|
What the gently caress is chopped and screwed and why does it have anything to do with Obama? Good lord.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Just so you know he keeps mentioning it because he genuinely believes he was the first person to do it. Today he's going on about how he inadvertently invented it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
That's gotta be one of the weirder tangential rants I've seen from Rush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
I heard both Rush and Huckabee talking about  SEX WEEK at the University of Tennessee.How dare they have a week dedicated to fun and informative activities like sexual health, getting consent, gay rights, and the search for the golden condom. http://sexweekut.org/schedule/
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:What the gently caress is chopped and screwed and why does it have anything to do with Obama? Good lord. Let the master explain: Limbaugh posted:RUSH: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted there by the obscene profit break, chopped and screwed is a technique, just as the caller said. It remixes hip-hop music, which I'm told developed in Houston. Well, the chop and screw developed in Houston, not hip-hop. The chop and screw technique remixes hip-hop music with the kind of music that was in Houston in the 1990s in the hip-hop scene. And it's done by slowing down the tempo and skipping beats. It ends up sounding like a chopped up version of a tune, and so it's called chop and screw. There's even an app for it. You can get a chop and screw app. Chop and screw your iTunes music, you can get an app for it. Check the iTunes App Store, chop and screw your iTunes music, and you can do this mixing. It's a specific technique.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I'm gonna let you think about those two sentences for a bit. I'm just going to write them on cards, and compare them, back and forth. This is just an appeal to  or some poo poo.Just because there have been shitloads of wars forever doesn't mean that it always has to be that way. We can't give up trying to make things better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
When I think of Limbaugh and sex the only word that comes to my mind is "porking". I think of this because that's the only manner in which I can imagine him having sex: squealing like a sweaty pig while impotently humping a bored prostitute from behind. Holy poo poo this is hilarious. Limbaugh explaining the genesis of a hip-hop derivative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:Let the master explain: Thanks for the lesson on hip-hop history, old fat white guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:Let the master explain: I'm even more confused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Personally I can't wait until Rush gets down with trapstep, or perhaps some moombahton to appeal to the Latino demographic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I'm even more confused. Apparently El Rusbho is a fan of datpiff and traps n trunks. Probably WorldStarHipHop too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
I was so disappointed when I found out Mr. Snerdley was a real person and not some imaginary character he talks to ail the time. I thought this for years and then one day he had him come on and talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
A 16 year old just called into Rush and thanked him for how refreshing it was to listen to him after her LIBERAL high school and college freshman classes where people looked down on her for thinking Obama was a bad president. It hurts. Xarthor posted:I heard both Rush and Huckabee talking about Sex is for men to talk about behind closed doors, not for public events that might be attended by women.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
The thing that is the most fun to me about Rush's New Hip-Hop Show Explanation Show is that he seems more interested in proving that he's knowledgeable about remixes than he is poo poo talking Obama like normal. Him a being know-it-all is very important to him and I think gives some insight into why he does what he does. He's a show off who actually feels that he has enlightening perspectives to share based on his rudimentary understanding of a topic that he spent 5 minutes reading about on the internet. I think this can be applied to much of what he does.greatn posted:I was so disappointed when I found out Mr. Snerdley was a real person and not some imaginary character he talks to ail the time. I thought this for years and then one day he had him come on and talk. His real name is James Golden and here is his picture etc.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Golden_%28radio_personality%29  UFOTacoMan fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Isn't there something to be said about the size of our armed forces being necessary as the armed forces of so many of our allies have been scaled down? In order to take on a rising superpower like China, we need to constantly be ahead of them in terms of armaments and in order to maintain our footholds around the world. Call me a Classical Realist, but isn't it better that we be the world hegemon and not somebody else? Warcabbit posted:I'm gonna let you think about those two sentences for a bit. I'm just going to write them on cards, and compare them, back and forth. What you guys say would be true if the geopolitical stage was still operating under a World War II mentality. Thanks to globalization, the major powers of the world have become so economically interdependant on one another that starting a war would be catastrophic for any superpower that initiates it. Granted we still do need a strong military, but mainly to defend ourselves against smaller rogue states. We don't need nearly so much to topple those regimes. If there is competition among the major world players, it's not in the arena of military power. Rather, the battle now is about economic, scientific, and technological advancement. So long as we funnel so many of our resources into the military rather than our infrastructure, education, and research, we'll fall behind other nations, and indeed we've been slipping behind on these metrics for years. Have fun living in a backwater shithole while urbanites in China are zipping around in hovercars with sex robots in the backseat for most of their 200-year-long lives. At least we'll still have the biggest guns and missles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:What you guys say would be true if the geopolitical stage was still operating under a World War II mentality. Thanks to globalization, the major powers of the world have become so economically interdependant on one another that starting a war would be catastrophic for any superpower that initiates it. Granted we still do need a strong military, but mainly to defend ourselves against smaller rogue states. We don't need nearly so much to topple those regimes. I don't know if we're verging on a derail here. I think we are. I'm going to disagree with you about the economically interdependant thing, because if you've been watching China for the last few months... it's been getting very flaky there. Just over some islands of almost no value. Frankly, people thought that war was impossible after WWI as well, because of economic interdependency. It didn't work. I'm tempted to just say 'war never changes', but I'll say that diplomacy never changes. War is just one tool of diplomacy. People judge and misjudge and want to make their mark, and posture and... It would be nice if the UN were to develop into a World Government, but the UN is still pretty horrible. And yet the best thing we have. But until there's a World Government, if we were to devolve and balkanize and resolve to just be peaceful with each other... someone's gonna start things. And when there's a World Government? It counts as the one hyperpower, I'd say. I think there's a difference between 'biotruths' and recognizing the lessons learned from history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:When I think of Limbaugh and sex the only word that comes to my mind is "porking". I think of this because that's the only manner in which I can imagine him having sex: squealing like a sweaty pig while impotently humping a bored prostitute from behind. That's odd, when I think of Limbaugh and sex my mind immediately went to child sex tourism in the Dominican Republic.  At least we're on the same page on him requiring a prostitute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
I'm sure this has come up before but all this Limbaugh sex chat is making me hot for Bill Hicks' bit on Limbaugh and sex. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFpFO4MwHUQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Hannity just said Palestine hates Obama and liked George W. Bush. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:That's odd, when I think of Limbaugh and sex my mind immediately went to child sex tourism in the Dominican Republic. One of the black cards in Cards Against Humanity (Apples to Apples with dirty/offensive cards, basically) is "Rush Limbaugh's soft, lovely body." So yeah, that's what comes to mind for me. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Hannity just said Palestine hates Obama and liked George W. Bush. [citation needed] The Onion dot com.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Popped a pain pill I'm sweatin/Thailand, watchin sun settin/If yo bitch on foodstamps you can have her dog but if she's throwin tax breaks than I'm catchin!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Popped a pain pill I'm sweatin/Thailand, watchin sun settin/If yo bitch on foodstamps you can have her dog but if she's throwin tax breaks than I'm catchin! Gold all on my mic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:Gold all on my mic? Hell yeah. I think hip hop/GOP crossover has a pretty healthy future. You all saw how much attention Nicki Minaj got when she had two lines joking around about voting for Mitt Romney. Get Rich and laugh at other people dyin' tryin' C.R.E.A.M. (corporations rule everything around me) I mean it's a whole set of people who don't give a gently caress about other people, love guns, love making money and often comment on not wanting to pay taxes. Meet them in the middle on drugs and you've got a road to the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
^FReepers would all have coronaries and die en masse if that ever happened......I support it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Hannity just said Palestine hates Obama and liked George W. Bush. [citation needed] Wouldn't Hannity and the rest of them consider that a point in Obama's favour and a serious black mark against Bush? Since when did they care what the Palestinians thought? I know they're opposed to everything Obama does but this is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Crameltonian posted:Wouldn't Hannity and the rest of them consider that a point in Obama's favour and a serious black mark against Bush? Since when did they care what the Palestinians thought? I know they're opposed to everything Obama does but this is just ridiculous. The whole point was that Obama is a dick to Israel and Palestine still hates him and GWB was a staunch defender of Israel and Palestine still liked him more because he was respectable and Obama is a pee pee doo doo bad president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:That's odd, when I think of Limbaugh and sex my mind immediately went to child sex tourism in the Dominican Republic. This is the real reason Limbaugh could never run for President, the Secret Service wouldn't long turn a blind eye to lazy afternoons of unhurried buggery in La Romana
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
So there's this meme that the righties have been saying for a while now that Bill O'Reilly repeated yesterday. When it's pointed out that we had much higher tax rates in the past than we do now, the argument goes that those rates don't count because no one was paying those high rates to begin with because of various loopholes and deductions. My question is, if no one was paying the top rates due to all the deductions and such, then...what was the point of constantly lowering the rates throughout the decades?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So there's this meme that the righties have been saying for a while now that Bill O'Reilly repeated yesterday. When it's pointed out that we had much higher tax rates in the past than we do now, the argument goes that those rates don't count because no one was paying those high rates to begin with because of various loopholes and deductions. My question is, if no one was paying the top rates due to all the deductions and such, then...what was the point of constantly lowering the rates throughout the decades? I'd really like to see their evidence that there were significantly more deductions then than now. The "nugget" of truth to this seems be that when you include social security and medicare (i.e., payroll) taxation, the median family has seen its effective tax rate go up slightly over time (http://www.freeby50.com/2009/04/history-of-effective-tax-rate-for.html). The median family ain't the problem, though, except insofar as their wages haven't risen in pace with productivity gains. The issue is the tax on the top percentage point of earners. You can see graphs for the top marginal rate here: http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010 What you'd really need is a hard comparison of effective tax rate by income bracket over time, graphed out, and I can't find that anyone's done that yet. The closest seems to be articles like this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html Which are basically "tax deductions existed in the 1950s, so there." Tax deductions exist now, too; two thirds of American firms paid no corporate income tax at all in 2008, for example. Until they actually show a graph of effective tax rate by quintile over time stretching back to the early 1900's, this is just hot air. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So there's this meme that the righties have been saying for a while now that Bill O'Reilly repeated yesterday. When it's pointed out that we had much higher tax rates in the past than we do now, the argument goes that those rates don't count because no one was paying those high rates to begin with because of various loopholes and deductions. My question is, if no one was paying the top rates due to all the deductions and such, then...what was the point of constantly lowering the rates throughout the decades? That goes along with O'Reilly in the past having a "psychologist" on his show talking about marijuana's potential for physical addiction and why Colorado are assholes for trying to make recreational drugs more legal. Its not as if people already are misinformed enough about their health and potential health hazards, no we need O'Reilly to help them become even more misinformed. There really is no point to anything they do, they want their own way and will put up the facade of "experts say" to get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So there's this meme that the righties have been saying for a while now that Bill O'Reilly repeated yesterday. When it's pointed out that we had much higher tax rates in the past than we do now, the argument goes that those rates don't count because no one was paying those high rates to begin with because of various loopholes and deductions. My question is, if no one was paying the top rates due to all the deductions and such, then...what was the point of constantly lowering the rates throughout the decades? You're not going to win that battle with them. They're going to claim that lowering the rates made the tax code fairer because before it was only rich people who knew the tricks who got to have the low rates. By lowering the rates for "everyone," then people who aren't rich can also save money on taxes. The only way to combat these talking points is with the actual data about tax receipts versus rates over time. The tax rate is significantly lower now than it has been historically and tax receipts are extremely low as well. There's also no data that shows tax cuts lead to economic growth. In addition, the current unemployment numbers are driven primarily by the shrinking of the public sector after the financial crisis. Private sector job growth is quite healthy. It's the government jobs that aren't coming back. Bringing up these facts might be able to convince some people who aren't die hard partisans that raising taxes is the smart thing to do if you claim to care about the deficit. Someone like Bill O'Reilly, though? He doesn't give a poo poo. He shouted down Alan Colmes for daring to point out that Obama had repeatedly put entitlement cuts on the table. If he can power through something that obviously untrue then he can power through anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
redmercer posted:This is the real reason Limbaugh could never run for President, the Secret Service wouldn't long turn a blind eye to lazy afternoons of unhurried buggery in La Romana Who would Cornelius Bear vote for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:The whole point was that Obama is a dick to Israel and Palestine still hates him and GWB was a staunch defender of Israel and Palestine still liked him more because he was respectable and Obama is a pee pee doo doo bad president. And we can't possibly consider that over the past 13 years Palestinians figured out that America isn't that serious about any kind of resolution. Nope, just talk about opinion polls on specific leaders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter is the only US president that genuinely gives a poo poo about the Palestinian people. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd really like to see their evidence that there were significantly more deductions then than now. The big thing isn't the deductions or lack thereof, it's the fact corporate taxes as a share of revenue have gone from nearly a third of revenue to less than 10% in the past half century, with personal income making up the difference. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
watt par posted:The big thing isn't the deductions or lack thereof, it's the fact corporate taxes as a share of revenue have gone from nearly a third of revenue to less than 10% in the past half century, with personal income making up the difference. That's because APB 23 (APB was FASB's predecessor until FASB was created in 1973) from April 1972 allowed for the repatriation waiver loophole that a significant portion of multinational corporations use to shelter income from taxation abroad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Frankly, people thought that war was impossible after WWI as well, because of economic interdependency. It didn't work. Very few people thought that the war would last as long as it did. They thought it would be over within a few weeks. Sadly, I constantly see the exact same mentality today. How many times now have we heard people go "Eh, we'll win the war and blow up all the Iraqis/Iranians/Afghans/North Koreans in a week! America is invincible!" Anyway, to actually say something on topic, I went on a couple of long 4-5 hour road trips a week ago, and listened to a lot of right wing radio on the way. I had never listened to Mark Levin for very long before, and that guy is hilarious. Normally I can't listen to that poo poo for long, but Mark Levin is so unhinged it can be pretty entertaining. I also listened to Bill Cunningham I think it was. I had never heard of him before, and he would actually introduce himself as "Bill Cunningham the Great American" and he went on some long shouting rants about how he LOVES AMERICA and if someone attacks America then we should destroy their entire country and kill all the women and children and exterminate their entire population. He went on about how the bombing of Dresden was such a great thing and if North Korea attacks us we should wipe out the entire country. This was his solution to getting involved in long wars, and that Iraq was such a disaster because we were pussies. If only we had destroyed the whole country it wouldn't have lasted as long. That whole show was  .
Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Jimmy Carter is the only US president that genuinely gives a poo poo about the Palestinian people. I don't think you can make any realistic assessment of Obama's beliefs on the issue because even when he's fellating Israel and explicitly condemning Palestinian attacks he's still "weak on Israeli defense." Obama could probably propose an all out military strike on the West Bank and conservatives would still say he wasn't serious about defending Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
When Obama had a presser with Netanyahu they were complimenting each other's wives and kids back and forth and Obama made a joke about it being our duty to gene pool to marry better women. I like to imagine it was a crack on the racial supremacist/eugenic aspect of Zionism 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:32
|
|