A You suck list

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Don't agree with all of them, but its an excuse to break out my new favorite Mac vs. PC icon. To be fair to both sides I'd lose #1; add Ann Coulter/Sean Penn; add Sarah Palin (you lost now go away forever!); add politicians in general; pundits of any sort; conspiratorial nutjobs (the government can't both be behind 9/11 and Ruby Ridge guys); and bureaucrats. Oh...I hate bureaucrats...

http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=a08a8f31-ba09-4f07-a07d-52a095cff585&t=c

A "You Suck" List
John Hawkins
Friday, January 09, 2009

Just consider this to be constructive criticism aimed at idiots who are too dumb to ever take it.

The Prop 8 mob in California: How bizarre is it to see gangs of angry, atheistic, liberal homosexuals in California -- who seem to spend 98% of their free time lecturing everybody else in America about tolerance -- invading churches and getting ordinary people fired for daring to disagree with them? If Christians had been getting the Prop 8 punks fired, we'd have to endure 20 years of Oscar winning movies about the oppression gays in California suffered for their beliefs.

PS: Stop acting like perverts in those public parades, you weirdos.

Celebrities who want to be political: If people really cared about the political opinions of celebrities, next week's Meet the Press would feature Sean Penn, Kanye West, and Ben Affleck.

The "Mac Guy:" Hey, look at me, I'm so trendy and hip! Not like the guy we have representing PCs, who looks like Mitch McConnell. Enjoy my faux cool vibe -- it'll make you feel like you have a happening friend and then you'll buy a Mac!

Reality TV: It seemed harmless enough when the Real World debuted, but once the TV execs figured out it was easier and cheaper to put semi-famous morons on the tube instead of actually doing something creative, these shows were suddenly everywhere. Over time, the producers had to dig deeper and deeper for "talent" -- and I use that word very loosely. Now, "reality TV" means shows like Real Chance Of Love and Charm School that feature "real people" who would annoy the living hell out of you if you had to be around them for five minutes. Isn't that why the public is watching TV in the first place -- so they can get away from people like that?

Spammers, telemarketers, and junk mailers: They make a living stealing other people's time and they usually peddle garbage. Everybody who works as a spammer, junk mailer, or telemarketer should have their names put on the lists of all the other spammers, junk mailers, and telemarketers in the country so they can get a taste of what they do to everyone else.

Unions: There's something to be said for workers banding together to improve their lot in life, but there's nothing to be said for riding entire companies into the ground because of your out-of-control greed.

The Senate GOP: At least eighty percent of them don't believe in anything other than getting re-elected and they seem to have a distinct distaste for most of the people who sent them to Washington. How we ended up with such a sorry collection of puffed up, vertebrae-free jackanapes representing the Right, I'll never know.

The people in charge of making war movies in Hollywood: During World War II, Hollywood cranked out pro-war films left and right. But, the only notable pro-war movie that came out in the last eight years was Team America: World Police -- which featured puppets!

Wait, wait -- to be fair, Hollywood did also make Valkyrie, a movie about the heroism of German soldiers trying to stop Hitler. If only there were any heroic soldiers like that around today, ones that the American people could better relate to, for Hollywood to make movies about.

Barack Obama: Don't get me started. There just isn't enough time in the day.

The King: Burger King's mascot is creepy and it's slightly disturbing that he's associated with food products. That's exactly whom you want preparing your food, isn't it? An eerie guy in a mask who never speaks?

The airlines: Security is a hassle, customer service is mediocre, they're too careless with luggage, it takes too long to get through an airport, and flying is too expensive. No wonder people are less excited about getting on an airplane than getting a root canal.

Lawyers: America's legal profession is over run with amoral, ambulance-chasing shysters who have nothing better to do than to try to make millions of dollars looting productive people and companies.

"Oh, but John, you wouldn't say something like that if you needed a lawyer right now!"

Should they be thanked for setting up that kind of system? It's like a dog being forced to hire a tick to defend itself from the other ticks on its back trying to suck its blood.

Global Warming Nuts: Just because you shout "science" a dozen times and have managed to politically intimidate a large percentage of the scientific world that disagrees with you into silence, doesn't mean you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

America's newspapers: Never has there been a group of people more dishonest about their biases, more contemptuous of their audience, and more falsely convinced of their own irreplaceability than America's newspapermen. Meanwhile, the whole industry is dying a slow death and their primary reaction has been to wonder why no one seems very upset about their demise.

**namegoeshere**

Not sure what the global warming comment means (I realize it's not yours), is the guy saying people who think global warming is real are nuts? Or the other side? The vast majority of scientists say global warming is occuring - yes Penn and Teller can easily make pithy comments - yes people on one side or the other might be pricks - but it is still occuring.

**Frazzled**

I think he's determining the "nut" portion on it, treating it like a new religion. If it is occurring it should be calmly dealt with, but in prioirity with other problems on a cost/benefit basis.

**ah1146**

GLobal warming is lie, proported by the liberal media.

**Greebynog**

ah1146 wrote:GLobal warming is lie, proported by the liberal media.

Breakout the tinfoil hats, the aliens are coming!

**sebster**

ah1146 wrote:GLobal warming is lie, proported by the liberal media.

Did the climatologists and media get together in a darkened room and plot the thing out? Is there a timeline that ends with burn down the whitehouse and kill America forever? How exactly did this lie come together? If there is real tangible evidence that global warming is a lie, why don't media sources outside the conspiracy break the story? Or is no-one outside the conspiracy?

Is it possible you have no idea what you're talking about?

Meanwhile, that list is odd. Is he really saying we should have more pro-war movies? Lots of movies recognise the bravery of the soldiers and the morality of their cause while also accepting war sucks. So presumably he wants a return to movies that show war as an adventure full of shooting evil dudes. This is a silly thing to want. And further points lost for failing to understand Team America. Seriously, it's not a sophisticated movie.

The rest is just the same old blather you get from conservatives pretending to be straight talking independents. Unions. Global warming. Newpaper bias. Celebrity activism (where the examples are always the celebrities supporting liberal causes). Whatever.

He's right about that burger king guy. That dude is creepy.

**Da Boss**

Even in an analysis of who's most likely to benefit from lying about it, the "we believe in global warming" side come out as more credible.
I mean, the other side get to maintain the status quo oil based consumer driven society that earns them scads of cash.
The only people profitting from the "we believe" side is the government with green taxes, and they do that with every issue.
How in the name of god does it link to some sort of worldwide socialist agenda? You really think we're that organised? If we were, don't you think we'd devote our time to something more directly productive, like seizing power? Seriously?
Think about your point of view and realise how batcrap insane it is, please, for the sake of my patience.

**reds8n**

sebster wrote: How exactly did this lie come together?

I can no longer keep it secret. Several years ago, me and all my liberal Hollywood friends, in conjunction with our ultra strict Islamic allies, the freemansons, the bIlderbergs and the entire Jewish race were messing around and.... and.... game of "truth or dare" got way out of hand.

He's right about that burger king guy. That dude is creepy.

Indeed, most unsettling.

**Da Boss**

I KNEW IT!

**reds8n**

And I regret NOTHING ! NOTHING !

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:Even in an analysis of who's most likely to benefit from lying about it, the "we believe in global warming" side come out as more credible.
I mean, the other side get to maintain the status quo oil based consumer driven society that earns them scads of cash.
The only people profitting from the "we believe" side is the government with green taxes, and they do that with every issue.

Mmmm...no, thats not quite accurate. Just two big ones off the top of my head.
1) All the carbon trade fraud, er marketers. Thats a multibillion dollar business.
2) Anyone wishing to develop "alternate" industries (many of which I'm ok with as it frees us from ferner oil).

Also it should be noted, government is made up of millions of bureaucrats with a vested interested in increasing their budgets and m,aking more bureaucrats. You can't say its "just government" when governemnt makes up such a massive amount of US/worldwide GDP. They are truly the largest "vested interest" in most every nation.

Anytime governments are trying to push something its safe to assume its either for: 1) more control or tax money; and/or 2) benefits a particular special interest.
I'm not saying its bad, but I am saying there are monetary interests all around.

EDIT: I have to say the Burger King guys just screams pedophile to me for some reason.

**Da Boss**

I think the monetary interests and more importantly the current actual wealth of the oil industry outweighs the potential wealth of new tech developers quite a bit.

You're right in that the issue has been unfortunately transformed into a moneymaking scam, like ethical consumerism and just about anything else that ever happens ever. But the wealthy dudes on the "global warming is a myth" side have a lot more to lose.

The government (anyone's) makes money off EVERYTHING through tax. It's what they do. I disagree with these green taxes because I think they are a limp wristed solution to a serious problem, and typical of most governments. But I like the fact that the governments are at least admitting there's a problem.

**malfred**

Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: I have to say the Burger King guys just screams out to the pedophile in me for some reason.

Fixed your typo.

I'm so gonna get mod edited.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, Frazzled devours paedophiles whole, like an anaconda. Nothing new or exciting there- all Texans can unhinge their jaws, it's how they manage to eat such massive burritos.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:I think the monetary interests and more importantly the current actual wealth of the oil industry outweighs the potential wealth of new tech developers quite a bit.

You're right in that the issue has been unfortunately transformed into a moneymaking scam, like ethical consumerism and just about anything else that ever happens ever. But the wealthy dudes on the "global warming is a myth" side have a lot more to lose.

So does everyone else. If you drop heavy CO2 emissions standards down on everyone whilly nilly economies in the modern world will be obliterated. Or more precisely in the developed world, while those industries shift to the undeveloped world which will not be as strict. We’ve already seen lots of that.

-If you say we have to tax cows then farmers get slammed.
-If you say we need alternate fuels then consumers get slammed as their food costs jump (as we’ve seen already).
-Protesters/MIMBYS won’t allow drilling, new wind farms or offshore wind farms (unless its in some poor person’s backyard of course, then it just fine)
-Many of the CO2 proposals have been extreme.
-Inversely if we do nothing on the energy front then we continue to be held hostile to MidEast nut jobs and our standard of living is impacted.

Everything has a cost. Everything has a benefit.

The government (anyone's) makes money off EVERYTHING through tax. It's what they do. I disagree with these green taxes because I think they are a limp wristed solution to a serious problem, and typical of most governments. But I like the fact that the governments are at least admitting there's a problem.

You’re forgetting the need of government to expand. Global Warming hysteria gives them greater ability to increase their size and capabilities-in effect creating new growth business lines in environmental control and regulation. We can’t get rid of subsidies put in place for World War One. There’s no way government will decline when faced with this eminent growth opportunity.

Yeah, Frazzled devours paedophiles whole, like an anaconda. Nothing new or exciting there- all Texans can unhinge their jaws, it's how they manage to eat such massive burritos.

True that. I have held in my hands a burrito that weighed 2 lbs once.

**Da Boss**

I don't think that we should drop heavy standards down willy nilly. But I think you're probably correct in your assessment that most governments lack the actual ability to approach these things in the correct way.
Instead of taxing farmers for example, money could be put into alternative feed.

The one thing I think we probably disagree on is the extent to which the burden for this should fall on developed nations. You know and I know that our nations use far and away more than our share of resources. It seems only fair to me that we should be the ones shouldering the burden while people in developing nations have a chance to catch up and do their part. It annoyed me when the States didn't adopt Kyoto.

But this is a mostly theoretical conversation. I know where you're coming from, and it frustrates the crap out of me too.

**Frazzled**

Respectfully, why?

We may use more resources, but that doesn't mean we're the ones causing more pollution. The way that argument, and Kyoto, were framed makes it the China Jobs Creation Act.

Interesting that few of the signatories to Kyoto are actually abiding by it...

**Da Boss**

We aren't causing the most pollution, but the development of our societies means we can afford to cut down the most, and lead by example. The technologies we develop will make it easier for other countries to follow our lead. It's the old spiderman nugget.

I'm not massively opposed to more jobs in China, but I'm also a bit ignorant of that part of the world.

This is my view on things anyway. It's entirely possible that I haven't thought it through sufficiently or something as I don't know a hell of a lot about economics, especially international economics. But if we all just sit here complaining about everyone else doing nothing, nothings gonna get done.

**Frazzled**

OK, but if we don't actually generate the pollution (lets assume thats the case merely for purposes of this argument) then you don't fix the problem, you merely ship jobs to Asia.

Its like the offshore drilling causing pollution argument. US firms will drill offshore US in a much more environmentally friendly way vs. oil developed and pumped from lets say Venezuela. Yet those talking about the environment continue to argue the Venezuela oil is effectively better. It hurts the environment but makes the NIMBYs feel better.

**Da Boss**

Heh.
Wow, and argument I hadn't actually heard before on this topic, good work man!
I'll have to go away and digest this, it's a reasonably good point. I think a lot of environmentalists want an oil free economy as much as possible, I believe that's not very realistic and most of the alternatives have downsides too.

Good work though. Love it when someone makes me think about things in a different way.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully, why?

We may use more resources, but that doesn't mean we're the ones causing more pollution. The way that argument, and Kyoto, were framed makes it the China Jobs Creation Act.

Interesting that few of the signatories to Kyoto are actually abiding by it...

That's partly because the USA, which puts out 25% of the carbon (or carobs, or something) didn't sign up.

**Frazzled**

What does that have to do with noncompliance from signatories?

**Kilkrazy**

Why should anyone comply when the world's single largest polluter won't?

**Kilkrazy**

I mean, the psychology is pretty obvious isn't it?

**dogma**

So everyone that disagrees with this dude sucks? Right.

Also, Fraz, aren't you a corporate bureaucrat?

**Orkeosaurus**

Well, they signed it, we didn't.

They should comply with it because they signed the treaty.

Anyways, it gets really annoying when people rail against oil and coal, but they throw a fit whenever someone wants to expand on nuclear power (or in even worse cases, wind and hydroelectric power).

Where do people think their power will come from? Where do you think the electricity that will power an electric car will come from? How are we supposed to use electrolysis without any electricity (not that I have any faith in hydrogen power actually working.)

I swear, if fusion ever gets rolling there will still be people in the streets protesting it.

(Also, I like The King.)

(Also, I love that Mac vs PC picture.)

**Da Boss**

Our point is that you should have signed it.

**Orkeosaurus**

Saying you agree to do something, and not doing it, is worse than not agreeing to do something.

**Da Boss**

I'm glad your simplistic ethical stance helps you feel better about your nation shirking it's responsibilities.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:Our point is that you should have signed it.

To be frank, a big reason we didn't sign was because we knew you wouldn't abide by it. In fact there was a strong argument to sign it and just ignore because the other nations will. We were just more honest.

If you can't abide by your own accords then there's no reason to have an accord with you.

I'm glad your simplistic ethical stance helps you feel better about your nation shirking it's responsibilities.

Vs. your nation lying when you said you would? Yea, there's a moral stance.