Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

aight so some asshole sends me this bullshit... people are morons

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by l0rdka0s, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. l0rdka0s

    l0rdka0s Banned

    Joined: Dec 31, 2002 Messages: 8 Likes Received: 0
    aight so some asshole sends me this bullshit (not directly but indirectly) and so i reply to it.

    then my friend who is an asshole now sends me an email tellin me im pretentious and that other motherfuckers in the list of sents, also replied to him saying i was a preteniout asshole who was ignorant. Is it just me or by examining the following do i come off as an asshole.

    Fuck that.

    im out, its time to go write my name all over their fucking university campus, in school but they dont learn shit. dumbass college kids i swear.





    -----Original Message-----


    Question :

    It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your
    vote counts.
    Here are the facts about the three candidates.

    Candidate A
    Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with
    astrologists.
    He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and
    drinks 8
    to 10 martinis a day.

    Candidate B
    He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon,
    used opium in
    college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

    Candidate C
    He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't
    smoke, drinks
    an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

    Which of these candidates would be your choice?

    Decide first... no peeking, then scroll down for the
    response.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    Candidate B is Winston Churchill.

    Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

    Makes a person think before judging someone.
    Wait till you see the end of this note! Keep
    reading...

    Never be afraid to try something new.
    Remember: Amateurs...built the ark.
    Professionals...built the Titanic

    And Finally, can you imagine working for a company
    that has a little
    more than 500 employees and has the following
    statistics:

    *29 have been accused of spousal abuse
    *7 have been arrested for fraud
    *19 have been accused of writing bad checks
    *117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2
    businesses
    *3 have done time for assault
    *71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
    *14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
    *8 have been arrested for shoplifting
    *21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
    *84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last
    year...

    Can you guess which organization this is?

    Give up yet?

    t's the 535 members of the United States Congress.

    The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws
    each year
    designed to keep the rest of us in line.

    You gotta pass this on..










    REPLY:

    PLEASE READ MY RESPONSE...

    Big deal, If it takes you this chain email to
    understand man is a conglomerate race that has
    problems, then you need to read more. Read Karl Marx,
    and when you get done Read John Locke's "second
    treatise of government", then read the declaration of
    independence. You can find both of these on the net.
    Here ill even do it for you so you can see the real
    light.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#3.1 explains
    lockes ideas for you, int he second treatise of
    government.

    http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/tex...d-contents.html

    thats the actual text read chapter two and three if
    you dare.

    as for marx
    politico-economic manuscripts of 1844
    http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm

    and the declaration of independence
    http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

    read the decleration after you read lockes articel or
    the explination of it.

    I believe strongly in liberal and socailist
    philosophies, which both defy greed and repose it.

    That is what is wrong with this country you see, and
    as far as hitler not drinking, i find that hard to
    believ that it makes him an okay guy in contrast to
    winston churchill. Franklin delanor roosevelt is an
    ass because of the new deal not because he was morally
    devalued. Yes morally right people do better in
    positions of power but its not your morality its
    virtouosity, your ethics, your philosophy of
    government. when you have that it doesnt matter what
    you do outside of that realm. Plato was a blatant
    vagrant and homosexual, how do you think he thought so
    much? he was a bad father, and a drunk.

    and im going to pass this on, so please pass this
    revised version on.

    pass all of this KNOWLEDGE on
     
  2. CAPiTA

    CAPiTA Member

    Joined: Apr 13, 2003 Messages: 667 Likes Received: 0
    I'm confused
     
  3. Overtime

    Overtime Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Apr 22, 2003 Messages: 13,986 Likes Received: 311
    crazy, but i think that list of people, all the congress was a bit forseen, however, if you think about it, hitler was a spectacular leader, to make a whole country believe in you, and try to damn a whole race, all mainly because of you, you have to do some great damn things for that to happen, now, im not sayin that i support him, but he did some amazing things during his reign over germany. Fuck backgrounds, its what you do with the time people know you that matters, not what you did when you were 19
     
  4. igor

    igor Member

    Joined: Oct 22, 2003 Messages: 296 Likes Received: 0
    You read Marx and John Locke? Whoa! I guess it's hard for us mortals to cope with so much intellect ;)
     
  5. Abracadabra

    Abracadabra Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Dec 28, 2001 Messages: 22,906 Likes Received: 113
    people who send junk mail (and political junk mail, which is even worse) should be removed from the human race
     
  6. non-hetero

    non-hetero Member

    Joined: Jun 20, 2002 Messages: 685 Likes Received: 14
    If only Hitler was our leader...
     
  7. Nekro

    Nekro Elite Member

    Joined: Feb 19, 2003 Messages: 2,568 Likes Received: 1
    Blaargh I hate that shit. Go run for congress you sluts....

    junk_email--
    junk_political_email--
    ted_kennedy++
    tom_daschle++
     
  8. GnomeToys

    GnomeToys Elite Member

    Joined: Jun 24, 2003 Messages: 2,616 Likes Received: 4
    Don't worry, you didn't sound pretentious. In order for that to happen the point would have to have gone less than 100 miles over your head, which it didn't.
     
  9. gfreshsushi

    gfreshsushi Senior Member

    Joined: Sep 21, 2003 Messages: 2,244 Likes Received: 1
    being pretentious is better than sending out spam political messages. at least you took the time to think about it and respond as you felt was right. and, as "high and mighty" as they thought you were being, you were just perpetuating a dialogue, which is a major cornerstone of the teachings of socrates, upon who's thought most of modern government is based on. people suck.



    i chose winston churchill. opiumcore.
     
  10. Ski Mask

    Ski Mask 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Apr 11, 2000 Messages: 11,114 Likes Received: 209
    jesus christ some people are gullable. all it takes is a trip to snopes.com:


    Claim: The current U.S. Congress includes several dozen members who have committed various crimes and other acts of moral turpitude.
    Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1999]


    29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse,
    7 have been arrested for fraud,
    19 have been accused of writing bad checks,
    117 have bankrupted at least two businesses,
    3 have been arrested for assault,
    71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card,
    14 have been arrested on drug-related charges,
    8 have been arrested for shoplifting,
    21 are current defendants in lawsuits,
    And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity. (from Capitol Hill Blue)

    And these are the People who make Laws that We MUST obey?
    Your tax dollars at work!




    Origins: The 535
    men and women (100 Senators and 435 Representatives) who comprise the United States Congress are the core of our democratic system -- the people we elect (and pay) to represent us to our federal government and make the laws that regulate our society. We therefore somewhat unrealistically expect them to be paragons of virtue, selfless public servants dedicated to the task of making our country a better place for everyone, into whose heads the very thought of wrongdoing never intrudes. Congressmen are mere human beings, however, and so some of them exhibit the same flawed behaviors as some of us: they lie, they steal, they cheat on their spouses, they put personal gain ahead of public service, they line their pockets at the expense of those whom they are supposed to serve, etc. None of this should be surprising to anyone but the most naive among us. What is surprising is that so many people willingly circulate the above-cited piece of cheap, inflammatory tripe expecting it to be taken seriously.

    No names or dates are mentioned, of course, so trying to match individuals with the vague charges levelled in this text would be a fruitless task (especially since the composition of Congress changes at least every two years, and the piece is undated). In any case that effort would be pointless, for this article is nothing more than a cheap smear: no one in it is cited as actually having done something wrong, but merely of having been "arrested" or "accused," or being a "defendant," or having been "stopped." Isn't our system supposed to be based upon the presumption that a person is innocent until proved guilty?

    One can be arrested without being convicted of a crime (or even being charged with one), so the mere mention of an arrest with no other detail is meaningless. And when did these alleged arrests of Congressmen occur? While the arrestees were serving in Congress? While they were running for office? Before they became politicians? When they were juveniles? Thirty-two arrests and no convictions should probably make us more concerned about problems with our law enforcement and legal systems than it should about the people who make up Congress.

    The claims that numerous Congressmen have been "accused" of various wrongdoings is even more specious. "Accused"? By whom? Journalists? Jealous rivals? Bitter ex-spouses? Childhood enemies? Muckrakers? Gossip mongers? I suspect that every single member of Congress has been "accused" of something bad at one time or another. By what standards does an accusation become "serious" or "official" enough to merit inclusion in this list?

    Even the entries that contain some marginal detail are too vague to be relevant. We're told than 117 Congressmen "have bankrupted at least two businesses." What does that mean? Were all 117 personally and solely responsible for driving thriving businesses into the ground, or were they merely nominal board members of companies that went belly up? Were these businesses large companies, or the equivalent of mom-and-pop shops run out of someone's home? More importantly, is failing at business in today's volatile business environment supposed to be considered a moral failure as well as an economic one? Is being a successful businessman a prerequisite for being a legislator, or is it a sign or moral turpitude that should automatically disqualify one from office?

    21 Congressmen "are current defendants in lawsuits"? What kinds of lawsuits? What are the merits of these lawsuits? Are these Congressmen supposedly being sued for infractions such as breach of contract, or merely because some cranky neighbors don't like they way they painted their houses?

    71 "have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card"? Heck, a single late payment can ruin your credit report these days, assuming your spotless rating hasn't already been done in by completely erroneous information mistakenly placed on your record by a credit reporting agency. And despite common public perception, Congressmen incur some considerable financial obligations as part of their jobs without receiving tremendously large salaries in return, so if some of them had trouble making ends meets, that wouldn't make them much different than many of us.

    84 Congressmen "were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity." Again, being "stopped" is in itself no indication of wrongdoing, and the Constitution (Article I, Section 6) gives Congressmen privilege against arrest while Congress is in session (in order to prevent others from using the power of law enforcement to intimidate them). Although protecting members of Congress against traffic tickets may not be exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when then crafted Article I, how many of us would disdain a constitutional protection to avoid trouble with the law? Would any one of us, even if he were guilty of a crime, not challenge an unwarranted search of his home performed in violation of the Fourth Amendment? I doubt many of us would stand on niceties if we had "Get Out of Jail Free" cards we could play, either.

    All that said, this list wasn't made up out of whole cloth. The information was taken from a series of articles that appeared in an on-line publication called Capitol Hill Blue (whose motto is "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session . . .") in August 1999, and gained widespread currency when a brief summary (stripped of what little supporting evidence the articles had in the first place) was irresponsibly run in a syndicated weird news column with no clue as to where the reader might find the source material on which it was based.

    What appears in the original Capitol Hill Blue articles doesn't exactly validate the list by any responsible journalistic standards. The series includes lengthy articles about four of Congress' worst offenders, a screed about how Congressmen have "a long tradition of corruption and ambivalence," and a heap of vague innuendo. We're told that "117 members of the House and Senate have run at least two businesses each that went bankrupt, often leaving business partners and creditors holding the bag," but no detail about who these members were, the nature of the businesses that failed, why the businesses failed, or who was left "holding the bag" (and for how much). We're informed that "seventy-one of them have credit reports so bad they can't get an American Express card," but we're provided with no details about whom or why. Have these people been kiting checks, did they absent-mindedly make a few late credit card payments, or were they innocent victims of credit reporting agency screw-ups? And since when is not qualifying for an American Express card the standard by which "bad credit" is judged? I probably couldn't qualify for an AmEx card because I don't have sufficient income. Does that mean I have "bad credit" unquestionably caused by personal fiscal irresponsibility?

    Most everything found in the Capitol Hill Blue articles continues in this vein. "Twenty-nine members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse in either criminal or civil proceedings," it says. Well, at least we know the "accusations" were made in the context of court cases, but they remain nothing more than accusations nonetheless. Were any Congressmen actually convicted of spousal abuse, or did any of them have to pay civil damages because of their abusive behavior towards their spouses? You won't find out from Capitol Hill Blue. "Twenty-one are current defendants in various lawsuits, ranging from bad debts, disputes with business partners or other civil matters." Is this really supposed to have any significance in a society where people can and do sue at the drop of a hat, often for the most frivolous of reasons? How about telling us who was successfully sued, and why? That effort appears to be beyond the ability (or the inclination) of Capitol Hill Blue staff. Why ruin a good story with pesky facts, after all?

    As we mentioned at the outset, members of Congress are human beings just like the rest of us, and thus they're subject to the same foibles as everyone else. This doesn't mean that we should meekly accept the wrongdoings of some of them as par for the course or turn a blind eye when they break the law, but neither does it mean they aren't entitled to the same considerations and protections as the rest of us -- including the right to be tried in a court of law rather than a court of public opinion. Many of our Congressional representatives are in fact dedicated, hard-working public servants, and tarring them all with the same brush of anonymous, vague accusation does no one any good.

    "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" the adage goes. Save your efforts for rooting out those who truly breach the public trust instead of wasting time and energy in smearing an institution and everyone who comprises it by passing this cheap bit of scandal-mongering netlore along.

    Last updated: 2 January 2000


    The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm
    Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
     
  11. --zeSto--

    --zeSto-- Veteran Member

    Joined: Jul 12, 2000 Messages: 6,979 Likes Received: 2
    Hitler was a vegetarian?

    well that explains a whole lot.
     
  12. Dr. Dazzle

    Dr. Dazzle Veteran Member

    Joined: Nov 19, 2001 Messages: 8,147 Likes Received: 3
    You try way too hard to sound smart....
     
  13. Don't Panic

    Don't Panic Member

    Joined: Jun 2, 2003 Messages: 647 Likes Received: 0
    aight so some asshole posts this bullshit... robotripp is a moron.

    No, it is not just you, I'm sure plenty of people think you come off like an ass. I'm definitely one of them.

    Maybe not how you intended it, but that is how it reads. Form coherent thoughts before you try to start rebuttal chain letters.

    ...and just because I know you meant "virtouosity" as a reference to one's virtues, here is another cut and paste:
    Synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous
    Semantics, or just ignorant?

    Outside of that realm? What the hell are you talking about here?

    :lol: Good point! What the fuck does Plato have to do with ANYTHING in that email?
     
  14. l0rdka0s

    l0rdka0s Banned

    Joined: Dec 31, 2002 Messages: 8 Likes Received: 0
    Re: aight so some asshole posts this bullshit... robotripp is a moron.





    whoa whoa whoa,

    this guy tries way to hard to use a lynguistical approach to tear me down. you need to try again fucknut, morals and virtue are not the same thing, especially when used for an argument within the context of political philosophy.

    ese and gfresh got the right idea, and you?

    well you are just a dumbmotherfucker who likes to look up the meaning of words.

    heres one for you, interregnum, oh did i spell that right?

    attain some knowledge kid, plato is the reason you get to say what you want about the government.

    Go read the Republic.
     
  15. GnomeToys

    GnomeToys Elite Member

    Joined: Jun 24, 2003 Messages: 2,616 Likes Received: 4
    Dude, after your assriffic display of grammar skills in your reply to that letter, you don't need to be lecturing ANYBODY about anything.
     
Top