this post was submitted on
1,528 points (62% like it)
3,788 up votes 2,260 down votes

funny

subscribe2,385,618 readers

18,387 users here now

PLEASE, No posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.


Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 136 comments

[–]kiyerranevada 85 points86 points ago

As someone who follows Seth Rogen, that isn't even his twitter account.

[–]woo_hah 54 points55 points ago

Seth Rogen is also way too clever to use "that awkward moment" to start a joke.

[–]nwzimmer 1 point2 points ago

No kidding.
Realizing that Romney may or may not have used the same slogan as blah blah whatever... would NOT be "awkward". Do you people even know what awkward means??

Another great example of someone with no original imagination combined with poor knowledge of basic vocabulary.

[–]chin_in_da_phonebook 8 points9 points ago

Yes....YES! Channel your anger. Use it to make you STRONGER.

[–]cp5184 2 points3 points ago

It is awkward when you find out the slogan you used was also used by the klan.

[–]decoyq 0 points1 point ago

[–]dt25 0 points1 point ago

That'd qualify as "not well planned".

Unless it wasn't... Maybe it's a code.

[–]KingCrazy12 16 points17 points ago

Can't be... his Twitter handle is "Real_Seth"...

[–]AtomicSamuraiCyborg 9 points10 points ago

I watched the original video; I hear "keep America America". Any other video of him saying it?

[–]AtomicSamuraiCyborg 2 points3 points ago

I saw that, I meant video of it. The article contains an addendum from Romney, saying he said "America", not "American".

[–]thehollowman84 -2 points-1 points ago

ah so its just extremely similar, and has the same tone is all.

[–]AtomicSamuraiCyborg 1 point2 points ago

Eh, it's not like "Keep America American" is a super well known KKK slogan. Much more likely, it's another meaningless piece of offal, spewed from an ignorant, market researched campaign machine that had no idea of it's history. It does strike just the right nativist tone for his audience. So Romney is probably racist, just not in this way. They didn't do it on purpose, because even for the Republican Party, recycling a KKK slogan is a bit much in the 21st century. No, they've rebranded their racism! Now their voter suppression of minorities is to prevent voter fraud! It's not a poll tax! It's an ID fee!

[–]juicius 3 points4 points ago

Yeah, Romney is just running for a modest little office on a shoestring budget, with just a few retiree volunteers pitching in here and there. I mean, if this were a campaign for the leadership of the free world with millions and millions in both personal wealth and political contributions, with an army of strategists and handlers poring over every little detail, then yeah, one of them should have caught that little unfortunate turn of phrase. But like I said, Romney is just a simple man doing the best he can with what little he has.

[–]jyjjy 0 points1 point ago

Save your words. Everyone here has been brainwashed into OWEbama loving sheep by the liberal Jew media and the Hollywood fatcats. The don't know what do with a simple, honest, God fearing common man like Romney except to rifle through his pockets and give whatever they find to the nearest negro.

[–]thehollowman84 2 points3 points ago

I mean, I don't think anyone thinks they openly and willingly copied the KKK. I think they're saying, this slogan is super similar to the shit the KKK said.

[–]dt25 1 point2 points ago

It also points out the thin line between patriotism and hatred.

[–]Varriable 29 points30 points ago

I didn't choose the white life....the white life chose me.

[–]Demonweed 88 points89 points ago

Comparing the 21st century Republican Party to the KKK is as unfair as comparing Sprite to 7UP.

[–]sportsfan101990 17 points18 points ago

Comparing today's politicians to Hitler is unfair to Hitler. Hitler actually got stuff done....I'll be seeing myself out now thank you.

Edit: This was actually from a comedian's stand up routine on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Here's the first part of it, this isn't the Hitler joke. This is the Hitler joke part Definitely worth the watch. His whole set kills me.

[–]DELTATKG 9 points10 points ago

[–]everred 9 points10 points ago

because he didn't have to deal with the liberal media and all their "gotchas"

[–]jesusapproves 0 points1 point ago

God damn asking us what we read. How we let them corner us like that is beyond me.

[–]willscy -3 points-2 points ago

Hitler did nothing wrong.

[–]gemini86 -1 points0 points ago

aaaand there you are.

[–]fuzzytank -1 points0 points ago

Well that's just like your opinion, man.

[–]Oncey 14 points15 points ago

I always thought that sprite just tastes like 7up with dirt in it.

[–]TimmyFTW 36 points37 points ago

Some of us enjoy that earthy taste.

[–]Lampmonster1 3 points4 points ago

Works for red wine.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]cnauyodearhsti 15 points16 points ago

On the other side: Obama's Slogan

*edit: formatting

[–]skepticalDragon 10 points11 points ago

Hmmm... Socialism or racism, which would we prefer...

[–]Organs 3 points4 points ago

The socialist nations of Europe seem to be pretty happy...

[–]daveswagon 2 points3 points ago

The socialist nations of Europe seem to be pretty happy...

*Some exceptions may apply (A, B, C)

[–]Organs 1 point2 points ago

Ah well. Swing and a miss.

[–]darkntk 0 points1 point ago

They both suck.

[–]skepticalDragon 4 points5 points ago

Socialism contains lots of great ideas. Racism has just about zero.

[–]nottodayfolks 1 point2 points ago

Look closer.

[–]dt25 0 points1 point ago

[–]ReginaldIII 10 points11 points ago

This is not Seth Rogen. This https://twitter.com/Sethrogen is Seth Rogen.

Please! I implore you, stop posting tweets from "@Some_Random_Prat_Who_Has_So_Few_Friends_That_They_Need_To_Pretend_To_Be_A_Celebrity_Online"

[–]thescreensavers 17 points18 points ago

Two min of Googleing, he says "Keep America America" nothing to do with KKK

[–]Adarkeidei 56 points57 points ago

He said the, "Keep America American," twice, then changed it once the implications started to roll in. He didn't admit it, or deny it, at first. He has since detracted the statement and said that he originally said America twice, once the facts came out that the slogan was linked to a slogan of the 1920 KKK. (It is actually part of a partial slogan, from a 1920 pamphlet)

I do not think that Mitt Romney is a KKK Klansmen, nor do I think that he meant anything racist by the saying. I do, however, think that if he was going to use the slogan, one of his staffers should take 15 seconds and type it into Google, to check it out, to make sure it is safe.

Now that I have spoken my mind...I have prepared my sandbags...let the downvotes begin

[–]riptaway 11 points12 points ago

Why do people like you find it necessary to make some sort of comment about downvotes. It's stupid and inane. Not to mention, most of the time your comments aren't even that controversial.

[–]Adarkeidei 0 points1 point ago

This is the first time I have referred to it. The reason I did was, like I said in my post, I spoke my mind and used my honest opinion. This is usually a no-no on Reddit. I usually get down voted for expressing my opinion, and since I am going off of my experience, I was waiting for the down votes.

Try being less condescending with you "people like you" comments. I am a pretty nice, level headed guy. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt you were not trying to come off as being mean, or an ass. I will, however, try to keep my negative "down voting awaits" comments to a minimum in the future.

[–]riptaway 1 point2 points ago

I just feel like, if you're going to comment, comment and move on. It's annoying when people complain about downvotes before they even happen. And it's a bit arrogant and condescending to say that because you spoke your mind and gave an honest opinion people downvoted you. Yes, it happens, but maybe you should consider that your comments that got downvoted weren't that great after all. It's just unnecessary and kind of insulting to act like you know how other people will react.

[–]Adarkeidei -2 points-1 points ago

You know, you are right, and I apologized for it at the end of my last post, by saying I would try to keep those comments out of my future posts. What else would you like from me or want me to say? I believe I have given you enough credit and appreciation for pointing this out to me. You are now approaching, almost meeting and surpassing, the level of arrogance by repeating it to me.

As for my posts not being up to par of others, or as you put it "weren't that great", that may be of your opinion, but not of all. It was my opinion and I will express it. I do not follow the exact heartbeat and emotion of Reddit, but I have proudly considered myself to be a Redditor for two years. I believe this is what makes our community stronger, not weaker. Why have everyone express the same opinion on something? A mind might not be swayed and a thought might not gained. To have a different of opinions is the wonderful thing about this community. I could have come back with something hurtful and hateful towards you, but I took what you said with and processed it, intelligently.

[–]riptaway 0 points1 point ago

You...took this way too far. I'm out, have a good one!

[–]Adarkeidei -1 points0 points ago

You are a difficult one to reason with, aren't ya?

[–]foolishnesss 3 points4 points ago

Definitely meant nothing explicitly racist about it. However, one should question the motives and beliefs that intertwine here. I think this serves more as a highlighter to the lack of progression and tolerance of Mitt Romney's campaign than as an over glaring racial attack.

[–]OmgTom 2 points3 points ago

how does that highlight lack of progression and tolerance? I don't follow.

[–]Nymaz 6 points7 points ago

Because the original saying and the current usage of it have the same meaning. They're trying to define "real" Americans as a small subset of actual Americans. And also like the original the suggestion is that the "not real" Americans should not have rights or political power.

The difference being twofold: 1) Originally the saying was used on strict racial lines, now it's more nebulous and differently defined by those who use and hear it (but for an unfortunately large portion it still is racial) and 2) The ones who use it are more concerned with their image, so rather than saying "Keep America American, so lets go string up darkies!" they just say "Keep American American" and nothing else and let the listeners draw their own conclusions so that the speakers can then claim innocence when called on it.

[–]foolishnesss 1 point2 points ago

Thanks for responding for me. Also, you posted my same line of thoughts but in a much more articulate manner.

[–]jyjjy -1 points0 points ago

How does it not? If you have a slogan, a phrase that stands for what you believe in, that can be(and in fact has been) used by a violent racist group to do the same... well, it just says a LOT about what you believe in.

[–]OmgTom 0 points1 point ago

no. Nymaz response isn't bad, however, your logic is a non sequitur. So is every conservative a member of the KKK now?

[–]jyjjy 0 points1 point ago

your logic is a non sequitur. So is every conservative a member of the KKK now?

My logic is a non-sequitor but you can just accuse me of calling every conservative a klansmen when I clearly said nothing of the sort? The logic is simple and sound; if I came up with a phrase to promote my beliefs to others and some skinhead heard it and decided it worked perfectly for them as well... listen, what I'm saying is the phrase is judgmental, exclusionary, pretentious and regressive and those are all quite negative things. When a summation of your philosophy can so easily be taken up by people with despicable ideas and goals you should not just change the phrase but examine why your ideals are so similar and change them because they are at the core reprehensible.

Beyond this "Keep America American" is bullshit doublespeak. The US gov has changed VASTLY over the last 30 years or so largely as a result of conservative policies: massive debt spending, unfunded wars, the growing wealth gap and corporatization of the public sector combined with staggeringly misguided things like Citizens United institutionalizing the transfer of power from the people as a whole to the very wealthy. The conservatives are and have been changing the face of the country's politics in a way that shows a total disregard for what has traditionally been "America" and have never more openly been bent on doing such than right now.

[–]OmgTom 0 points1 point ago

Right. There are only conservative extremist. Every liberal is a communist, because you know, liberal ideology can support communism.

[–]jyjjy 0 points1 point ago

Again I said nothing of the sort. Can't even figure out what you are misinterpreting to even get at that honestly... You are just trolling I take it?

[–]OmgTom 0 points1 point ago

do you know what a conservative by definition is? not the GOP, but a conservative.

[–]downvote_allmy_posts -1 points0 points ago

remember, he was raised in the mormon church in a time BEFORE they changed their mind about black people. so im sure he is just as racist as we all like to think he is.

[–]Not_Steve 3 points4 points ago

Wait... My mom went to a segregated school as a girl, does this mean she is automatically racist? I guess I'll have to tell her to stop hitting on black men then.

[–]colluvium 3 points4 points ago

He actively recruited for an organization that held as a core belief that black skin was a punishment for siding with satan in the 'preexistence'. He likely never thought "niggers should die" but he also did not denounce the obviously racist institution he was raised in.

[–]foolishnesss 1 point2 points ago

I wonder what his TRUE thoughts on Obama are, not as a president, but as a person. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if he thought he was a great guy but I wouldn't be too shocked if he thought very lowly of him. /thinkingoutloud

[–]downvote_allmy_posts -2 points-1 points ago

his TRUE thoughts on obama are that unless he becomes a mormon, he is going to a place worse than hell, a place where mormons preach to you every moment until you become one... and that isnt because he is black, its because he is a mormon. blacks are welcome in the LDS church, but until the late 70s it was common teaching that black people are black because god cursed them.

[–]colluvium 0 points1 point ago

The mormon hell (telestial kingdom) is not too bad a place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_glory#Inhabitants_3). I, on the other hand, as a former member in good standing (i.e. temple recommend holder) that made many covenants and promises in the temple, will be going to Outer Darkness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_world_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Outer_darkness) as a Son of Perdition for my disbelief. OoooooooOOOOoooooo.

[–]foolishnesss 0 points1 point ago

I think that's his position on Obama under the lens of an LDS member. However, I don't think Romney is a robot and has more than one viewpoint/ lens. It definitely doesn't get shown in campaigning or politics but there's many unknowns. Such as, does Romney truly believe in the LDS doctrine or is it just for show? So yes, you're probably right. That's the most likely thought Romney holds towards Obama but that doesn't really answer my ramblings/questions.

[–]tekdemon 1 point2 points ago

To be fair to the Mormons they have since denounced that viewpoint and unless you have proof that Mitt Romney wasn't one of the members of his own church who wanted them to change that viewpoint I don't see how you can cast him as being racist. It's not like someone else forced the church to change their ways, they changed it themselves since their teachings were insanely outdated and racist. I've told black church members about this history before because they don't even know how racist the church used to be, but the modern church isn't the church of 50 years ago so I'm not sure how you're gonna blame Mitt Romney for the old beliefs of his church.

[–]colluvium 0 points1 point ago

In 1978 Official Declaration No. 2 opened the male leadership (Priesthood) to the black members (30, not 50, years ago). Romeny's mission to France was in 1968 when the ban was in full effect. Therefore, he did not disagree enough with the ban to forgo his mission where he recruited for the LDS church and their then racist practice and their now racist teachings. I'm sure he didn't burn any crosses, but he did proselytize for the then actively racist organization still belongs to an organization that espouses clearly racist teachings on the origin of black and native american folks.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

[–]downvote_allmy_posts -1 points0 points ago

no, but before the late 70s mormons were taught that god saw black people as cursed.

And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

being in a segregated school doesnt mean she was taught to hate black people. the LDS church and its book says that people were turned black by god as a curse. and religious indoctrination tends to stick with people more than racist policy.

[–]Adarkeidei 0 points1 point ago

I do agree with your assessment.

I am not a fan of Mitt Romney's campaign, or Barack Obama's. I wish there was a "None of the Above" button. I do not like having to vote for the "lesser of two evils".

[–]jyjjy 0 points1 point ago

Voting for the lesser of two evils does suck which is why I'm writing in Cheney/Cthulhu 2012. Go with your heart and don't let the two party system rob you of your voice.

[–]Adarkeidei 0 points1 point ago

I will admit to writing my own name on the ballot, if there are no candidates I like. I do not like voting for people that others have chosen for me. All people should have the ability to run, if they like. It shouldn't be a rich person's game only.

[–]Wildperson 0 points1 point ago

Ah, a sensible reply. Thanks. That was refreshing.

[–]Adarkeidei 1 point2 points ago

You are quite welcome, good sir! Mustaches are being handed out over there, on the table, behind the lady with the hat.

[–]JewBear3 10 points11 points ago

10 seconds of Googling proved you wrong. Try spending two minutes of dictionarying next time.

[–]x-skeww 0 points1 point ago

he says "Keep America America"

What's that supposed to mean? Keep things the way they are? Why would we need a human for that? Any inanimate object would be better at this.

[–]jyjjy 1 point2 points ago

[–]x-skeww 0 points1 point ago

Of course, Simpson's did it first. Haha.

[–]maseon50 2 points3 points ago

This was said in December of 2011, how long have you been sitting on this OP?

[–]squid1178 6 points7 points ago

I'd guess 9 months

[–]MissAwesomeSocks 2 points3 points ago

http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/slogan.asp

In the words of Dwight, FALSE.

[–]Emmortal 5 points6 points ago

That awkward moment when you realize the Democrat party actually had a senator who was a member of the KKK.

[–]indyK1ng 8 points9 points ago

The parties positions flipped around the 1960s. The Democrats used to be more socially conservative, pro-segregation and the like and the Republicans used to be more socially progressive. Keep in mind, Lincoln was a Republican. Then the civil rights movement happened and the Democratic party decided to go pro-civil rights, resulting in a lot of southern Democrats leaving the party, which the Republicans then moved in to sweep up in the hopes of winning elections.

There's also the fact that in the early 20th century, for a time the KKK was a big and influential organization. A white person living at that time likely knew at least one outspoken member of them.

[–]GlobalVagabond 7 points8 points ago

Robert Byrd was the former member of the KKK. I believe he renounced all that. But, you're messing up your history. Even in the 60's far more Republicans voted on the side of Civil Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party

[–]Demonweed 3 points4 points ago

As an undergraduate I interned at the Dirksen Congressional Research Institute. It is true that Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that a Republican Senator from an all white town played a major role in getting the law passed. However, there was a lot of arm-twisting involved in getting those votes. For that matter, Everett Dirksen was hardly a saint in this area. With the end of his political career on the horizon, he worked hard to do a great and noble thing, in no small part because hindsight made him regret his work alongside Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy in fueling the fires of hatred during the Red Scare.

Even the article you linked to makes me wonder where you got this "far more Republicans" notion. That is flatly untrue. The percentages were better for the Republicans, but because they were in the minority, the raw vote tallies reveal that more Democrats supported the measure than Republicans. Also, there were some Democratic Representatives and Senators who voted no because they believed this reform did not go far enough. Add to that the fact that Democratic President Lyndon Johnson had a major part to play in this reform (having been moved by witnessing the mistreatment of his own African-American maid when the two traveled together by car from D.C. to Texas,) and it becomes deceptive to regard the Civil Rights Act as anything other than a bipartisan initiative.

[–]GlobalVagabond -1 points0 points ago

Percentages are what I was talking about. Obviously I wouldn't have linked to it otherwise.

[–]Demonweed -3 points-2 points ago

I hope I didn't come across as unduly harsh. For clarity's sake if a similar situation should come up in the future, you might make a claim like, "Republican legislators were more likely to have voted for this legislation than Democratic legislators." The way your claim was expressed created the impression that the Civil Rights Act got more Republican votes than Democratic votes. It is a subtle nuance, but in politics a debate can get very muddy very quickly if these sorts of details are not correct.

[–]PersonPersona 0 points1 point ago

  1. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party is just one of those stupid conservative dog whistles that pisses me off to no end.

  2. You must be reading those totals wrong. Those are Yea-Nay numbers and Democrats voted in favor of the law in greater numbers than Republicans.

  3. Robert Byrd was indeed a member of the Klan and an elected Democrat. However, he was both a member of the Klan and a Democrat before the parties switched position during the Civil Rights movement. He remains a Democrat and has since denounced racial intolerance and become more liberal (though he's easily one of the most conservative Democrats).

[–]Dichotomouse 3 points4 points ago

He remains a Democrat and has since denounced racial intolerance and become more liberal (though he's easily one of the most conservative Democrats).

He's dead.

[–]GlobalVagabond 2 points3 points ago

I'm not reading the totals wrong. There were MORE Democrats than Republicans in office at the time. As a percentage more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[–]willscy 1 point2 points ago

It really bothers me when people say Republicans are racists or voted against civil rights when they have been behind every major civil rights movement in our history.

[–]qarl 0 points1 point ago

when they have been behind every major civil rights movement in our history.

used to. that all changed in the 60s, when the republicans saw an opportunity to grow their numbers by courting racists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[–]Demonweed 0 points1 point ago

. . . unless you believe homosexuals deserve equal rights.

[–]willscy 1 point2 points ago

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can do anything anyone else can do.

[–]Demonweed 0 points1 point ago

That was not true until the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was repealed. It remains untrue from the perspective of anyone who has the sense to appreciate that legal heterosexual marriage, conveying access to a large and useful body of family law, is a superior privilege for which there is no equivalent available to homosexuals in many states. Your point is glib, but also deeply misleading.

[–]willscy 0 points1 point ago

It's not misleading. Homosexual people can do anything that anyone else can. There is no law saying that homosexuals cannot sit in the front of the bus or go to the same schools as heterosexuals. Gay marriage is an entirely different thing that they want added to our society. If I want the right to marry a man I am not allowed, just like how homosexuals are not allowed to.

[–]Demonweed 0 points1 point ago

It is only different in a trivial way. Of course, the differences are not trivial to people obsessed with how "icky" gay sex seems to them. However, there was a time when mixed race couples were considered "icky" by bigots not one bit different from the bigots of today. Same sex marriage is banned not because of any meaningful impact on society that would follow from its legalization, but because bigots choose to maintain the oppressive ban. Your remark is misleading because it implies that there is something about legally recognizing committed relationships between people of the same gender that is less legitimate than legally recognizing committed relationships between people of different genders. Choosing to exclude homosexual couples from family law is choosing meaningful legal inequality. Accommodating the intolerance of bigots who thought mixed race marriage was unnatural is not one bit worse than accommodating the intolerance of bigots who think same sex marriage is unnatural.

[–]willscy 0 points1 point ago

Personally, I could not care less about gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, nor does it really bother me either way; however, in my opinion marriage is something that has always been about a man and a woman coming together to form a family in order to make babies and raise them. I see no other reason to get married unless you want to exploit some tax stuff.

I don't see why so many people want to make same sex marriages a thing when for so long a marriage has been based around a family and biological children.

I am not a lawyer, so am pretty much totally ignorant of the legal issues that same sex couples encounter, but I don't see why those issues can't be rectified without making marriage something it isn't.

[–]nottodayfolks 1 point2 points ago

And today at least every person in the country knows someone who hates gay people. Still a long road ahead.

[–]Coolhand2120 -1 points0 points ago

The Democrat party was the "South" and the Republican party was the "North". Hard to erase that little fact. There was never a Republican governor standing on the school steps preventing black children going to school, there were however Democrat governors, and that's as late as the 1960s! Guess who was against desegregation of schools (yup Democrats). All of this "southern strategy" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Think to yourself, is it really possible for the two parties to up and "switch sides". The very idea is god damn stupid. It never happened. The whole Republican party didn't all of a sudden switch to the Democrat side, at the very worse a number of racist former Democrats quit the Democrat party after feeling their party abandoned their racist roots (they did not). And that's assuming anything even happened.

The abolitionists and civil rights champions have always been Republicans, the voting record of the party proves that. The Democrats voted against every civil rights act down party lines all the way up to the last one in the 1960s. That's not to say that there wasn't Democrats who voted for it, but the party in opposition to each and every civil rights acts was the Democrat party, that is a fact. Al Gore Sr. stood up and filibustered the damn civil rights act, and you can guess what party he was in! The Democrats have a long and sad history when it comes to racism, and all they can do to "expose" Republicans is say "OH! They're speaking in code!" So now everything is a "code word" Lower taxes? Racist. Anything that might be pushing for a smaller federal gov.? Racist. If you don't agree with Obama, it's because you're racist. Everything is race! They constantly twist history to fit whatever narrative they like. Ever hear about how the Nazi party was "right wing". HA! They were fucking socialists! (for the uninitiated, that's the opposite side of the political spectrum a.k.a.: "left wing") They outlawed guns! Does that sound "right wing" to you? Just a convenient devil to try and tie to the conservatives. The idea that the "right" is somehow secretly socialist is just as retarded as the idea that the parties "switched sides" in the 1960s!

Let's look at the parties today. One party, the Republicans, believe that everyone should be treated the same regardless of skin color. One party, the Democrats, believe that skin color should be a deciding factor for your job, college admissions, promotions and a lot more. Of course that's to "correct" past wrongs. So by their own design, they add racism into federal law. You will be judged not by the content of your character but by the color of your skin. For one party, all that matters is the color of skin, everything else comes second. Guess which party. The same party that has always focused on the color of skin, the "social class" that you belong to, which region you're born in, what demographic or wedge group you belong to that they can use to split you apart from the rest. Oh he's Mormon! Oh he's a white Christian! Oh, he's gay! How is he a conservative, how hypocritical! Oh, he's black, he's and uncle Tom! Oh, he's not progressive enough, whatever the fuck that means.

And what party is the champions of the cult of personality? "Oh how we wish we could return to JFK's Camelot!" The JFK who took us closer to the brink of global thermal nuclear war than we have ever been by deploying nuclear missiles in Poland. Great guy. What a leader! And look how they treat Obama, as if he could do no wrong. Awarded the Nobel peace prize, then mobilized 30,000 troops and escalated up the war! What's that? Don't like the CIA rendition program? That's cool, we'll just assassinate people with drone strikes instead! Oh you don't like the patriot act? I give you the NDAA! And how's that "I'll close gitmo" thing goin? I guess he's only a "Nazi war crime ass fucker" if he has a (R) after his name, right? If there's a (D) after his name, he's just misunderstood. Let's give him some other prize!

Everyone is a libertarian and they just doesn't know it yet. The whole Democrat plat form has been, and apparently always will be, take from their people to give to our people. Lincoln said it a long time ago, but his words are more important than ever today, so I'll end my rant with a famous quote from Lincoln:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.

President ABRAHAM LINCOLN, address at sanitary fair, Baltimore, Maryland, April 18, 1864

And ya, he was a Republican.

[–]Subduction 0 points1 point ago

He renounced it and called it the worst mistake of his life.

Ron Paul, on the other hand...

[–]stemgang 3 points4 points ago

no politics in /r/funny

[–]Organs 0 points1 point ago

[–]specialservices 0 points1 point ago

I did 30 seconds of research and he actually said "Keep America America."

[–]western_red 0 points1 point ago

Well, to be fair, the angry white guy is a big part of their base.

[–]blakeready710 -2 points-1 points ago

I guess that is kind of akward

FTFY

[–]tavikwright 0 points1 point ago

awkward is the correct spelling. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/akward?s=t

[–]blakeready710 -1 points0 points ago

I was making a joke, read OP's link again.

[–]tavikwright 1 point2 points ago

thought you were referring to title, my bad :X

[–]blakeready710 0 points1 point ago

No problem

[–]arnieslefthairynippl -5 points-4 points ago

Not as awkward as his spelling

[–]Versaton -4 points-3 points ago

Akward*

[–]tavikwright 1 point2 points ago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/akward?s=t

Awkward is the correct spelling.

edit the title is correct, but the tweet has the misspell of "akward," which is what everyone is referring to. I retract my statement.

[–]thatdudeus 0 points1 point ago

That awkward moment when you totally missed the joke you are replying to.

[–]tavikwright 0 points1 point ago

*akward

[–]Bear_Masta -1 points0 points ago

He was trying to make a crappy joke.

[–]tavikwright -1 points0 points ago

right, hence my edit :)