Fucking Political fucking thread

Is this fucking funny or fucking what?

  • ROFLMAO

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • LOL

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • repeated chuckling, two good laughs

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • ho the fuck hum

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • ticked me the fuck off a little

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Who the fuck does this guy think he is?

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • Chewing rugs and cursing cantdog's fucking name!!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19
cloudy said:
No, I haven't, but then, I pay little attention to propaganda.

If what you say is true, then what makes either side better than the other? Your whole post just proves my point perfectly. It's sarcastic and righteous about being "wronged."

Have you ever spent any time in the south? Ever been down here anywhere other than Florida?

If not, then why are you so sure in your opinions about the south?

I've lived other places besides here, and I've seen the stereotypes that all areas hold for those in other regions. My whole point is that it's wrong, and by yucking it up about articles like that cited, you're only perpetuating the biases, and not helping a damn thing.


See, that's the thing. You don't understand it's intent because you aren't aware of the propaganda that it is responding to.

And that is what it's about- responding to this propaganda, not labeling and stereotyping southerners. Maybe if you were aware of the sourse of the writer's frustrations, you would feel differently about it- or maybe you wouldn't. But I think it's pretty important in understanding were the anger is coming from and what the writer is trying to say.

"What we have here is a failer to communicate"

And that's why I said it wouldn't win any votes. But if you were here and you felt my frustration on the things that I've been hearing about myself (or my quarters) lately, you too might find it funny in a 'need to vent with a little attitude and humour' sort of way. Or gain, you might not.

I've never been to FLorida, (why do you assume that about me?)

I spent a summer in Oklahoma (hot, dry, liked the people. heard less accent than when I got to southern michigan) We drove back, so I got to see several states in between for a little less amount of time. I was 15, and not really interested in politics, so I can't draw any conclusions in this area.

I liked the south, what I saw of it and the poeple I saw when I was there. What I don't like is some of the people who are speaking for the south right now. But hell, I don't like some of the poeple who are speaking for Michigan right now either. And I'm sorry, but those are the evangelicals right now. They identify themselves as such and link it to the viewpoints that they hold that I find hightly offensive. what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? It's not stereotyping it's responding.

IF people who are speaking up on behalf of your group (region religion or whatever) and you want to say "they don't speak for me!" the only thing to do is to speak up for yourself. Because if you don't, then you do let them speak for you.

It's not stereotypes that most of us are basing our judgements on, but on the words of those who claim to speak for those groups. And yet we are then attacked on some basis of 'stereotyping' as if these people never said these things.

If we are getting the wrong impression, then you all need to appoint some new people to represent you.

that's the best that I can explain it right now.
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
*tucking away. awaiting ripe opportunity to use.*

hehe, don't hold it against me!
It's just that he shares something in his speech with Vito (DeNiro and Brando) and Michael Corrleone, Rudi Giuliani, and John McEnroe (???). Maybe a touch of Jackie Mason. Joe Pesce with a PhD. Beautifully verbose, lyric sentences, punctuated with 3-word summations.

It's a wonderful way of speaking, I just didn't know of another way to describe it.
 
sweetnpetite said:
See, that's the thing. You don't understand it's intent because you aren't aware of the propaganda that it is responding to.

Yeah, I know, just another ignorant southerner here, that doesn't understand. :rolleyes:

And that is what it's about- responding to this propaganda, not labeling and stereotyping southerners. Maybe if you were aware of the sourse of the writer's frustrations, you would feel differently about it- or maybe you wouldn't. But I think it's pretty important in understanding were the anger is coming from and what the writer is trying to say.

It is stereotyping, and if you don't get that, then I'm sorry. You'll never get it. Can you understand why I'm so damn angry at everyone "understanding" your anger, but not "understanding" mine? Sheesh.

"What we have here is a failer to communicate"

Finally, one thing I agree with.

And that's why I said it wouldn't win any votes. But if you were here and you felt my frustration on the things that I've been hearing about myself (or my quarters) lately, you too might find it funny in a 'need to vent with a little attitude and humour' sort of way. Or gain, you might not.

Show me where it's been posted anywhere on here about "ignorant redneck northerners" being at fault for what's wrong with this country, and maybe I could understand. I'll even wait while you search for it. Bet you won't find any posts like that anywhere. As vehement as I've been about defending the south, I haven't once put down people from other areas. It's not funny.....even if it wasn't the south that everyone's having so much fun ridiculing, it still wouldn't be funny.

I've never been to FLorida, (why do you assume that about me?)

I didn't assume anything....I only mentioned it because 1) it's a popular vacation spot, and 2) many think that Florida is part of the "south" and it isn't, not really.

I spent a summer in Oklahoma (hot, dry, liked the people. heard less accent than when I got to southern michigan) We drove back, so I got to see several states in between for a little less amount of time. I was 15, and not really interested in politics, so I can't draw any conclusions in this area.

Hate to tell you this, but Oklahoma is not considered part of the "south." When most speak of southerners, they're talking about the states that seceded.

IF people who are speaking up on behalf of your group (region religion or whatever) and you want to say "they don't speak for me!" the only thing to do is to speak up for yourself. Because if you don't, then you do let them speak for you.

Um....thought that's what I was doing, loud and clear.

It's not stereotypes that most of us are basing our judgements on, but on the words of those who claim to speak for those groups. And yet we are then attacked on some basis of 'stereotyping' as if these people never said these things.

It is. The original article is full of them. And the fact that you find it funny just shows how many people buy into it.

If we are getting the wrong impression, then you all need to appoint some new people to represent you.

"We" and "you" - do you honestly not see how damn divisive that is?

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, but from my point of view, it sucks to point a finger at a whole group of people, calling them stupid, ignorant and backwards when you don't know a damn thing about anyone here.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to add-

Regardless of religion or region, I do not assume ignorance on this basis. However, I do assume ignorance when someone says something ignorant. Like "Marriage should be defined the same way it has been for hundreds of years, as a union (sanctioned by God) between one man and one woman (for the perpose of raising a family)."

A statement like that is so full of flaws, I hardly know were to begin.

And on a side note- how many Americans think that Iraqi's live in caves in the desert? ignorance is certainly everywhere in this country- Ever see "Street Smarts?" Egads! I don't begin to think it's consentrated in one area, or clumped into all the red states. I see it every day all around me. Few people around here seem to know or care about anything beyond their own back door.

People who seem quite proud of there own ignorance, and yet full of opinions on the same subject are irritating to me. I value knowlege and learing. If that makes me an elite snob- I guess I'll have to resign myself to that label.
 
Ed T said,

Ever been to the south Pure?

Ed


Yep.

Ever dealt with an issue. Ed?

BTW I did not discuss either population of 'rednecks' or 'prejudiced people' and you're probably right they're found in many places. The differences are the conditions under which prejudice turns murderous. (See, e.g., Holland, these days).
 
Pure said:
Ed T said,

Ever been to the south Pure?

Ed


Yep.

Ever dealt with an issue. Ed?

BTW I did not discuss either population of 'rednecks' or 'prejudiced people' and you're probably right they're found in many places. The differences are the conditions under which prejudice turns murderous. (See, e.g., Holland, these days).

One or two, Pure and not just on a ten day trip to Disneyworld.
 
Ed said to pure,

not just on a ten day trip to Disneyworld.

hey if you cant deal with what was actually said, just make up something catchy.

please tell what you think would have been the future of a Confederacy never attacked and allowed to form its own nation.
 
I will admit that yes, the article is offensive and rude. I don't like the namecalling. I wouldn't expect a southerner to respond positivly to it. I wouldn't expect it to be effective in uniting people.

I *do* see the point that it is rude, un PC, and rather obnoxious, course and shallow.

But it's also funny- from my point of view, though perhaps not from everyones.

I am sorry I offended you. I don't want to fight.

cloudy said:
Yeah, I know, just another ignorant southerner here, that doesn't understand. :rolleyes:




No, that is not what i said at all.

*you* said that you weren't aware of the propaganda. I simply explained (not based on your geogrophy, but on your statement) that the article was a reaction to that propaganda. It had nothing to do with being southern. It had to do with what *you* said that you paid attention to (or didn't) and were aware of (or weren't)

I've seen comedy skits before that just seemed mean spirited and not funny and then later found out what it was they were lampooning and then suddenly it made sence why it was funny, and- it was! It doesn't have anything to do with my homestate. It's just true of everybody.

I think that I can't win here. If I try to expain what i mean, I will be seen as condescending. I will be assuming that you are to 'just another ignorant southerner'

We are all ignorant on something. If I tell you there is something you are missing or something about a situation that you don't know, will you see that as me being condescending? That's how it feels right now.

My remarks (that you didn't understand the rant because you were unaware of certain propaganda) were made toward you about your own statement, not about your gender, region, nationality, political party or anything else.

You are making assumptions that I am making assumptions that I am not making.
 
Sweet, you didn't offend me, personally, but I've seen southerner-bashing become extremely popular lately. The south has become the scapegoat for every last thing that's wrong with this country, and I'm tired of it, that's all.

Just for the record, I would be just as outraged if the ridicule was pointed at any other group or region.
 
Edward Teach said:
That smart Southerners can use their stupid sounding accents to their own advantage.

That a neutral Midwest accent is dull and boring.

That Kerry has a dull, boring upper class monotone.

That the rest of the country should look down on southern states for voting against McCain and Cleland over bigoted lies.
The rest of the country did almost exactly the same thing. I won't even attempt to go into all the bullshit they bought into. Ignorance and stupidity don't limit themselves to any one region. They are equal opportunity infectors and the whole country has contracted the disease.

That stereotypes wouldn't be stereotypes if they didn't have some truth to them.
I met a man in a small northern Minn town once who had only seen a few black people. He asked me if "niggers really had big cocks like Finlanders." Is there some truth to those?

Then you told Cloudy that you don't equate her with her neighbors who are incomprehensible to half the country.Yet your description of her neighbors could be applied to the rest of the country.

Huck, I know you didn't mean it to be a bigoted post, but to me it sounds very bigoted. That is what stereotyping causes.

Ed

Up until the "...big cocks like Finlanders", my response was along the lines of "...and your point is???" But that's just too rich! I used to live in Mpls., and my ex-wife's mother's side was almost pure Finn. Remembering those extended-family get-togethers as home-boy gatherings puts a whole new light on them, and one that isn't altogether wrong.

I don't mean to be bigoted, and I don't think I am. I've lived in small-town Midwest, Mpls., Philly, Pgh., and CT suburbs of NYC, and now Seattle. Also Nigeria (as a 10-yr old). I've worked with British, European and Asian colleagues, and travelled all over the country. When I meet someone, I try to find things in them that are counter to my initial impressions. And I don't mean asking an African American, "So, how big is your cock, really?" ;)

So, I met a woman from Atlanta at a conference recently. One of the first things that came up in conversation was that she didn't identify with the Atlanta suburbs, that she was a transplant, and that she had gay friends. This, in response to a question, "So, how do you like living in Atlanta?" Yes, I probably said it with a certain slight attitude, but why is that wrong? I know how Georgia voted, and I knew that there was a good chance that politics wouldn't be a very good basis of conversation. She countered that with some clear signals that she wasn't like the "typical" Georgian. Then we started to get along better, but if she had given different replies, I would have tried to shift the conversation to movies or cost of housing or traffic or weather or something else.

Stereotypes are a beginning, not an end. Some of them are more unfair than others, and none of them are a substitute for a one-to-one relationship. But we can't know everyone as an individual, and people do tend to gather in tribes of one sort or another.

This isn't necessarily bad, on a personal level. If I meet someone who spent 6 months in a camp in Idaho and wants to talk about the government, I think I'd rather spend my time trying to get to know someone else. That's stereotyping, but it's also avoiding a really boring conversation and the possibility of some sort of confrontation. To my mind, I'd probably say the same thing about someone who went to the RNC, even though I wouldn't think they had the same beliefs. Still, chances are...

I don't have the bandwidth to treat everyone as an individual; besides, they group themselves anyway!
 
Pure said:
Ed said to pure,

not just on a ten day trip to Disneyworld.

hey if you cant deal with what was actually said, just make up something catchy.

please tell what you think would have been the future of a Confederacy never attacked and allowed to form its own nation.

What the Confederate States of America would have become had it won the War of Northern Aggression, is a bit hypothetical, Pure, and one opinion is about as good as another. Frankly I don't have a clue but maybe you can enlighten us.

My comment was aimed at your closing statement, "This is all imaginings and the individual southerner is many times a fine, even tolerant person." I thought that damn nice of you.


Ed
 
Huckleman2000 said:
Up until the "...big cocks like Finlanders", my response was along the lines of "...and your point is???" But that's just too rich!

Huck, I know you aren't bigoted and my point was that stereotypes creep unseen into our thinking, speech and writing. I meant absolutely no offense, I just felt that in writing a quick response, some stereotypical thinking had showed itself as it does with all of us.

As to the Findlander story, I almost dropped my teeth when he said that. We were standing outside in December with twenty some inches of snow having just fallen overnight in temperatures I had never before encountered, something like 20 below, just shooting the breeze. He had obvioulsy never talked to a southerner before, probably had never been outside the immediate area of the small town I can't remember the name of and had always been curious. :D

Ed
 
Edward Teach said:

My comment was aimed at your closing statement, "This is all imaginings and the individual southerner is many times a fine, even tolerant person." I thought that damn nice of you.


Ed

LOL, I missed that statement the fist time around. You're right. Just replace something like 'negro' in there were you've put southerner and it will leap right out at you.;)
 
Hey Ed,

My comment was aimed at your closing statement, "This is all imaginings and the individual southerner is many times a fine, even tolerant person." I thought that damn nice of you.



Poorly phrased, yes. Let me try again; I have no problem with Southern liberals like you, or Southern principled conservatives (somewhat like Colly). It's just too bad y'all seem, relatively, to lack political power (i.e. enough to offset the other folks').
 
I'll bite, a little.

The North's fear at the time was the easy bridgehead the Confederacy would have represented for the Superpower of the day, Britain.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," as the aphorism has it. British support of America is very recent indeed, and a British alliance with the Confederacy would have been disastrous, placing a ceiling, possibly a permanent one, on American aspirations of hemispheric dominance. The British had been a thorn in the American side since the beginning.

There would have been no difficulty any longer, projecting British power across a broad ocean, if she could muster a force in Virginia. Some factions in Britain were tempted to intervene, but the French would have also intervened (to limit the British; the French are our oldest and most loyal ally), and then there was British public opinion, which was liberal and anti-slave. It was a near thing, though. British intervention all by itself would have assured the survival of the Confederacy.

But.

This is turning into a very much more productive thread than a what-if on the history of secession. Opening minds to the prejudices they contain is always a good thing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, for election fraud and for prejudice.
 
"Texas to the rescue!!!!!!!!!"


I saw the south being ridiculed and bashed!!! I had to come defend my heritage!!! But I was too busy RFLMAO!!!

What happened? You peoples get stuck in a time warp and flash-backed about 50 freakin years or something? I love a good joke and laughed like hell at the original post. It was funny as hell.

I guess Texas is about as fuckin south as you can get, there are some assholes, bigots and idiots runnin around here. About the same amount runnin around any other part of the country. I was a little confused why anybody would get upset. Its all ancient freakin history.

We are americans, not southerners. I think the civil war is over.

There are more idiots in the White House than are in the Alamo, maybe Bush came from Texas but he doesn't represent the south, he represents the republicans.

I like Texas, its my home state. If you want to make the distinction that its in the south and that means SOMETHING to you, go ahead. I won't even say your prejudiced for lumping people together due to where they were born and saying THAT means something. It means something to you, not me.

There are no southerners or northerners to the people of Texas, or most of the people in Texas. We are all Americans, we are born in one state and may move to others, north, south, east, west, it doesn't fuckin matter. Its all America. You wanna make fun of my accent? I'll be laughing the loudest.

If you use the term southerner to describe anything other than what region of the country a person was born then maybe you need to check and see if you are the bigot.

You can bait people born in the south and get some of them upset, hell, thats because your trying to get them upset. I've been to other parts of this country, there are racists, criminals, assholes and idiots everywhere.

There are also decent, caring, loving people in every state in the United States.

Just my opinion.
 
The original post is hate speech. It's hate, spewed out viciously, capitalizing on every hurtful, negative stereotype it can conjure. Purely and simply, a hatemonger, spewing filth.

Had the target been blacks or Muslims, gays, or hispanics, I would expect all of the liberals here to have gone off on Cantdog like he was Amicus and realguyusa rolled up into one. Passionate condemnations citing how hate isn't right and stereotyping is wrong.

The target however is southerners, so it's funny and ironic, not hateful. And you call yourselves enlightened? I call it hypocracy. We will laugh now and save out outrage for hatespeech that attcks something we like. Very eglatarian.

The only difference I see in southern bigots and liberal bigots is who you hate. This election you are all showing your true colors. The GOP has capitalized on you are with us or against us? They aren't even in your league. With liberals, it's you are with us or you are stupid.

Over the last two years posting here, I learned to have a good deal of respect for a lot of the posters here. Over the eleven days since the election, I have lost a huge amount of it.

You aren't smater. You aren't more compasionate. You aren't any less prejudiced. It's just a matter of who you dislike and stereotype isn't it?

I promised to stay out of the poli threads, but this isn't political, it's just hateful. A wounded animal, blindly and viciously striking out at people you don't even know well enough to call your enemies. But you think you know them well enough to laugh at someone giving a speech that would be perfectly at home at a Klan rally, were the target blacks. Or at Nuremberg, were the target Jews.

-Colly
 
Exactly my point, Colly, thank you.

But they're not bigots, oh no, it's just funny.

:rolleyes:
 
Pure said:
Hey Ed,

My comment was aimed at your closing statement, "This is all imaginings and the individual southerner is many times a fine, even tolerant person." I thought that damn nice of you.



Poorly phrased, yes. Let me try again; I have no problem with Southern liberals like you, or Southern principled conservatives (somewhat like Colly). It's just too bad y'all seem, relatively, to lack political power (i.e. enough to offset the other folks').

Pure, you are making assumptions. I am not a liberal. I am registered "unaffiliated." I voted for some Republicans this election, Republicans I know personally who do not adhere to the Christian Right’s agenda. I am for rather conservative, responsible fiscal policy.

According to USA Today, the area of the counties won by Bush is 2,540,000 square miles while Kerry only won 592,000. The population of the counties Bush won was 159,200,000 while Kerry won 130,900,000.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and FOX News aren’t getting their ratings just from the South, they would be off the air were that the case. Rupert Murdock owns, last I checked, 160 newspapers all endorsing Bush. They aren’t all in the South. They are nationwide. Everywhere.

It ain’t confined to the South, it’s the whole country except for New England.

I’ll say it again, before you look down at the South for anything, take a close look around your neighborhood.

Ed
 
Yankee Go Home!

Most of the world doesn't know the difference between a Yankee and any other US citizen or even any person whose native language is English.

In Communist Eastern Europe I was accused of being a Yankee. I couldn't convince them that there was a difference and had no hope of explaining that 'yankee' was a limited term.

Scots, Welsh, Irish are all lumped in with 'English'.

Chinese Americans; Native Americans; Jewish Americans; Southern Rednecks and so on - get used to it. You are all Yankees!

Og (British actually)
 
Ed said, According to USA Today, the area of the counties won by Bush is 2,540,000 square miles while Kerry only won 592,000. The population of the counties Bush won was 159,200,000 while Kerry won 130,900,000.

Fairly bogus (as to implications) and meaningless numbers. In fact, the election was close; Kerry had a healthy majority in the major cities, Bush dominated the rural landscape and small town heartlands. *One* of the Republican's solid bases is the South, which they, with calculated appeals to white voters, have gotten securely in their pockets for several decades.
 
My two cents.

I found the original post a very sorry piece of work. I didn't comment since because of my well known 'liberal' leanings, I didn't want to risk being associated with it.

All it shows is that hatred and ignorance isn't limited to the 'right' side of the spectrum.

Sigh. We have the largest E.Q. of any animal and most of us refuse to use all that extra mass of nervous tissue.
 
Pure said:
Ed said, According to USA Today, the area of the counties won by Bush is 2,540,000 square miles while Kerry only won 592,000. The population of the counties Bush won was 159,200,000 while Kerry won 130,900,000.

Fairly bogus (as to implications) and meaningless numbers. In fact, the election was close; Kerry had a healthy majority in the major cities, Bush dominated the rural landscape and small town heartlands. *One* of the Republican's solid bases is the South, which they, with calculated appeals to white voters, have gotten securely in their pockets for several decades.

USA Today thought the numbers meant something but then what do they know, huh, Pure.

The simple fact is that Bush won and there ain't a damn thing any of us can do about it.

Ed

PS-You can keep trying to bring race into the issue but it just shows how little you really know.
 
Ed said, USA Today thought the numbers meant something but then what do they know, huh, Pure.

Exactly. They're on a par with CNN as part of the propaganda machine, except dumbed down even more.

As several posters and outside columnists have pointed out, the liberal/conservative split is about even, and there are a lot of middle of the road people. One example issue is abortion. Various factors can skew the picture (as US Today apparently wishes to), such states' representation in the electoral college and Senate, and the exceptional turnout of evangelical voters (shown on TV registering in special tour buses parked outside the churches).

You can keep trying to bring race into the issue but it just shows how little you really know.

Race IS an issue, as the voting breakdown, in the South and elsewhere attests. Do you think it's a simple mistake about interests that gives about 90% of the Black vote to Dems? Do you think it's a coincidence that Republican victories in the South, e.g., Bush, are premised on getting a very substantial majority of white voters? (My guess is 70 or more percent for rural white southerners, but supply an authoritative figure if you have one.)

The same skewing factors are present in states (skew toward square miles being represented, more than people), and again race is a clear issue in all states with substantial minorities of Black people. Dems won PA on the strength of city votes for Democrats by the stated, vast majority of Black people. The Republican strategy--unsuccessful in the PA case-- was to go for the rural white vote.

US society is divided--as if, by a chasm-- in several ways, race being one of them, and Republicans have (better) managed to capitalize on it, in the South and some other states.

But I'm sure you can find someone at US Today to disagree about this.


=====
Ed's citation.
According to USA Today, the area of the counties won by Bush is 2,540,000 square miles while Kerry only won 592,000. The population of the counties Bush won was 159,200,000 while Kerry won 130,900,000.
 
Last edited:
Besides, winning a county is not the same as being the whole population of it. You can win a county by a couple votes, and it's still split, and still 50-50.

Siberia has a lotta square miles, but fuck all for people. It looks the same way out the train window in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Any given place in the Great Basin is the same way. Square miles is bullshit however you slice it. You don't get to assign demographic meaning to a square mile, even if you're USA Today whom God preserve.

But just the same he did win.

More people voted against him than any other president in history, but he did win. I deny that there is nothing to be done about it.
 
Back
Top