|
Former Human posted:Also Rachel dodging direct questions like that was unlike her.
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Former Human posted:That was the first incident, which Bill answered quite well in her defense, but later Gillespie asked what Rachel thought of Romneycare and her answer was literally "dude you don't know me" and "leave me alone." That was pretty silly. Seriously, an all-time shittiest guest. Every time she spoke up (which was about twice, really), he jumped on her saying she had no merit and just said whatever liberals want in that "just asking questions" way. You just do not accuse other guests of being poo poo to the core like that. I haven't been watching Maher for years, but it seems new to me. The lovely thing is you can't unravel a conversation like that to show how lovely the point he's trying to make is on live tv. With quoting on a forum or snipping relevant quotes for your broadcast editorial you can. On live tv, if you can mask an accusatory fallacy with clever-enough wording, the other person is pretty much pinned down. Especially when the other person knows they shouldn't eat up 5 minutes (a naively optimistic estimate) of air time to discuss it. TL:DR: Gillespie is a huge rear end basically acting like this is his own personal Fox News program.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
Former Human posted:Yes, it was a loaded question meant to imply Rachel is a partisan shill, but that doesn't excuse her lame non-answers either. Even Bill asked if she was in favor of Romneycare and she pretended like she didn't hear him. G: "Well you should not be forced by your democratic partisanship to be forced into-" M: "I'm just trying to say a nice thing and already 'You're a hack.'" G: "That's not what I'm saying, but you will always take the side of a democrat over a republican." Yeah, of course Gillespie would never say she's a hack, just that she does simply and exactly what a hack does. And still keeping his hands clean and "unbiased" he clarified to everyone moments before that he was not a republican or interested in the subject of political bias (when bias of republicans was mentioned). It was merely coincidence that he took the  Man, I hate that guy. Edit: And he basically cued Maher to press to a new topic because he wasn't "interested" (not even making that up) and (as a libertarian) and is apparently above such petty conversations of political bias... for about 35 seconds until he popped the subject of how biased she was. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think he just brought it up the second time as a joke, "See, you could have used Romneycare as an example of a policy you liked", but she reacted too defensively instead of just saying she preferred single payer. So he's bringing up the same issue of her being a shill that she made clear she did not care for 25 minutes earlier. It's a dare to get her to try to "prove" she isn't a liberal shill and make a fool of herself presented as some kind of opportunity. If she said "Yes" she'd be the liberal shill who likes an idea if Obama co-opts it. If she said "No" she's just as much of a perfect liberal talking head as he accused her of being earlier. It's possible to act liberal if someone is paying you, but it is easier than ever for a person's beliefs to actually line up with the liberal side. The liberal agenda (though not always the liberals themselves) serves the downtrodden and aims to progress via scientific deduction over (faulty) metaphorical reductions, gut feelings, or messages from god. That sounds like what a lot of people genuinely want. Meanwhile, the conservatives have reared in all outliers via media antagonism, loyalty tests, and rampant RINO accusations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Though he's pretty knowledgeable (I was genuinely impressed when he said gas liquefaction wasn't a practical means of transport), he's long-ago fallen into the pitfall of thinking libertarianism is a party wholly independent from conservatism. That "don't have government interfere" is at all a different policy than "don't have government regulate". He said "That's not what I'm saying" 3 times that I noticed. Each time he was thinking about something differently than described, but with the exact same results. That's some kind of disjointed way of relating concepts. E: V V V JerkyBunion posted:any time he would ask her a question she didn't like SHE would make it personal. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
It was the least I've liked anything Maher-related since he was swept up in the anti-Islam movement after 9/11 (Youtube). I'm glad my stupid moments from 10 years ago that I've gotten past aren't on Youtube. I do like this clip because in it does show that reason really does eventually wear away notions like he had at the time. Edit: Watching that now is just horrible. That was such a terrible time. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Ending the drug war and decriminalizing/legalizing drugs is conservative? Libertarians smug about being above partisan politics more often than not remind me of people who say they're agnostic when someone asks if they're theist or atheist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Why is it convenient? From what I've seen of Libertarians they take a lot of outlandish, unorthodox positions that don't seem convenient. His point isn't true any more than some schoolyard bully proves everyone he picks on is gay by proposing that they cannot prove they are straight. Hell, he did actual do the whole "prove it" act on her. On the rest, I'm just gonna let it go before that guy eats up any more of my time. Suffice to say I think he acted like a complete dick in antagonizing another guest to drag defacing opinions from her out of nowhere (apparently, her point which I thought was stellar annoyed him), while dodging everyone else's accurate interpretations of what he was saying ("That's not what I'm saying.").
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It's not like he was making a baseless accusation Zogo posted:I've seen Maddow's show plenty of times and she's not a friend of the Republicans in any way shape or form from everything I've seen and heard (correct me with examples if I'm wrong). Keyser S0ze posted:Maddow got clearly rattled early in that show and basically just freaked out from then on. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Yes there is a difference and yes he did say "democratic partisanship." But you think that his accusation was baseless? I don't think that necessarily makes someone a shill/hack anyway (Maddow's wording). And that's Gillespie being "above" partisan politics. Do I think that accusation is baseless?  (Stay for Overtime and watch Gillespie be the only one stupid enough to say single-payer is a bad idea and countries with it have worse healthcare than America because all cheaper healthcare means is that you get less healthcare. Apparently he thinks every US dollar spent on healthcare actually translates into $1 in effective care for a patient with no overhead or profiteering. America #1 Yeehaw!)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Right after she objected and used the word "hack" he said "that's not what I'm saying."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I don't have either of those. I just have a VCR/DVD. My stupid TV doesn't even have the RCA jacks. But my second thought is that there are so many crappy TVs out there to buy if you don't know what to look for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Hogburto posted:It was the least I've liked anything Maher-related since he was swept up in the anti-Islam movement after 9/11 (Youtube). I'm glad my stupid moments from 10 years ago that I've gotten past aren't on Youtube. Just like Christians can (as a trend of an area and time) either appear to be calm or rabid depending on the context of where and when in history you're looking at them. Good god Gavin Newsom must have been swarmed by girls in his bachelor days. He waits his turn, but when he talks people stop and listen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Not sure if he's a complete tea party ideologue
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
Parts of the show seemed entirely unresearched, as well. Chik-Fil-A discussion went with no substance or actual background on what hate groups the owner actually monetarily sponsors and instead focusing on "is it wrong to patronize the business of a bigot?" They actually had the whole "who created The Internet" discussion which nearly gives validation to the right for even making that a debate in the first place. It's not. DARPA is responsible fro the underlying networking technologies (most importantly TCP/IP), the original infrastructure was Ma Bell's (already in-place), and Tim Berners-Lee at CERN initiated the first standard for web pages. What private industry is technologically responsible for is the Cat-5 cable (which looks quite a bit like a regular phone cord with the pairs twisted) and the ethernet standards -neither of which mattered particularly because of TCP/IP's resilience in running across varying linked network topologies. Private industry was actually late and subsidized investing in the backbone. And frankly, no company had the particular communication needs DARPA had which necessitated creating such a network. Private industry would be decades behind (if ever) in creating The Internet if we waited for it. But instead of researched or thought-out discussion, one guy credits business and one guy credits Al Gore. Both wrong, no discussion had because nobody on the panel knows a thing about it; why even bring it up? gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Aug 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
I wouldn't say he kills the discussion. More like he kidnaps it drives away with it into the middle of nowhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm really not sure which issues Maher has teeth on. I think the subjects of false equivalencies of democrats being used by republicans (and other contemporary republican talking points), separation of church and state, sexuality politics, and marijuana legalization can provoke a strong response from him, but I can't think of too many others he won't leave to the guests. He needs a good economist who isn't also a frightened turtle to come on the show with some of these republican blowhards because he is just letting them control so much of those discussions on no merit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
It was really annoying how Cupp jumped on how important Benghazi was when Bill mentioned how republicans keep arguing that the president is culpable and after everyone had ridden her clusterfuck she peeps "oh, tee-hee, I was just talking about how the state department is responsible all this time." I re-watched it. There is no confusion of what Bill was saying. Her muddying of the issue was nothing more than a knee-jerk need to validate republicans whether or not it makes sense to and she had to back out of that when she was getting called on it. Can we get an all-human panel on the show, please? No robots.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Why did Sam Harris ("philosopher") feel the need to mention on the pro-republican side that guns are an equalizer? That isn't a pro-republican side point. That point is supported by both sides -neither side is trying to take everyone's guns away. Cory Booker was right. Sam Harris was pitting the view of the right-wing vs what the right-wing says the left-wing view is. However those far-left "comin' for your guns" views don't actual represent the social intentions of any influential political groups. He didn't actually describe the strawman, but thinking that "pro-republican" point makes any sense only indicates that that's what argument it's up against. Then we waste 5 minutes of air time because nobody was sharp enough to get what Booker wanted to articulate. And his crap about how Obama's initiatives against assault weapons are worthless because assault weapons aren't the biggest source of gun crime. Apparently, you're only allowed to propose things that instantaneously solve problems without compromises (if you're Obama). No intermediate steps allowed. What, 30-round clip sizes are great for home defense? Yeah, in the post-gun-illegalization fantasy world this guy imagines where the most likely scenario for home defense involves a 40-man cannibalistic rape gangs boarding your house from atop their steel-cage-reinforced rape semitrailer. Oh, if only Obama hadn't taken away all the guns...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I thought one of his points was that it'd be preferable for the left to take a stance like that Booker was the one pushing the point of the secondary gun market problem and Harris went along with it and made the blanket statement that he supports all gun regulations the left want and then some (not sure if this was before or after his needless criticisms of Obama's tentative steps toward gun control). He was all over the place like he was trying to please everybody. I think he was more interested in selling copies of his book than having an actual discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Zogo posted:What was it exactly? Aren't there some leftists that don't want any guns in any schools? Although having more guns around kids all day everywhere as a reaction to school massacres which we have relatively few of is also pretty dumb. Guns in schools is a separate issue from broad citizen's rights gun control, however. Zogo posted:I thought he was siding more with the left than the right. He called the NRA "odious" and seemed to take an extreme left position on gun ownership. We both watched the show and it feels like we saw two different programs. Zogo posted:You believe that Obama's plans are enough? If not, then shouldn't they be up for criticism? People can try to sell their books while actually holding and supporting real political beliefs instead of shifting your political positions to try to stay in the marketable middle ground. This guy was interested in shilling, not sincere discussion. "It is always gonna be easier for career criminals to get guns" (against gun control) > Corey Booker explains that that's bullshit > vague concession that of course I am totally for gun control... "The NRA is an odious organization; I think they should just be crushed and Wayne Lapierre has... *applause* ...The problem however is Wayne Lapierre as goofy as he is makes sense when you're talking about the reality of what needs to happen when bullets are flyin'." -In other words, "I'm totally against the NRA... except on their stances with political issues." He'll attack gun control from the president, express his support of assault weapons and the need to not ban all guns (a non-issue), and as soon as pressure comes on from the left and he picks up that he's starting to appear right-wing he'll say he's for all gun control. It's easy to watch this guy a 2nd time and discern where he actually stands. He attempts to present himself as a middleground figure with broadstroke statements in support of the left that only have effect on his image. In the actual debate with specific examples, however, he consistently attacks gun control. That's the side he wants weakened. This works in reverse in his comments about Lapierre and the NRA. He says Lapierre is "goofy" (vague and meaningless), but that he's right about guns (then he states specific examples against gun control). This shallow image management of "I'm completely for/against _______, but..." actually works on Bill. I assume because he's keeping his mind on moderating the discussion and keeping it palatable for viewing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:There was a lot of talking over heads on the gun stuff, but it came down to Booker didn't have a defense for the AWB but didn't want to admit it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Gun Control is not about coming up with instant full solutions to the problem. It's about incrementally improving things. Slow or fast, it will always be a process that happens in steps meant to slow the tide of new guns into the hands of criminals in the long run. With the amount of guns already owned in the country, you can only make plans for the long-term. Results won't be immediately evident (except in making guns harder to buy via price increases from people inducing panic, heh). gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Zogo posted:True, he didn't explicitly say all of that, but I thought he was talking about and referring to situations where people would find themselves in "gun-free zones." There are many parts of the country where you can't carry a gun legally AKA "taking guns out of the equation." I read the article on his site earlier today and he mentions this aspect. This is the problem when you have a politician debating a philosopher and they're being moderated by a comedian on a strict time limit. There's a lot of room for interpretation as to who said what and what they meant. Zogo posted:Yes, but I don't see why it's being dismissed or devalued only because he clarified his position. He basically equated adherence to the second amendment as being a "religious belief." That's pretty insulting to right-wing conservative types. I really don't see how that's being a fence rider. Do you think he's lying about something? What he actually argues for and how he wants to be perceived are handled separately by him. His constant double talk is evidence enough of him lying about what he believes. Zogo posted:I do agree that solving the "gun problem" is a major conundrum for any politician not trying to offend a large portion of the country at any given time. However, I don't think the criticism was pointless. For a few weeks I've seen MSNBC and Fox News be misleading and prattle on as if Obama just shutdown gun manufacturing in the US. There's a lot of deluded people out there that have been given false hope. A prime example of this peculiar duality would be those buyback events where they collect a few hundred typically older weapons in exchange for gas cards, tickets to some event or some other kind of barter. Now there's been lives saved from doing that but in the grand scheme of things comparing a few thousand guns reclaimed to the 4+ million that will be manufactured/sold in the US this year. Wouldn't some be falsely placated by that? A smaller step toward gun control that is later found to be acceptable may be more effective toward gun control later than a measure that will only incur huge blowback to the cause.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Zogo posted:So in certain settings they're "out of the equation" and not allowed to be the "equalizer." And guns don't simply fulfill the role of "equalizer." That would be some high one-sided praise for them indeed. Zogo posted:He said he believed that gun owners should be licensed like pilots are licensed though. If something like that was enacted that would be a much more restrictive and rigorous process to go through. Isn't that an extremely left position? What do you not get about him debating one way and managing his image another way? You seem to not comprehend that, because you raise a point that is a clear example of it and somehow can't recognize it. I read that blog post you linked. That dude is decidedly against gun control and does the same stuff in print that I point out from his live discussion. Scroll to the blue block of text and read his comments above and below it -the dismissive, condescending, and offended language he uses in response to a modern gun control editorial without actually addressing its content, followed by praise of the article's criticism in the comment section that he attributes directly to the NRA. He attempts to dress it up, but the message he's trying influence people with (separate from the messages he uses to influence how people perceive him personally) is reactionary. Zogo posted:True, but what percentage of US citizens fall under "the strongest gun control" bloc? Is that gun confiscation for non-police/military or even further than that? Zogo posted:Let's say all of these plans go through. What is the next iteration after that? Booker was citing some kind of stat but I couldn't find exactly what he was referring to. Anyway, if you're taken in by this guy, fine. I think you should be able to recognize his methods when they're pointed out, but if you can't, whatever. I don't want to keep discussing it with you because there's nothing left to say. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Zogo posted:What was condescending in the article? I read that stuff and it just seemed like he was stating stark, sobering and disturbing facts. Yes, you're right I wouldn't label him into a box as being a typical "left/liberal/anti-gun democrat", he's talking way too abstractly about this subject to fit within any neat and tidy "right vs. left" duopoly. Anyway, anything I've got left to say on the matter would either be repeating myself or otherwise covering old ground, so I feel like this is "until next time" (Friday).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
I think a lot more right-wingers would have watched his SOTUs in his first term, all hyped-up on their "we've got to stop him in 2012!" juice and enthused that it's apparently now appropriate to yell that he's a liar during his speeches (even if you're only yelling at the tv). Now that that's over... I expect this to be a much mellower term. 
gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
The Obama fault-finding never ends. The whole panel agrees that Obama said just the right thing and in the right place (and about Israel-Palestine -of which who even knew there was a "right" thing to say) ...so the rightwing columnist must of course add "well he should have done it earlier (paraphrasing)." Holy crap shut up, man. I'm sure there is an audience of people who will mistake never-ending follow-ups to any news story of "...but how does that relate to Obama being bad" as insightful and that catering to them on a national level pays well, so what are you doing wasting your valuable time on this show? The happy ending is that guy did shut up pretty well when he realized people would be willing to engage him in debate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Here's an article quote:At the federal level, where the highest tax bracket is nearly 40 percent, the "rich" provide over 70 percent of all income tax revenue. That's a big number. ...Oh, wait, that's not what that would mean and that "70%" is just a meaningless number smoke to blow up people's asses so they forget the number that actually has any meaning is under 40%? Awesome. So he's consciously aware that he's manipulating people into believing what he knows is false and is a complete shitbag. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
God, I could listen to Steve Moore repeat republican talking points verbatim in the face of arguments that outright defeat them all day long. loving idiot. And he needs to stop talking about science because he can only go about 1 sentence into what should be a full paragraph before he runs out of things to say. Goddamn, that kid was awesome. I can take the yelling, bickering, and denial. The low point of the show was Huntsman expressing her enthusiasm at the older people around her (at that moment) dying. Holy loving poo poo, show a slight shred of tact. Maher remarked about it 4 seconds or so later (stunned) in the middle of Moore's rambling: "Great." And did anyone else catch Steve Moore saying we need the flat tax? Why the gently caress would anyone listen to this guy talk about economics? The problem with the flat tax is it just isn't flat enough. Sure, poors would have to pay more so that millionaires (who surely receive no benefit or use from public resources beyond what a poor would receive) get to pay less, but the wealthy would still pay more. I say divide all governmental spending by 314 million and issue everyone their identical tax bill from that. If we all pay the same, it will surely get no fairer or flatter than that. Then we can finally eliminate the concept of upward social mobility / the "American Dream." gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
Stockman struck me as a guy who at least believed what he was saying until we got to the point where it was presented that tipped minimum wage in California was higher and none of the firings he said would be necessary happened (after it was already pointed out how little the increase even affect businesses in the first place) and he acted like the subject he had just been arguing his crap about at length was suddenly a brand-new subject no one had ever discussed before and should be researched. Learn to say "I guess I was wrong about that," republicans. I'm sure we can all appreciate his view that politics is corrupted by private interests, but without simply disregarding all or everything you don't like about government past, present, and future as corrupt and having the answer to everything being "you shouldn't trust government to do that" or "Those people (you know who) are the corruption." (Some) Republicans were quick to federal corruption and the "need" to prevent any action by the federal government ...as soon as a black democrat took office. I'm sure by the time the next republican is in the oval office, they'll be of the opinion that it's time for the federal government to take charge.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Stockman's thinking is baffling, even though I like a lot of what he said overall. Do you think the problem is so big that only government can really fix it? No. Then how should we fix it? Taxes.Whaaaaat? He was well-mannered and interesting, though. I wouldn't mind seeing him back, except I think he'd say all the same things about crony-capitalism all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Bill really wants people to agree with him that Islam is a worse religion and there is no point behind that urge he has. He's wrong as well because it's never as simple as a single cause, single factor; correlation therefore causation. Especially when you're factoring in statistics from the middle east. Also, not every shooting is a massacre -one shooter in an enclosed space with potential victims. It's a hypothetical he keeps bringing up and it has no place (besides that it's the minority of shootings). "Wouldn't it be great if some hero with a gun shot the crazy shooter?" Yeah, it would be great, but what the hell are you talking about? Nobody is attempting to confiscate the guns of all law-abiding citizens, so what the hell is he talking about? He's gives a point to the pro-gun side on an issue that is just nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
It's amazing how people behave differently when they feel they can get away with it or they feel it's acceptable. If mobs could form as effectively in the states as they can in conditions in the middle east, I think you can imagine who would be dragging who chained to the back of pick-up trucks adorned with confederate flags on a nearly daily basis. Directly comparing America to the middle east to prove anything about people is stupid. Let's not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
I would have thought it went without saying, in fact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
The weird thing is that he understood and agreed that most muslims are good people like anyone else and he still feels the need to associate the religion with the violence as closely as possible, instead of the social underpinnings. Same with the other point I mentioned in my earlier comments on the episode about how he brings up that almost entirely irrelevant pro-gun scenario. I wanna say we might see Maher start reasoning these things in a more complete scope, but he's been an Islamaphobe since he was on ABC. And he argued with those 2 guests over those 2 subjects. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:I'm saying that to the casual observer, even muslims in more economically stable countries seem to react more aggressively towards things like the Danish cartoonists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
I think that guy meant to say we "bend them over backwards". Seriously, we treat the detainees at Gitmo swell? The same ones we're holding indefinitely without trial or recognition of human rights and have been shown to be unaccountable in our treatment and torture of in our island military prison housed off American soil for prisoners taken from thousands of miles away? gently caress that guy. Nobody of decent character (a person who cares about the well-being of all people, not just people you personally know or identify with) would deflect concern for well-being of the prisoners with pride of the guards in defense of Gitmo. But was a guard, so the guards are all wonderful. He was there in '04, so in '03 was when all the bad stuff happened and then it ground to a halt because you didn't hear about that stuff as much after that. Might have had to do with soldiers and veterans being punished for talking or maybe Gitmo just became so wonderful.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
The panel discussed every issue without any insight or depth of knowledge like they were solely educated by pundits from news-based entertainment channels they they would all ironically agree are ruining politics and public discourse. Cupp was in fine form arguing bullshit. It's easy to claim other people aren't "informed" on a subject when the subject you're raising is a complete fantasy no one could be educated on, like the dramatic decline in mass shootings over the past 30 years. I brushed off the TI-86 and put in the mass shootings per year from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2. The linear regression says we're going UP .085887097 mass shootings per year between 1982 and 2012. Look at the past 10 years and mass shootings per year increases at .42727 per year. Please stop getting "informed" (I assume from newletters and chain-emails), Ms. Cupp. Please get a real education on things, instead. The Tea Party-IRS discussion was pathetic. They heard the IRS was "targeting" the Tea Party so they talked about how the IRS was targeting the Tea Party. ...Any 501(c)(4) should be looked into if they appear to support a political party as their primary goal (such as implied by associating with that party by name) as they are only supposed to be involved in politics as a means to a specific social welfare end that they have as a goal. As well, only 75 of the 298 groups that were given requested additional info from were were associated with the Tea Party. Screening all groups for partisanship and fraud isn't targeting. The Tea Party wasn't targeted, they just cry the loudest. The IRS was going it's job. It just didn't do it properly in that it should have allowed them tax exempt status, then suspended it subject to an audit as per proper procedure. And Haass refusing to acknowledge that any of Maher's examples indicated republicans acting in the interests of their own game of political football rather than the country's interests was just staggering.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:
Although I'd love to see the actual data set behind your graph. The link I provided cites theirs. Tables are preferable to images edited-over multiple times and your data isn't well-defined. E: And you'll notice that instead of simply "falsely claiming a trend" I gave actual numbers that showed a change not significant to support any rhetoric -but perfect to put down hers. gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 20:49 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 20:39
|
|
