Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›14 »

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I'm new to this thread. I have a question regarding a Rush broadcast and a caller that one of my closest friends tried to use in a political discussion after the election.

The story goes like this: We both voted for Obama in 2008. Now he says the O administration has been a "dismal failure and if I can't see that, then he doesn't know what to say." Well, I agree about the dismal failure, but for a host of different reasons (the usual list of reasons why liberals are upset with the POTUS that everyone here knows e.g. no public option, non-transparency, drones, etc; as opposed to "the economy," "Fast and Furious," or the now persistent -in some circles-"Benghazi-gate").
So an O-supporting friend of mine sent to a group of us the picture of Big Bird with the "Who's Unemployed, Now? Biotch?" picture.

Well it set this guy off on how "if the next four years are like the last four, we're all hosed." I asked him what he meant, and talked about the improvements in the economy. He, despite posting a rather enlightening research article on the growth of the debt under Obama and how most of it was either a) not the results of policies he initiated or b) necessary spending due to the recession; would not get the point of the research he himself dug up, nor give credit for the improvements I cited for him. But that's not what really gets to me. I tried to explain that the tragedy in Benghazi was (as usual) being used cynically by the right-wing to heap scorn on the administration as a political play two months before a Presidential Election using fake moral outrage. I tried to explain that there was nothing we could have done, realistically, to stop it. I explained why it wasn't a cover up.

What really bothered me was his outright condemnation that Benghazi was the worst fuckup a president has ever pulled (I tried to remind him of the CIA bombarding Bush II with warnings about 9/11/2001 but somehow that didn't move him at all) and his parting shot was like this:

"Watch this if you're ready to have your eyes and ears opened to some REAL facts about Benghazi: (link to anonymous caller 'Doug from San Antonio' on Rush Limbaugh) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljKmmZyCiw

When I told him I was not going to entertain the derision of an anonymous caller that Rush Limbaugh put on the air, he told me that this was proof that I am partisan and closed to the truth. When I told him about Issa's PUBLIC kangaroo-court/witch-hunt and how it (I believe) publicly outed a CIA installation and published the names of the Lybians who were helping the US on the National stage, thus embarrassing the US further and putting our allies in danger, he ignored me. No, much worse, he told me that he's been reading about the CIA and the documents released after 9/11 so I shouldn't even talk about the CIA, because he has knowledge I do not, and "anything released by the CIA is a joke." I saw the first :tinfoil:

from him since he said it was "too convenient" that Obama would release his Birth Certificate and announce the death of OBL in the same week, therefore he didn't believe OBL was killed by SEALs until he saw "proof."

Don't write this guy off, he means well.

But was anything ever released about the story told by 'Doug from San Antonio'? I linked a CBS article showing that the In-extremis team was not an option to stop Benghazi but he's stopped talking to me, now. He'll settle down after Obama's win sinks in, but I'm afraid he won't let this Benghazi thing go. I say it was a tragedy that we had no power to stop, and that the President's speeches on 9/12 and on proved there is no cover-up. He says that the Whitehouse absolutely failed and could have done more, and apparently his evidence is from Rush's caller.

Is there a thread about Benghazi that I can read, or can someone here help me with sources about 'Doug from San Antonio's' claims, or anything else I could cite to help bring my beloved but misguided friend back to reality?

Thanks to those of you who took the time to read this. I'm sorry if it's out of place. I tried Googling but didn't find anything I could count on to sway him, if anything will.

I'm sad.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2012 21:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:32

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I heard a Terry Gross (probably) interview that kinda blew my mind. I saw it as :airquote:

giving both sides equal time :airquote:

but it was a show about ALEC. They explained what ALEC was and what ALEC did. They let a guy tear down ALEC for the backwards, destructive, exclusionary, corrupting influence it is. Then they had some top guy from ALEC on to say that was all bullshit.

For me, it pissed me off on my ride to work and left me feeling :stare:

# ¿ Nov 15, 2012 13:25

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

sean10mm posted:

It's probably not Terry Gross since she's away from the show giving some kind of award right now, and her stand-in yesterday did an interview about some kind of horrible mental illness caused by an autoimmune disease.

Plus she's made Bill O'Reilly cry and run off her show, so basically she's a secular saint at this point.

It wasn't that recent. It was probably last Spring or early summer.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2012 20:53

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I just received a barrage of IMs from a co-worker regarding the "exodus of wealthy" from the US. I'm sure you all know the drill, as it's been big news out of France recently. I couldn't think of anything better to say than, "Fine, let them go."
I would love to read an earnest discussion of this topic. What about those who leave but don't renounce their citizenship? What about those who do? Where is there to go? The Bahamas? What might they miss?

I invite any and all thoughts on this topic, as I've never really given it much credence (Leave the US? To go where?)

What are your thoughts?

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 01:33

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I should specify that his "plan" is that they should leave without renouncing citizenship, to avoid the exit tax.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 01:49

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Apropos of nothing, and in spite of his abhorrent policies, I feel compelled to say, "God drat we have a President who looks awesome with a shotgun."

That's a loving cool picture.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2013 22:36

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Would a shotgun like that have ports on the sides? I don't know much about guns but I figured ports are usually pointing up so the vented gases help keep the muzzle from rising. Anyone?

I've looked closely at the picture, I can't tell if those ports are part of a side-by-side system or just all across the top half of the barrel.
Actually I feel stupid even looking into it. This is absolutely stupid, isn't it?

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 4, 2013

# ¿ Feb 4, 2013 00:38

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Warcabbit posted:

I do hope my educational asides on shooting are useful. I don't care to discuss the politics of the matter, simply the practicalities and facts for the better education of people who may not be so familiar.

That's cool, I was looking for that kind of information.
I am still absolutely floored by the conspiracies that some people have. Hillary has a blood clot in her head. Oh, how convenient! There's no consideration of, "Why would you lie about something that could so easily be discovered?"

Obama suddenly produces a picture of him "shooting skeet?!" "Oh, this is a clear photoshop because I can tell by the smoke and the fact that there's not a skeet stand over his shoulder and you don't see any recoil it's another fake... like his Presidency!!"

It boggles my mind. I just lost my best and longest friend from High School (Class of 1989) because the Facebook echo chamber taught him that Obama watched live video in glee while "the greatest tragedy since 9/11" took place in Benghazi. When I tried to talk him off the ledge he (again, my best friend of all those years) told me he was sick of me always "having to be right" and "propagandizing for Obama" when "the truth is right under my nose;" and if I ever challenge him on his facts again "the repercussions are totally on me." And that was it. Relationship: severed.
He's completely lost to me now and, while it breaks my heart, I'm more concerned for his mental health than our friendship.

I'm sure he buys SkeetGate 100%. Because Obama something something.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2013 07:31

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Unzip and Attack posted:

I know it probably won't make you feel any better, but know that you didn't do anything wrong.

Well, actually it does. I mean, I am fully aware of the irony that this is an echo-chamber of sorts as well. I'm not a hypocrite.

You know, the week after Obama got his long-form Birth Certificate revealed, skewered D-Trump on a spit at the correspondents' dinner while Zero Dark Thirty was getting in motion; and then announced the death of OBL and the gathering of all of the intel from his compound, my ex-friends' initial response was, "I'll believe it when I see the body. It's just too convenient." I asked him, after Hillary had her MRI, if he remembered that stance and whether he'd finally accepted that we got OBL or was it still too convenient? It didn't help one iota, but at least I realized that there had been warning signs.

It's just awful because when we were younger he was a sweet, reasonable dude and really, what's poisoned him, is Rush and Facebook. I am telling myself that the old kid I knew is gone, and all that's left is a 41 year old attention whore whom I shouldn't want in my life. But I have other people on the other side of the aisle who I can fight with all day every day and, with few exceptions, we always laugh it off at the end, because we both know we're not going to change each others' minds and it's an exercise in debate that forces me to learn what I want to talk about. You'd think it would be simple as FOX and Rush and the like make arguments with holes you could drive an oil rig through; and yet I have yet to get anywhere with any of them.

I've finally started making a point to catch Maddow's show and occasionally the polling gives me hope for the future. Meanwhile, the GOP state legislatures continue the breakneck race to destroy every advance our society has won.

This poo poo gets me down. The slight decline of FOX News is welcome, but it's not even enough for me to feel smug about.

The amazing amount of mass shootings (and the insane "false flag" accusations that come after) are what's really left me at a complete loss.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2013 10:10

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Note: I'll move this to a different thread or anywhere else if there's a more appropriate place for this.

I'm gonna need help re: Oil companies and the taxes they do or do not pay.

Today I received a nearly year old article for "debate":

quote:

How much Tax does Big Oil Actually Pay?

By Charles Kennedy | Tue, 17 April 2012 22:17 | 1

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.

President Obama is intent on cutting the tax breaks that are handed out to the oil and gas majors. He has now made several attempts to pass a law in congress that will remove all tax breaks in the oil sector, and bring in an extra $25 billion in tax revenue over ten years, but each time congress throws out the proposal.

Last year ExxonMobil announced a net income of $41 billion, Chevron a net income of $27 billion, and ConocoPhillips $12.4 billion. They were Americas three largest profit makers, and hugely helped by the high oil prices. Obama has a point when he states that they don�t need the tax breaks, �it�s not like these are companies that can�t stand on their own.�

There are three main points that the president wants to address:

1. That oil companies are able to get credit on their U.S. income tax bills to compensate for the billions in income taxes they pay to oil-rich nations around the world.
2. That oil companies are allowed to deduct from taxable income some of the costs incurred in exploring for oil and drilling the wells.
3. That the oil companies� receive a domestic manufacturing tax deduction of 6% of the value of oil and gas they produce in the United States.

But on closer inspection of the taxes actually paid by big oil, it may be that congress is correct; the oil companies need these tax breaks (or more the case is that they deserve them).

In 2011 the three oil giants mentioned above paid more income tax than any other American corporation. ExxonMobil paid $27.3 billion in income tax, Chevron paid $17 billion, and ConocoPhillips paid $10.6 billion.

These huge sums gave the companies equally huge effective tax rates. ExxonMobil�s tax rate was 42.9%, Chevron�s was 48.3%, and ConocoPhillips� was 41.5%. These figures are higher than the US federal statutory rate of 35%, which is the highest tax rate in the developed world.

Income tax does not even represent half of the total taxes paid. Last year Exxon also recorded more than $70 billion in sales taxes and other duties.

Sure, it is unlikely that the public will throw their support behind big oil; in fact a recent survey found that only 9% of respondents thought corporations paid too much in taxes, while 67% thought they paid too little. You are likely to hear more and more protests about the level of tax oil companies are paying from now until Election Day. The group, Citizens for Tax Justice, are complaining that ExxonMobil are only paying tax rates of 13% on its US profits, but this is to compensate for the huge tax bills it faces elsewhere around the world, such as in Angola where it pays 70% income tax. Like every U.S. multinational, Exxon gets tax credits that offset their U.S. tax liability by the amount of tax paid to other countries. Maybe that doesn�t seem fair, but nor is it fair to remove these tax credits from oil companies alone, if the credits are to go, they must go across the board. A move that could see some large companies decide to leave US soil.

Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation explains that it all �goes to show that what�s really behind this idea is the desire to extract revenue from a captive company in the belief that higher taxes won�t affect their behavior.�

The argument may still be that the oil companies can afford to pay more tax, but they shouldn�t have to. Yes their net incomes are high, but their revenues are huge. Exxon�s revenues were $486 billion and Chevron�s were $254 billion, which equates to an average net margin of just 10%. Compare that with the $33 billion that Apple earned in 2011 on $128 billion in revenues and Microsoft�s $23 billion income from $72 billion of sales, giving them margins of 26% and 32% respectively. At the same time Apple only paid an average tax rate of 25%, and Microsoft a positively tiny 16%.

Why do we not hunt these technology giants and demand more tax from them?

The only takeaway from this article that I was supposed to learn was, "Exxon paid $27B in taxes."

I responded with the all-too-obvious, "Why are you quoting me stuff from a year ago about 2011 taxes? From OILPRICE.COM Deputy Editor Charles Kennedy? Should I not suspect any bias or agenda here?

And I provided the following two links, which just, for me, obfuscate the whole matter. The above article claims Exxon paid this very very high effective tax rate, while the others below seem to say the opposite. I am not sophisticated enough to suss out the details. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm risking enough citing ThinkProgress with this guy, I need to understand this issue better with better sources to put in front of him (for him to ignore... hey, I'm just trying to do my due diligence here.)

(Sorry for the huge quotations, just wanted to save you the trouble of browsing away.)

quote:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/01/news/companies/exxon-mobil-profit/
Exxon Mobil profit is just short of record
By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney February 1, 2013: 9:39 AM ET
Exxon Mobil earnings rose in 2012, but fell just short of record corporate profit.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Exxon Mobil just missed setting a company -- and world -- record for annual profit in 2012.
The No. 1 U.S. oil company posted full-year earnings of $44.9 billion. While that was up 9% from 2011, it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company, the $45.2 billion Exxon Mobil earned in 2008.

Exxon Mobil earned nearly $10 billion in the last three months of the year, up 6% from a year earlier.

Gas prices rose throughout 2012, reaching a record annual average of $3.60 a gallon for regular gas, according to AAA -- although the peak fell short of the one-day record of $4.114 a gallon set in July 2008.

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500) outpaced earnings at the second-most profitable U.S. company, Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500), which earned $41.7 billion in the latest fiscal year that ended in September. But Apple's earnings rose much faster than Exxon Mobil, climbing 61% from the previous fiscal year. In January, Exxon Mobil recaptured the title of the world's most valuable company when its market capitalization topped Apple.

Exxon Mobil's annual revenue edged down by $4.1 billion to $482.3 billion.

Shares of Exxon Mobil rose in pre-market trading on the report.

...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/01/1525441/exxon-chevron-2012-profit/?mobile=nc

Exxon, Chevron Made $71 Billion Profit In 2012 As Consumers Paid Record Gas Prices
By Rebecca Leber on Feb 1, 2013 at 10:33 am

While 2012 might not be a banner year for Big Oil profits, it wasn�t a bad one either. With just BP left to announce 2012 earnings, Big Oil earned well over $100 billion in profits last year, while the companies benefit from continued taxpayer subsidies. Average gas prices also hit a record high last year, showing how a drilling boom may help oil companies� profit margins, but not consumers� wallets.

ExxonMobil � now the most valuable company in the world, passing Apple � earned $45 billion profit in 2012, a 9 percent jump over 2011. Meanwhile, Chevron earned $26.2 billion for the year. In the final three months of the year, the companies earned $9.95 billion and $7.2 billion respectively.

Here are the highlights of how Exxon and Chevron spend their earnings:

ExxonMobil

Exxon received $600 million annual tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.

Exxon�s oil production was down 6 percent from 2011.

In fourth quarter, Exxon bought back $5.3 billion of its stock, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.

Exxon�s federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans.

The company spent $12.97 million lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.

Exxon is moving ahead with a project to develop the tar sands in Canada.

Chevron:

In October, Chevron made the single-largest corporate donation in history. Chevron dropped $2.5 million with the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC to elect House Republicans.

The bulk of Chevron�s federal contributions came from the super PAC donation, for a total of $3.87 million for the 2012 cycle. 85 percent went to Republicans.

Chevron spent $9.55 million lobbying Congress in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Chevron paid 19 percent U.S. taxes last year (half of the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent), and received an estimated $700 million in annual tax breaks last year.

Chevron was fined $1 million for a refinery fire that sent 15,000 Richmond, California residents to the hospital. Though the company faces $10 million in medical expenses, Chevron earns it back in a couple of hours.

With Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips reporting $35 billion in combined profit in 2012, BP is the last company left to announce its profits for the year.

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Feb 25, 2013

# ¿ Feb 25, 2013 09:21

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

BiggerBoat posted:

It really, really is cynicism, paranoia and crassness built into some horrible marketing and advertising mechanism that works way better than I wish it would. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. Words are filling in my head faster than I can type them in a way that makes any sense at all.

It's just a dark, ugly, nasty and shameless way to make a living; spewing a message that is in no way altruistic, principled or based upon anything than taking advantage of the most naive and gullible amongst us. As has been pointed out before, it's a lot like what televangilists and infomercials do. It burns my rear end like loving napalm to listen to these opportunistic creeps advocate the suspension of habeas corpus, wrap themselves in the American flag and claim to love the constitution and the bible while willfully ignoring at least half of both of them because it's sticky, inconvenient and bad for business.

Also, what McDowell said. The conservative persecution complex has no loving limits. They openly advocated for fascism for 8 loving years under Bush and the second a democrat was elected they suddenly decided to worry about their freedom. I'm sorry about the word salad. I feel like I'm posting like Sarah Palin. It's just that the anger I experience listening to these assholes, and realizing how many people take them seriously, leaves me wondering where to start with it all.

We don't even know who did this bombing, or why and we're just beginning to figure out how. It sickens me to the core of my stomach to know that that fat loving jackass is actually deep down happy about it while claiming to be a patriot. Rush Limbaugh gives a rats rear end who bombed Boston or why.

If it makes you feel any better (no reason why it should, I know), I feel this way pretty much all the time now. And to make matters worse, the right isn't even skewering Obama for the things they should be, like this:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/obama_signs_partial_repeal_of_stock_act-224019-1.html?pos=hln

quote:

Obama Signs Partial Repeal of STOCK Act
Tweet
Email email

By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff
April 15, 2013, 4:44 p.m.

President Barack Obama signed a partial repeal of the STOCK Act on Monday, with the White House citing national security concerns in canceling a planned online database of investment information of top congressional staffers and administration employees.

�Both houses of Congress passed this bill unanimously and it was not done in a vacuum,� Press Secretary Jay Carney said. �Congress changed the online posting provision only after a panel of experts from the National Academy of Public Administration studied this issue and issued a report recommending indefinite suspension,� raising national security, law enforcement and personal security concerns.

However, advocates of the legislation � notably Public Citizen and the Sunlight Foundation � had ripped both the repeal of the online database as a blow to accountability and the way it was passed without debate in either the House or the Senate.

While some of the information will still be available to the public, people will have a much more difficult time accessing it without a searchable online database.

Public Citizen had urged a veto, but on April 12 the Justice Department said in a related court filing that the president would sign the bill.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2013 01:48

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Can you buy insurance on the exchange at subsidized rates if you are employed and your employer offers a plan? My company offers a plan but the deductions are horrible and the cost is prohibitive. I thought if your employer offered... anything... you were stuck with it, and not eligible for any subsidy (I make less than 4X poverty level for a single guy so the subsidy would be very welcome.)

I'm still hosed, aren't I? Just not as hosed as everybody else.

# ¿ May 21, 2013 22:31

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKPXo0ytRZM

Megyn Kelly's take on Erickson's bullshit.

I don't watch her, I usually find her abhorrent; but I have to admit that when she cited offspring of interracial marriages being 'biologically inferior,' I was wondering if she would reference Obama. I thought, "She can't. That's giving him credit, and you cannot do that on FOX News!"

And then she did.

Color me stunned. I wonder what kind of blow-back she'll get from the Tea Baggers for that one?

# ¿ May 31, 2013 21:10

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Never.More posted:

Right but that was the whole point. The issue was that Congress wanted to raise the debt celling (amount of money we can spend) and the Republicans said no. I happen to agree with the Republicans (which I know will shock the hell out of the people reading this thread). To people claiming that government finances dont work the same on the personal level, I have to disagree with that. I have read the various theories on it. I have read other economists who say it is an issue and ones you guys are bringing up who say it is not. Given that I have two sides (both theoretically educated in their fields) saying two completely different things, its time to take a step back and apply some logic. We spend more than we take in, we already have a debt. The debt is very large. Saying its not an issue and dont worry because we can pay it off in the future doesnt work for me. I strongly believe that a lot of conservatives feel the same way. That is why it is an issue for the Republicans. Its an illustration of why I posted you need to hear two sides of the story originally.

You are quite right the Republics basically held the Congresss at gun point over the debt celling. Why? The easy answer for the left is because "they are idiots or they hate poor people". Neither of which is true. The Republicans honestly fear that we are digging ourselves into an economic grave that our children or their children will have to face. Every year the Congress raises the debt celling effectively allowing them to write bigger checks. The Republics finally said enough is enough, we will refuse to allow this continue and are going to force the debate on financial cuts that balance the budget. That is at least the conservative view point. I very much doubt the left will agree, but they need to at least listen to it and consider it.

Ironically the same basic "battle lines' are how we ended up in sequestration. Even once both sides agreed cuts had to be made, neither could agree on what those cuts where so we ended up with the rather drastic across the board cut we have right now. I actually believe it is a good thing long term. It seriously sucks yes, but hopefully it can show us we can figure out ways to do more with less.

These Republicans you speak of, who bemoan the debt and threaten to default on the money we already owe... have you ever looked at what happens to the deficit and the debt when they are fully in charge?

# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 00:48

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I'm 41. I became politicized when Obama ran his first campaign. I admit it: I bought into his promises like "transparency in gov't,' retreat of executive power, reforms.
I feel as though I have learned my lesson (those things may not be possible) but I also have watched the shitshow that was the 2012 RNC primary. I have watched obvious facts flipped over into lies and used as talking points (on both sides, but mostly the GOP side), I've seen brinksmanship and flat-out evil become the norm. And I've matured to realize that none of this is actually new.

I weep for this country and a I cheer that my nieces and nephews want to fix this.

I have hope. I just don't have hope for my lifetime. I live in NC which ... you know.

P.S. - I vote.

P.P.S. - Never.More never addressed my question of what happens to the US Deficit and Debt when the GOP is in charge.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2013 04:38

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

That graph showing how SNAP has the best return on the dollar, is that in this thread? I've gone back a bunch of pages and tried Google but the one I saw here at SA was the best.
Little help?

Found it here at MediaMatters. Not sure my GOP pal is gonna buy it.

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 20, 2013

# ¿ Jun 20, 2013 22:21

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Is this community too high-brow and too sensitive to call a oval office a oval office?

Oh sure, it's a specific honorific for only a certain gender (except when it's not) but do we have to be so sensitive?

Sarah Palin is the very model of a oval office, and I think that on a comedy website we should be able to call a oval office a oval office without soul-searching.

Every one of you who thinks Palin falls short of the label, "oval office," can name at least three other people (not counting me) who deserve the label.

gently caress it, call me a oval office, too if you want to.

Sticks and stones. Palin is one of the cuntiest of cunts.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 08:48

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Hey, thanks for all the great replies!

You know who else I think are cunts? This is merely a partial list:

Sean Hannity
Michelle Bachmann
Rush Limbaugh
Gretchen Carlson
Scott Walker
This certain woman at my job who annnoys the poo poo out of me,
Lars Ulrich
Ann Coulter (although it may be intentional)
Governer McRory

Welcome to a whole new usage of the dreaded C-word! Set yourself free!

Now, being called goony by goons, that really ticks me off.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 18:56

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

HootTheOwl posted:

What a wondrous future you live in, where oval office has shed it's womanly origins and has transcended being insulting and insulting to women to just insulting.

I, who lack your freedom, will just have to resort to using various combinations of poo poo and a noun. Shitheel.

Well, sorry about the derail (honestly, I should have known better), but to end it allow me to note that not all uses of the dreaded C-word are either a) gender-specific or b) even denigrating. There are places (mostly) outside the US where the dreaded C-word is used very commonly as a term of endearment or a catch-all for friends and enemies alike. Context is important! (No, really.)

O, and to whomever asked, all the faggots I know personally are awesome people and I adore them.

And you know something, sometimes I dislike someone so intensely that no other word will do. And I think that's ok! If that makes me deplorable to you or anyone else, I'm ok with that, too.

To sum up: I think everyone can agree on Lars Ulrich.

Please, let's now return to discussing the Right Wing Media. If you have PMs, please send your derision to me directly and let the thread move on.

How is the Right Wing Media responding to the live-blogging of the George Zimmerman trial today?

edit: Day One is over, Day Two begins tomorrow @ 9am. I've been following the live blog at HLN.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 21:59

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Neremworld posted:

And the context was that you threw a screaming fit... God drat what the gently caress.

I what?
I re-read my post. I asked the question and yes, I defended the use of a word. Yes, I even used it. I assert my right to use it, if I deem it appropriate.
I guess I should have expected some amount of pearl-clutching and couch-fainting at the notion; but I have yet to approach anything like a "screaming fit."

quote:

See what's great is that that's exactly what happened and Dr. Faustus became literally offended over that happening.

I was not (and still am not) "literally" offended over "that happening." I just find it passing strange that some SA members could be so vehemently against the "salty language," just considering the nature and history of the website and forums, but...

quote:

Also my mom would literally rise from her grave and drag me down to hell.

I've made a good-faith effort to get the thread back on track. Between the Fisher case "ruling" from SCOTUS today and the Zimmerman live-blogging, there ought to be some craziness from the Right Wing Media by now. Does anyone have an example? I don't listen to the radio except 40 minutes of NPR during my commute. I wanna read about what Rush had to say about the poor white girl who couldn't get into a school because of inferior blacks.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 23:58

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Protocol 5 posted:

Hey guys, what does any of this bullshit have to do with right wing media?

I derailed the thread, it's my fault. For the second time, I apologize.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2013 00:19

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I live in NC and I have seen the horrors that I NEVER thought would visit this state.

What I have yet to see is the dystopian results of these new policies.

gently caress it, I can't even bring myself to feel sorry for TX.

We're going down the hole here. The only thing I can hope to hold out for is a rebound. And gerrymandering has hosed that to DC and back.

I guess I shouldn't complain, because we weren't the first. Just the worst.

I want to say that the populace of this state will rebel in 2014, but I lived through 2010 and I hold out no hope.

Someone hold me. I wanted to Occupy. I wanted to rage against the GOP machine when Prop One passed. I want to stop them before they frack this state to pieces. But the damage is done. Teachers: not wanted or welcomed. Taxes: Not fair in the least (sales taxes hurt the poor but NC will NOT raise sales taxes on YACHTS. YES, YACHTS!)

And, the poo poo cherry on the poo poo cake, Voter ID laws that will make the gerrymandering look like a tender caress.

gently caress this country, gently caress this state, gently caress the GOP, gently caress the Dems for having nothing to counter with.

Someone make me feel better without saying, "Suicide won't hurt."

# ¿ Aug 13, 2013 09:53

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

quote:

Herman Cain said:
There was no bureaucrat or liberal journalist standing around telling us to think of ourselves as poor, so we didn�t.

As if any right-wing "journalist" would tell them if they were? WTF is this poo poo?

# ¿ Aug 14, 2013 01:39

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Typical Pubbie posted:

Cenk goes all broheim on the dumbest guy I know, Orson Scott Card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZcpJXVBftE

Thanks for posting this! I missed the original post and only caught the quotation above, but decided to see how out of control Card has become.
This isn't the kind of journalism (or maybe I should say, "journalism,") that I typically like because of all the name calling. That said, given the quotations cited in the piece, Orson really is a gigantic douchechill (there I go with the name-calling) who is completely detached from reality.

I loved Ender's Game as a kid, and I can even read it now, knowing all the controversy surrounding it, and still enjoy it for what it felt like the first time I read it, spoilered just in case: a sensitive boy with leadership qualities who was never allowed to realize the consequences of his actions and eventually committed an atrocity without knowing it. Please note, this is my interpretation of that single work, ignoring the subsequent books, and IS IN NO WAY INTENDED TO START A DERAIL ABOUT ENDER'S GAME IN THIS THREAD.

Orson Scott Card. I don't know if he's trolling, taken out of context, or literally that hosed up. I suspect he's literally THAT hosed up.

That was a fun watch, thanks for posting it.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2013 01:23

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Thanks for posting these, too!

Savage gets on NPR and is a little abrasive but not too bad. Then the first caller comes in and simply says, "If you replace the words Muslim or Islam in Savage's show with Christianity or Judaism, he wouldn't last a day on the air," and rather than stand up for himself or make any kind of cogent argument, Savage just ad hominems this poor caller to death and says he has better things to do.
What really bothered me was the host just saying, "Ok, go do them," and letting Savage hang up instead of pressing him to answer the premise without resorting to ad hominem attacks or changing the subject.
I can't really comment on that, because I defer to the host's judgement in that situation.

Still, VERY enlightening in the "Right Wing Persecution Complex" continuum.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2013 06:46

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I can't understand these values voters and how they respectfully call Gingrich "Speaker of The House" and compare him favorably to this person whom I know nothing about, but has she been married like three times and resigned in disgrace under hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines? Because... Gingrich... O nevermind.

That dude really hates that lady, and boy howdy does he want to make it abundantly clear without literally using the word oval office.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2013 03:54

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Have we talked about Bachmann, King, and Gohmert going to Cairo last weekend and giving a televised speech that will make you cringe?

quote:

"I want to assure the people of Egypt that I, as a member of Congress, will stand strong in support of continuing military support, United States support financially, to stand for the military in Egypt," she said. "We know that you have been a partner. You've been a partner in the war on terrorism. You've acted bravely here on the front lines."

She added, "Many of you have asked, Do we understand who the enemy is? We can speak for ourselves: We do. We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed, here, for the people of Egypt. We've seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood posed around the world. We stand against this great evil. We remember who caused nine-one-one in America." Later, in response to a question, Bachmann reiterated: "We don't have a choice. They must be defeated."

She is clearly going into Egypt and telling them that the Muslim Brotherhood "did nine-one-one." I expected this to get more coverage but maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Sep 14, 2013

# ¿ Sep 14, 2013 11:02

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

I've lost one of my best friends of 20+ years over Benghazi. His basis was some anonymous caller who talked about the in extremis force and how it proved our President is the worst ever. I showed him tons of maps, articles, everything I could do. He told me if I didn't stop "it would be on me." Since he was a raving rear end in a top hat by that point I kept pressing with facts until he blocked me, called me a huge string of terrible things (which described him better than they did me) and that was the end.
My Dad, he's the guy in the documentary. He was always selfish and a bit of a douche, but he taught us never to use the N-word and was a pretty stand-up guy.
Then he retired. By then he was already in the Fox-hole, and now he's exactly like the Dad you know about. Completely bitter, angry, intractable, belligerent, and he will absolutely disown me (again, after he spoiled one entire Holiday season a couple years ago) if I ever question anything he says, or even just be myself in his presence. Politics at home are verboten, but it still didn't stop him from dropping an "Obummer" at the Thanksgiving dinner table last year. I had to wink at my amazingly cool nieces to shrug it off. They got it, too.

Now I hate him. It hurts to admit it, but it's entirely true.
I can't pity him anymore, because he has no respect for me and I'm his only son. I can't stand him and I only tolerate him for my mother. He's too far gone. If he were to pass, the rest of us would mostly just feel freed. I can't describe how dirty it makes me feel to admit it; but I can't deny it any longer.

He is this way because of Rush and Fox News, specifically.

P.S. - Now he is a rabid gun-nut, too; completely out of nowhere. I'm afraid of what he might do some day.

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Oct 12, 2013

# ¿ Oct 12, 2013 04:28

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

When my Dad smugly picked up the term "teachable moment" I knew it was pretty much over.

In the beginning, I got his propaganda e-mail forwards (the horribly disgusting, racist, and totally dishonest ones) and I painstakingly debunked every single point with cited sources. It took me hours. His reply: "There's nothing you can say that will ever convince me, because I refuse to trust any of your sources."

One last anecdote before I drop this, because it's really making me sad. I'm wondering if I can even stomach going home this year:

Just after the first election, my Dad told me that he had totally given up and was horribly disgusted in the "empty suit" because Obama said, "we are not a nation of individuals." That was the last straw or something. I said,"Wow, if he really said that, that would be awful."
Then I sat down at my PC, googled the transcript of the speech, and explained that what Obama had actually said was (paraphrasing now, but I read him the text at that moment), "we are not merely a collection of red states and blue states, of republicans and democrats, we are not JUST a nation of individuals, etc."

His adult, parental, mature reply?

"Oh, you looked it up. Good for you." The sarcasm and derision in his tone was like nothing I'd ever heard from him in my 38 years. I was absolutely astonished. The fact that he'd impugn a man for something he demonstrably never did, nor admit he'd been mistaken in the first place, left me nonplussed.

All I could think was, "How do I even reply to that?"

poo poo, I'm sorry for airing all of this crap, I need a therapist.

I really would like to see research on the damage done to families in the US specifically over right wing propaganda and the tone and tenor of its presentation.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2013 22:17

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

On Friday Hannity had on six people to talk about how terrible Obamacare is. MSNBC ran a lot of debunking on it last night.
From what I remember:
Couple #1 owns a business. They told Sean that they will be cutting hours to <30/week to avoid "Obamacare." "I'd like to get them healthcare, of course, but we just couldn't afford it and stay in business."
Couple #2 said their premiums were doubling under Obamacare.
I forget about Couple #3.

A journalist decided to pick up the phone and call these people to verify their stories:

Couple #1: The business they run employs fewer than fifty people. Actually, it employs four. The employer mandate, obviously, does not apply in this case.
When asked about this, the husband told the reporter, "I'll have to call you back." Of course, he never did.
Couple #2: With just a little research into the exchanges in their state, the reporter found a healthcare plan that had all the same coverage and more, for MUCH CHEAPER THAN THEIR CURRENT PREMIUM. The reason this couple are unaware of this is, get ready for this, they are so against "Obamacare" that they refuse to go online and look at the plans! Republicans, acting stupid out of spite and hurting their own interest? O. Right. :suicide:

I will add, though, that it pissed me off watching The Daily Show last night, too. Their first segment was just piling on Obama for the problems with the websites. They even ragged on Obama for the poor lady behind him who started to faint, as if she was forced to be there. Jon's words were along the line of, "I have a good idea! Let's put the pregnant lady with diabetes in the hot sun!" Really?!
Their second segment was about NJ allowing gay marriage, and it managed to come off as kinda critical of Cory Booker and was just overall stupid, unfunny, and slightly hostile. Then the interview with Alan Greenspan sucked.
Yes, I know it's stupid to complain about The Daily Show, but that's the worst I've seen in awhile.

VVVVV You've nailed it. That's the reporter that Chris Hayes had on his show, and that's the report he had him on to talk about. Please, everybody, read that if you haven't already. It fixes the errors in my memory and is a decent, short read.VVVVV

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Oct 22, 2013

# ¿ Oct 22, 2013 21:03

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

With respect (non-respect) to Kurt's awful article, I have to admit that I touched the poop. I touched it too much. Now I am poop-stained.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2013 02:13

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

quote:

Of course, the only reason this is considered a bad thing is because we cling to the idea that people have to economically justify their existence. If we didn't expect people to compete for increasingly scarce jobs and then blame their inevitable failure on moral shortcomings then who cares how much labor is automated.

Agreed.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 00:00

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Same reason you hear people who say they get all their news from MSNBC and Daily Kos, they assure them that no matter what they're right, and everyone who disagrees is part of a plot the other team set up.

False equivalency alert.

Not saying Daily Kos is 100% trustworthy, but they're way better than FOX about representing actual facts.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2013 02:51

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Tatum Girlparts posted:

When did I say they were exactly the same?

O wait, let me think about this one.

Was it right about the time you said this?

quote:

Same reason you hear people who say they get all their news from MSNBC and Daily Kos.

Yeah. Forgive me but that was where I thought you were saying that. Which you said. In quote form.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2013 01:25

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Also people who watch MSNBC probably don't just watch MSNBC and instead probably just tune in for stuff like Maddow and get their news from a variety of sources, whereas people who watch FoxNews ONLY watch FoxNews. For like 12 hours a day. I've never met anyone who just watches FoxNews "some of the time" because the type of people who watch it think all other news is the liberal mainstream media and can't be trusted because they are crazy people.

This is me. I watch Rachel and that's it. The rest of my news I get from Twitter and Drudge (I go to Drudge to see the awful headlines, then read the stories that contradict the headlines.)

I said false equivalency, and I stand by it.

Also, Liberal "talking points" are mostly facts, as GOP talking points are "Rush Revere."

For fucks' sake.

[edit]clarity, typos

Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 18, 2013

# ¿ Nov 18, 2013 03:41

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Wow, Reid actually did it. I'm surprised as all hell. Maybe a little scared, too. I mean, he went NUCLEAR.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2013 21:36

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

FuzzySkinner posted:

That Chick-fil-a stunt he pulled pretty much guaranteed I'd never be giving that place my money for a long time.

You know, it's true. I didn't eat there often but they're everywhere down here, and when I did, it was kind of a treat.
The combination of what they said and all the bigot shitheads flocking there to support it meant that I will never give them my business again, unless they change ownership or something and stop being bigots.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2013 21:27

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

What percentage of families in this country can live on just one paycheck anymore?

VV 'Sup, bro?

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 01:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:32

Dr. Faustus: Feb 18, 2001; Grimey Drawer

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, when he stated "90% of Planned Parenthood's activity is devoted to performing abortion".

If I remember correctly, the actual figure was a little over 3%. That just goes to show you how incredibly unprincipled they will be in their lies.

It reminds me of this: Rick Santorum makes up lies about old people in The Netherlands having to wear bracelets saying "PLEASE DON'T EUTHANIZE ME" because, you know, socialized medicine and death panels:

quote:

Rick Santorum grossly mischaracterized euthanasia practices in the Netherlands during an appearance at a faith conference. He overstated the rate of euthanasia and falsely claimed that the elderly are being killed against their will and wear �do not euthanize me� bracelets:

Santorum claimed legal euthanasia is responsible for �10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands.� Government statistics show euthanasia is climbing, but represented only 2.3 percent in 2010, according to the most recent data.
Santorum added that half of the people euthanized were killed �involuntarily.� A representative of the Royal Dutch Medical Association said �there are no forced cases of euthanasia.� Dutch euthanasia review boards found nine cases in 2010 where doctors �had not acted in accordance with the due care criteria,� mostly for how the procedure was performed � not because it was against anyone�s will.
Santorum claimed the Dutch elderly wear bracelets that say �do not euthanize me,� but the Dutch government and medical association say no such bracelets exists. Santorum �might be confused with a �do not resuscitate� bracelet or necklace� worn by some patients, a medical association representative said.

Santorum discussed euthanasia in the Netherlands during a Feb. 3 forum at the Grace Bible Church in Columbia, Mo. Dr. James C. Dobson, who has endorsed Santorum, moderated the discussion. Dobson is the founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian organization.

The former Pennsylvania senator described the current situation in the Netherlands with alarm:

Santorum, Feb. 3: In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you�re elderly and the bracelet is �do not euthanize me.� Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year, and it�s 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don�t go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, that they will not come out of that hospital if they go in with sickness.

These comments �prompted a furious backlash� in the Netherlands, the International Business Times reported. And for good reason.

First, let�s review the law. The 2001 Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act allows Dutch citizens to end their lives if they are suffering from a medical condition that causes �unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement.� There are two end-of-life procedures: euthanasia, where a doctor administers a fatal drug, or assisted suicide, where the doctor prescribes the fatal drug and the patient administers it. The law took effect on April 1, 2002.

According to a publication distributed by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, doctors must be satisfied that the patient�s request is �voluntary and well-considered,� and that there is �unbearable suffering with no prospect for improvement.� The patient�s doctor must consult at least one other independent doctor, who is responsible for ensuring the �due care criteria� is met.

After the termination of a patient�s life, the death must be reported to the government and reviewed by regional committees composed of, at a minimum, a doctor, ethicist and legal expert.

Now, let�s look at Santorum�s three claims. We�ll begin with a stunning claim that the elderly are so afraid of being euthanized for �budget purposes� that they wear �do not euthanize me� bracelets. We were told by a government official and a representative of a Dutch physicians� association that this is simply not true.

When we contacted the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, public health spokeswoman Inge Freriksen told us that �a bracelet asking not to be euthanized doesn�t exist.� Patients would only be euthanized after they followed the set of guidelines as outlined above.

Gert van Dijk of the Royal Dutch Medical Association told us the same thing.

�There are no bracelets for people who don�t want to be euthanized. Mr. Santorum might be confused with a �do not resuscitate� bracelet or necklace,� van Dijk told us in an email. (That may be, but we don�t know. The Santorum campaign did not get back to us.)

The government recognizes a DNR medallion, which includes the name, date of birth, signature and photograph of the bearer, as fulfilling �all the statutory requirements for a written directive,� a government website says.

�These are sometimes worn by people who do not want to be resuscitated when they for instance have a heart attack in the street. Surely you must have these in the U.S. as well?� van Dijk said. �Recently, there is one hospital which is experimenting with this type of DNR bracelet for patients who do not want to be resuscitated whilst they are in the hospital. So people are not afraid of euthanasia, they are sometimes afraid of being resuscitated against their will.�

Santorum�s statistics aren�t close to being true, either.

His claim that euthanasia accounts for 10 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands brought an audible gasp from some in the audience. But that�s more than four times the actual rate.

In 2010, there were 3,136 cases of euthanasia, assisted suicide or a combination of both, according to the 2010 annual report by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. That�s 2.3 percent of the 136,058 total deaths in the Netherlands in 2010, government statistics show.

The 3,136 euthanasia cases represented a 19 percent jump from the previous year and the first time that the rate has exceeded 2 percent since the law took effect. �The cause of this continuing increase in the number of [right-to-death] notifications from year to year is not known,� the report said.

Van Dijk, of the medical association, emailed us a chart that showed the rate had been below 2 percent for the first eight years that the law had been in place. It was 1.32 percent in 2002. But by 2009, 2,636 people, or 1.96 percent of all deaths, chose to terminate their lives, the medical association�s data show. That was a record high � until 2010.

Still, Santorum was way off base in claiming it was 10 percent of all deaths.

Even further off the mark is Santorum�s claim that �half the people who are euthanized every year � are euthanized involuntarily.� According to the regional review board�s 2010 annual report, only nine doctors �were found not to have acted in accordance with the criteria.� In five of those cases, it was the way in which euthanasia or assisted suicide was performed that caused concern � not whether the patient had properly consented. The report also says that 81 percent of the Dutch who decided to end their lives in 2010 were suffering from cancer.

�There are no forced cases of euthanasia,� van Dijk said. �Euthanasia can only be performed when there is a voluntary request from the patient and the patient is suffering unbearably. An independent physician has to check this beforehand, and an independent commission checks afterwards. There are very stringent criteria in place.�

As in other countries, doctors who kill patients against their will are criminally prosecuted.

We take no position on euthanasia in the Netherlands or anywhere else. But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it.

� Michael Morse and Eugene Kiely

The best part is that there was press from the Netherlands there when he said it. They immediately grabbed his PR lady and asked him what in the gently caress he thought he was talking about :

quote:

Erik Mouthaan, the US correspondent for the Dutch RTL Evening News, confronted Rick Santorum spokesperson Alice Stewart and peppered her with questions over the Republican hopeful�s controversial remarks about how the Dutch �involuntarily� euthanized senior citizens who were �older and sick,� BuzzFeed�s Andrew Kaczynski reports.

�As a Dutch reporter, I have to ask you about something (Rick) said about Holland and euthanasia,� Mouthaan began. �I don�t know if you read about that on the blogs. He stated that people wear bracelets in Holland saying �do not euthanize me� and that people are involuntarily euthanized, do you remember him saying that?�

�Yeah but a lot of these things is a matter of what�s in his heart,� Stewart he�s a strong pro-life person, and that comes from life until natural death and that�s where he is and those are the issues important to the people of America, and the people who come out to vote for him and that is strong pro-life from conception to natural death

�The government of Holland says the � embassy says � the figures he used are not correct, he gave a wrong picture of the Dutch euthanasia rules,� Mouthaan explained.

These people astound me.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2013 07:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›14 »

sean10mm posted:

Warcabbit posted:

Unzip and Attack posted:

quote:

quote:

BiggerBoat posted:

quote:

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Never.More posted:

HootTheOwl posted:

Neremworld posted:

quote:

quote:

Protocol 5 posted:

quote:

Typical Pubbie posted:

quote:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

quote:

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Tatum Girlparts posted:

quote:

mr. mephistopheles posted:

FuzzySkinner posted:

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

quote:

quote: