Funniest/scariest post ever

[spank]

http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/04/linux-european-threat-to-our-computers.html

[Fletcher`]

Wow she's fairly misinformed/stupid.

If you see a company using Linux, it may be that they have not paid for this software. Report them to the Business Software Alliance who have the legal authority to inspect any company's computers for illegal programs like Linux.

No, I was wrong. She's just stupid.

[myk]

rf` said:
No, I was wrong.

Right; Tristan's not a female name and the blog ain't serious.

[Job]

Dammnit. Why do some people have to assume being a Republican entails rabid-patriotism and blind retardation? A person can be a fan of their country (I think) without being an ethnocentric jerktard.

Get a grip, man/woman/Tristan/whatever.

[KennyJC]

Well I couldn't be bothered reading it all, but I guess this is someone satirizing right wing Americans?

It's easy and funny to do. Just look what Stephen Colbert did the other night :D

"rationalism has a well known liberal bias..." HAHA

[Bloodshedder]

"[Reality] has a well-known liberal bias."

[KennyJC]

I had the jist...

[myk]

Job said:
Dammnit. Why do some people have to assume being a Republican entails rabid-patriotism and blind retardation? A person can be a fan of their country (I think) without being an ethnocentric jerktard.

So Republicans don't tend to defend what that blog is mocking?

It's obvious that jokes and parodies simplify and exaggerate to some degree; why would someone want to make relativizing exceptions and mellowing justifications while trying to be amusing and to drive a point?

The mock-blog isn't about nationalism in general, anyway.

[Bloodshedder]

What scares me more is the comments on that blog post; that someone might have actually read that article and believed it.

[Wobbo]

Job said:

Dammnit. Why do some people have to assume being a Republican entails rabid-patriotism and blind retardation?

No national party that allows people like George W Bush to win primaries, rallies around the confederate flag, and supports barbaric policies like the drug war, war on terror, war on whoever we dont like etc. can possibly escape getting that reputation among decent and civilised people

YOU need to get a grip on reality, and learn to live with it.

[Job]

Pretty ironic you started this flame war, considering your implied belief in pacifism, or at least reasonability. Anyway, I've talked to numerous Republicans that feel George Bush has a very myopic, selective view and takes course in policies which are both similar and, consequently, repeatedly ineffective. I count myself among them. I did not vote for George Bush and I believe we need a better leader.

The war on terror, drugs, violence, sex and whatever else is the current hot topic is just an irrational knee-jerk response to the media's collusion with paranoid "super-parents." Unfortunately, politicians, Democrats and Republicans both, feed on that and play along with those sometimes irrational fears, often worsening them by their choice of policy. If Democrats were in office, they'd make poor policy choices too; the Republicans, however, just happen to be in office right now.

For the record, I do not support the war on terror (as it is being conducted, at least), the war on drugs, or the war on (insert fear here). I also believe that the South lost Civil War in 1865, so they should do away with the Confederate flags. They're tacky. The US has some things right, but overall, this country's leadership needs to steer us toward actions that reflect better upon us better as a culture and a more responsible world power.

Also for the record, I'm offended that you lump me with extremist, far, far right wing Republicans because I'm offended with how they behave or how easily they may be spoofed. Say what you like if it feels right to you, though. Of course, you could be wrong.

[myk]

Job said:
Pretty ironic you started this flame war,

The flame war has been declared!

the current hot topic is just an irrational knee-jerk response to the media's collusion with paranoid "super-parents."

I'm curious about what you're aiming at here.

[Job]

myk said:

I'm curious about what you're aiming at here.

I'm referring to the degree, and increase, of sensationalist journalism prevalent today. For the sake of ratings, dangers that are virtually non-existent in statistical terms are simply blown out of proportion to get more viewers/readers. The media overstates a problem that's not quite as bad as it's portrayed and politicians play with those fears because, for some reason, the media is perceived by the general public as some sort of infalliable source of truth. It'd be a lot easier for politicians to work in conjunction with the public's fears than to spend their time debunking them. Plus, when they make policies that "address" those fears, there's some great opportunities for pork barrel spending.

[Bank]

heh, when I tried to view that page, my linux pulled out an AK and told me I'm killing the motherland.

[myk]

Job said:
The media overstates a problem that's not quite as bad as it's portrayed and politicians play with those fears because, for some reason, the media is perceived by the general public as some sort of infalliable source of truth.

The media is an extremety critical organ of society; pretty much the nerve cells of the system, and the poor patient in the mental institution is fed (and/or takes?) drugs for the purpose of paying heed to certain signs, often charged with third-party interests, and not his own concerns, which are flushed away in the flood of spam injected through positions or economical and political power, sometimes behind his back, or else in his face, and when he isn't blatantly or subtly told to shut up because he's not sane or otherwise entitled to speak.

Still, if I have a name, and some jerk (my brother?) shares that name, and he does shit and earns a bad reputation, do I have a right to be annoyed at people reacting to that jerk's actions, who now distrust my name?

[Zaldron]

The first two user comments are gold. GOLD I SAY.

[Lüt]

Quit reading pages as wide as they are tall and finish the boss.

[Fletcher`]

"Authorization Required"


"Lol?"

[Jehar]

Bloodshedder said:

What scares me more is the comments on that blog post; that someone might have actually read that article and believed it.

The sheer truth of this observation... I grow ill reading them.

[AndrewB]

Does anyone seriously NOT think that's a trolling site?

Although I have to admit, I have seen a lot of retarded conservatives as bad as on that page, particularly on non-trolling sites.

[Hobbs]

AndrewB said:

Does anyone seriously NOT think that's a trolling site?

More than a few ZTheatre members seem to have taken it seriously

[AndrewB]

Holy cow, people have seriously fed the troll here. Props to the article-writer to a successful troll; shame on the internet for giving in.

[spank]

Quoted from the link near "Terms and Conditions:"

ShelleyTheRepublican.com is a satirical entertainment web site. "Shelley"* and her friends are fictional characters (*created 1999). Shelley's opinions are an amalgam of many of the right-wing pundits who are frequently featured on conservative TV and talk-radio.

Shelley's views are outrageous, offensive and wrong, but no more so than the right-wing pundits that saturate our media. The purpose of this website is to point out how utterly absurd these right-wing views are. The fact that you had a lingering doubt that she was "for real" meant that you too agree that Shelley's opinions reflect what some Republicans actually believe.

Naturally, Shelley is an exaggeration. No single Republican combines the religious mania of Pat Robertson, the brazen menace of Sean Hannity and the hysterical nonsense of Anne Coulter. Shelley is all of these people and more. The fact that you dislike Shelley means that there is hope for us all.

It's safe to say that almost all information in all of the articles on this site is false. The web site is designed to be funny. We hope it made some of you laugh.

If you don't find it funny, we kindly ask you to leave. If you don't want to leave, we beg you not to ruin the joke for others. If we have upset you we are truly sorry. Despite what Shelly might say, we truly appreciate your comments. Every one of you who commented on the site, you made our day. Thanks. We really mean it!

And now our final thought; Anybody can shoot down an utterly preposterous argument. We believe that it takes a great deal more rhetorical alacrity to argue for something that is blatantly insane. A child could find the flaws in Shelley's arguments and most teenagers have a better grasp on reality than that fool Tristan.

Imagine what it must have been like to be Scott Mcellan, GW's former press secretary. Like many Americans, I enjoyed watching Scotty squirm on that podium. Just like Scotty, we are working hard to keep you entertained (although we can not always comment because there are ongoing legal proceedings).

(...)

Shelley says:
"Actually, all of the above is a lie. Tristan wrote it, he is such a nerd! I am real and I mean it and I don't want you to comment and I will never stop, because I have God on my side and George W. Bush and they told me to fight the evil democ-rats!!!
Best wishes from Iowa City, Iowa. I love you all, almost.
Shelley"

[Graf Zahl]

HobbsTiger1 said:

More than a few ZTheatre members seem to have taken it seriously

The really scary thing about this is not whether it is genuine or not - it's the idea that there might actually be people retarded enough to actually think like this. I'm quite certain they exist.

[leileilol]

*cough*MAVAV*cough*

[Csonicgo]

haha, that rules

[kc32]

Yeah, well 2 out of my 3 OS's are linux distros.

ON NOES I'M A TURRIST

[Hobbs]

Graf Zahl said:

The really scary thing about this is not whether it is genuine or not - it's the idea that there might actually be people retarded enough to actually think like this. I'm quite certain they exist.

Of course such people exist, one only has to look around in America to find them. Perhaps they are not to such an absurd extreme, though if I met one who was sincerely that extreme I wouldnt be suprised.

That paticlar website may be satire (pretty good too) but you cant really satirize something that doesnt exist (at least not as well as that site does).

[Kristian Ronge]

gargoylol said:
*cough*MAVAV*cough*

Ah, MAVAV -- one of the classic Internet hoaxes.

[Jimmy]

Wow, people actually believe him/her.

Scary.