when you talk of “taking out tyrants”, that is EXACTLY what you are talking about), because guess what? Usually that’s not what such weapons are used for. And even when they are, exactly how are you going to prevent another tyrant from being installed? Because yeah, that sometimes happens. In fact, more than “sometimes”; I would go so far as to say “often”.
As for the national debt – well, dude. It’s called a Recession, and it hit only at the very tail-end of Bush’s reign after building up for years (in other words, though he didn’t automagically trigger it, him not being in office didn’t trigger it either, nor is it the fault of Obama, who was elected AFTER it started). Though we are thankfully in Recovery for a change, you don’t get out of a Recession as a country by your government skimping; every time a government has tried “austerity”, it has ended badly (economic collapse, etc.), whereas carefully-managed assitance to the poor (so they don’t starve or freeze to death) and carefully-managed public works projects (so that they have jobs to have money to spend to keep themselves and the economy afloat until the job market improves), tend to help (case in point: the FDR era). This… this is seriously just common sense. It really is. You make sure people don’t die because they can’t find work in a crappy job market, you try to get them work so they can stay afloat, and eventually things gradually improve. You don’t cut your nose off just to spite your face.
You pay taxes precisely so that your government can provide for you; that is the ONLY reason you pay taxes, in fact. What else is the government for? For security, duh. Security of borders, security in laws and contracts enforcement, security of you and your property and the roads you drive on.
All that bitching people do about “unemployment benefits”? Those aren’t “benefits for the unemployed”, those are payouts from INSURANCE (much like Social Security is; people talk like it’s a Ponzi scheme, and that’s silly if only because that’s like accusing every form of insurance of being a Ponzi scheme. You get it because you paid into it and because by that point in your life, you need it). You only get “unemployment benefits”, if you have been employed for a certain amount of time and paid into it! It’s insurance against you being temporarily unable to support yourself, after you have SHOWN that you can and have in the past. It’s not a reward for laziness, it’s a backup for until you get back on your feet. The same applies for foodstamps and various “nutritional assistance” programs and so-called welfare, which are managed by states but paid by the federal government; it’s all based on your needs and abilities. If you can’t make rent on your crappy apartment without your child starving despite having a job, that’s supposed to help fill in the gap until say, your hours or wages improve.
And yes, I’m aware of the argument that there are allegedly people who cheat the system – to which my response is always, a.) if you KNOW of s a specific person whom you KNOW is cheating the system, it is on you to report it to the authorities and b.) why on earth would you punish a large number of the working poor who actually need it, just because some people are assholes who know how to game the system? That’s like saying we shouldn’t have any laws at all, because somebody always finds a way around it, or we shouldn’t have any police, because some bad guys will always get away. It’s a silly argument, that assumes any system can be perfect, and en even sillier one that any system that isn’t perfect doesn’t deserve to exist.
Also, there are always elements you might not be aware of, which are worth looking into neutrally, rather than assuming things to be as horrible as you’d like them to be. For instance, a lot of people think it’s stupid and crooked that you can buy “junk food” with food stamps… except, guess what, there are people who are prone to hypoglycemia (dangerously low blood sugar). Guess what the quickest treatment is for hypoglycemia? Yep: what most of us would call “junk food”. So, by allowing so-called “junk food” to be purchased, you’re not automatically hurting hypoglycemics. Yes, it means some people will not make good choices when using food stamps… but they’re also not starving, which is all the program is really for. And a lot of people think folks get high amounts of cash assistance… that’s really quite rare. It’s always based off income and expenses of the household.
I know there wasn’t terribly much about food stamps in your rant, but I had a sneaking suspicion you were unaware of some of the issues there as well, and it does tie in to national debt… though not as much as you might think. Guess what the largest chunk of our debt is from? Military. Spending.
We spend more than any other nations combined on it… if you’re so terribly worried about both our national debt and the gubbmit being able to kick your ass, perhaps you would be wise to nag your Representative and Senators to reduce the military spending budget, much of which has going to crooked third-party contractors anyway and the majority of which is overkill even without taking that much into account.
BTW, I think it’s amusing you complain about sending more troops into Iraq… considering the troop REDUCTION in the last year. At least one war has (on paper, at least) officially ended.
I could get into more, but honestly? I have to cook dinner and it’s not like “Steven” is likely to come back and read this anyway…
@JW
THIS. This wins all the internets I’m allowed to give.
Yeah, you really can’t blame the economic collapse on Obama. That’s just dumb. And you seem to be confusing Socialism and Communism; one works in small doses, the other is currently powering the strongest country in the world. Good thinking. But you’re spouting Democrats-are-tyrants conspiracy theories so I suspect you’ve not a full complement of brains to begin with.
DUBYA.
nuff said
Dignity is overrated. The important thing is we can still kick your ass. All of your asses. At once. With one hand tied behind our backs. And our eyes closed. With a cold. While walking backwards. And our other hand trying and failing to cover our enormous junk.
Wow. Nationalism is a lot of fun.
Wow, being a country of wankers who owe their prosperity to a trillions of dollars debt to a communist country. I really feel for you guys.
AUSSIE! AUSSIE! AUSSIE! OI! OI! OI!
Your outburst does not make us look good.
yeah, the same country that spawned “Men at work” and Vegemite. sorry, not missing a whole lot.
My God, no more arguments about politics!
Only a filthy [YOUR POLITICAL ALLIANCE HERE] would say that!
I’m only voting whoever Chuck Norris supports.
My vote goes to whoever Mr T supports.
Sad thing is what Amber says is true