|
Neremworld posted:I've never gotten the adoration that G. Gordon Liddy gets from right-wingers. He's literally a criminal scumbag who was in prison for four years for literally being the mastermind behind Watergate. The right wing has a very mean contrarian/devil's advocate streak that links very strongly with their need to feel as though they are persecuted. You can see this clearly in what happened with all the global warming nonsense. Global warming was a non-partisan accepted fact for a few years. You had carbon taxes being touted as the right wing market-based solution to the problem...until Al Gore got involved in the 90's. The same thing happened with Romneycare. It was based on a Heritage Foundation plan from the 90's, and was accepted as a right wing market-based solution to the problem...until Obama decided to use it as a template for Obamacare. They like G. Gordon Liddy because he stood up to liberals to the point where they threw him in jail for sticking it to those Dems! He was on the front lines fighting the good fight against hippies.
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
The best part about the marginal tax rate thing is that it very cleanly debunks any and all right wing superstitions about rich people actually knowing anything about money. I don't know how any of these people could possibly run their businesses efficiently without knowing how marginal tax rates work. They just leave the entire thing up to their accountants, and then kvetch about how unfair it all is on the golf course. This is why they're constantly clamoring for tax reform and simplification. For someone that can't be bothered to understand marginal tax rates the entire thing must feel like pulling the lever on a slot machine. I almost sympathize with them. It must be hard going through life with so much money but so little sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Lord Lambeth posted:I don't know why the government doesn't smash apart the Murdoch empire like they did with AT&T. In the age of deregulation it would have no impact. AT&T has basically reconstituted itself in the intervening years.  There's no political will to break up monopolies anymore, and they'd just remake themselves unless proper market controls were also put in place at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Like some minor celebrity demanding a stopped train pass through a tunnel that will kill everyone on-board (it's a coal train and the tunnel has no ventilation or some poo poo, I don't remember), and the railroad company literally firing everyone who said "No way man it's gonna kill everyone" until someone finally says "Okay let it go through hurrr the railroad can't risk a snub from this C-list celeb" and then everybody dies. There's also a scene that stuck out to me where a team of the brilliant capitalists is trying to rescue John Galt, and one of them gets the drop on a marine and is all "Move or I'll shoot you" and the marine's all "B-b-but I was told to follow orders to NOT move!" and then the capitalist says "If you follow your orders you'll die you have to make a decision on your own to not die" and since the marine is a stupid incompetent government worker he literally stands there sputtering and spasming like a robot that's been told a paradox going "Orders, but I don't wanna die but I have ORDERS but if I follow them I WILL die BEEP BOOP ERROR" until the capitalist shoots him. The Fountainhead may be one of the funniest books I've ever read. Ayn Rand is like the M. Night Shyamalan of libertarian fiction. I refuse to believe The Happening was not meant to be comedic, and similarly Ayn Rand's work comes across quite often as more comedic than philosophical. Everything she has written reads like brilliant satire because it is so naive and sophomoric. The fact that she's adored as this great intellect constantly confounds me. Why the gently caress did she choose to display her philosophy in the form of terribly-written novels? It seems like she really intended to write these awesome novels, but then couldn't stop herself from injecting her awful world view. Then everyone coming later has to be like, "ignore all the terrible writing, her philosophy is what you're there for."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Clearly the answer is to move the oversight of teachers out from under the Department of Education and over to the Department of Defense. It'd be a neat way to get Republicans on board with ever spending any money on public schooling ever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I'm aware, but law and trolling suckers if the family business there. There's actually a great interview where what's his face (guy who did Red State) is talking about his new movie, Red State, and the Phelps reaction to it. He ended up realizing the whole thing was bullshit and that they were having a blast trolling each other, they even gave him a signed poster with all members of their clan saying he was going to hell. This isn't true. There's been other documentaries made about that family. 2 are by documentarian Louis Theroux who shadows them in their daily lives. Fred Phelps is an incredibly hateful paranoid rear end in a top hat that has passed every bit of that on to Shirley Phelps Roeper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Hated_Family_in_America I do think they probably try to entrap people into attacking them, but I don't believe it's quite as cynical as you're painting it out to be. These people are, in fact, true believers of a lot of their own bullshit. They are also old-school racist Democrats that never bothered to switch parties like all other normal people. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Dec 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Is O'Reilly becoming more blatant in his racism as of late? He did the thing after the election where he bemoaned the death of white culture, and then recently he had this to say:The O'Reilly Factor posted:BILL O'REILLY (host): Now I have to say, Hawaii is one of my favorite places in the world. It's beautiful. We all knew he was a classist/racist shithead from the beginning. However it seems like he's bringing things like this up more often now. Is he just butthurt by the election results?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
I think one of the primary factors with a lot of the right wing media, and especially fringe media, is a lack of media and internet literacy on the part of their audiences. A lot of us here were raised kind of alongside the internet or it came about at around the same time prior generations might have started reading the newspaper. They understand on an intellectual level that any idiot can have a nice-looking website, but it doesn't seem that it carries over in practice to how they actually consume media. Older generations never had to deal with the insane flurry of facts and information that swirl around today. The 24-hour cable news cycle didn't exist. So most of our parents were raised in an environment where there was that 1 newspaper you knew you couldn't trust, the one you could trust(the one your parents subscribed to), and then one in the middle you might read on occasion. There were tabloids, but not in the same league as the tabloid nonsense that happens online now. Their consumption of trusted sources relied primarily on arguments from authority rather than actual rigorous fact-checking. Fact-checking a single fact in a newspaper story for an ordinary person 40 years ago would have required significant time investment and was just completely impractical. Yet, it's something that's become kind of expected for modern consumers of internet media. Unsurprisingly, people not practiced in separating fact from fiction from opinion, when given far more information than they can deftly handle, make poor choices about which sources or facts to believe. They rely on their old arguments from authority, and it leads to them trusting people like Charles Krauthammer or Breitbart. They cherry pick facts that make them feel good instead of working toward a better understanding of reality. I think as the baby-boomers die off we'll see some tilt back towards reality, but probably not by much. Media literacy even within the younger generations is shockingly low because it's not taught. Logic is barely taught outside the realm of geometric proofs. Rhetorical argument isn't touched upon outside of debate courses people might choose to take at college or university. It's really no wonder why the political landscape is the way it is today. ErIog fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
The Girl Scouts have been loving awesome for a while. It's really interesting how they've maintained sanity and progressivism while the Boy Scouts were taken over the cliff by right wing nutjobs completely against the spirit the organization was originally founded on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:My father called me to crow about how I feel now that my taxes have gone up. I hadn't noticed, it's such a small increase. And I don't even make that much! Did he respond with, "Well just wait until you start making more money!"? I get that a lot from my parents when I disagree with whining like a child about having to pay taxes. The funny thing is that I don't actually make that much less than my parents, but I guess old habits are hard to break.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
One of the greatest ironies of the American right wing is that for as much as they decry affirmative action they are the quickest to prop up a minority voice, no matter how unqualified, as soon as they utter the correct conservative incantations. While Herman Cain no doubt has some sort of business acumen considering he managed to make it all the way into a CEO position, everything else that comes out of his mouth is tremendously naive, ill-informed, or ridiculous. It really will be their downfall in their upcoming outreach. By shutting minorities out for so long they have not cultivated anything close to what could be called a deep bench. Their litmus tests also ensure that what their chosen minority voices will say will be exactly the same as the white guy before them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Anyone see Sean Hannity butthurt about how Obama is playing golf instead of helping the fifty million bajillion kazillion unemployed people find jobs? You mean any of Hannity's shows since Obama was elected in 2008? He's made a point of calling him the "golfer in chief", and spouts off about it pretty regularly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Because Iran won't do what we tell them too. This really is the crux of all political discussions on Iran. The entire thing stems from Iran having the temerity to try to wrest control of their country back and speak negatively of the US after we engineered a coup that overthrew their fairly liberal and democratically-elected government after they nationalized their oil fields to ensure their natural resources wouldn't be pilfered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat I was really pleased that Argo opened with such a frank discussion of what happened that didn't try to spin Iran's opposition to the US as Iran=Evil. So many people have no idea the kind of havoc the US has caused in that region of the world. Any conservative who claims "The United States always acts as a force for good in the world." needs to have this thrown the gently caress back in their face. We destroyed a democratically-elected secular government so we could pay a few percent less for their oil, and then we acted all surprised and shocked when they didn't take kindly to it. Americans - acting like entitled assholes since our founding.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Perhaps the guy that owns Fox News will start an even more right-wing news network that regularly criticises even Fox News. If the demographic's there, hey, why not? They already have that network. It's called Fox Business. It's where Andrew Napolitano hangs out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
In the talk radio biz, those are called "live reads." They do them because people know what an ad sounds like, and they tune ads out. By doing live reads they can transition to and from the ads in a less jarring fashion, and the theory is that people are more likely to listen. On some shows they can also be a source of entertainment themselves. On podcasts they're done because it's an effective way to prevent people from skipping ads as much. Live reads can happen at any point in the show, and they're variable length. On the old style of ads you can just hit your 30s or 2m skip button, and then you've not heard a single second of any advertisement. The live reads are deliberately fuzzy so that even if you skip in increments like that you still have to listen to some of the ad to determine if it's still going on or you might risk skipping through actual content. They're rapidly becoming the standard way to do ads in content on the internet because pre-roll, post-roll, and conventional commercials don't work at all if they're in a format that can be seeked through. It's the only kind of advertisement that advertisers are comfortable laying out significant money for in terms of audio content right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
I would kill for my career to die in such a way where I never need to work again.
ErIog fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Welp, O'Reilly's gradual descent into logic and realization has taken another tumble, because now he's just gotten into a catfight with Laura Ingram over the whole Bible-thumpers thing. This is the perfect blood for the blood god ratings bonanza for Fox. They usually have Ingraham sub in for O'Reilly when he's on vacation, and so this is looking more and more like something you'd see in pro wrestling. Laura Ingraham is gonna come in and steal the title belt! It's a puppet show. The memo about shifting slightly left and ceding the gay marriage issue was handed down from on high, but they still have to placate viewers by having people like Ingraham on to bloviate about it. Nobody in a key position at Fox is ever going to say they're pro gay marriage, but we'll get a lot of soft, "Why are we paying attention to gay marriage? It's not a real issue. Nobody cares about it. What about the jobs numbers?" so the viewers don't get whiplash turning off their TV. ErIog fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
This is the party that made an out-of-context quote the theme of their entire convention and voter messaging leading up to last year's election. If they can do that then they can do anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:THAT IS THE FUNNIEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE! Everything except his penis. beatlegs posted:LOL and ROFL those "Red Eye" folks are such characters aren't they? It's actually The Five, the show they put together to replace Glenn Beck. Red Eye usually tries to be a little funnier than that, but it is still college republican humor through and through.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
AircraftNoise posted:If the Cuban defector was some rock artist, and they did a parody rock song which is terrible and cliche would that also be racist? Holy poo poo man is everything racist when viewed through some 11th dimension chess monocle? How about they just did an intentionally terrible and generic rap song because the artist in question is a rap artist. Did you watch the clip? They set the clip up with her saying, dripping with sarcasm, "rap is such a complex art form." The rap did not exist in a vacuum. It had context, and that context was really loving racist and painfully culturally unaware.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
The thing about Bullshit that's super subtle is that their arguments are designed to be consistent within the context of the information they've provided in the show. Someone else said before that Libertarianism makes sense if you first accept their flawed notions about how humans tend to work. Bullshit is the same way. If you're actually familiar with anything they're discussing going in then it's actually very easy to find the holes. So I think that all the normal uninformed people that watch the show probably have a couple episodes they think are suspect. They don't realize, though, that those same holes exist in pretty much every episode of the show. They're just not informed enough to notice. I corresponded with Goudeau a little bit about their AA episode, and he essentially just hand-waved away a bunch of my concerns based on technicalities to do with the language in the 12 Steps. So he ended up being technically correct, but basically wrong. So just like the rest of Libertarianism, it's great in theory but ultimately fails in actually reflecting reality.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:It's not hard to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, actually, literally thousands of nominations are sent in every year. I know it's super loving pedantic, but the Peace Prize has no relation to the actual Nobel Prize.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:You'll have to explain it to me, because everything I can find on it treats the nomination process the same for everything. Unless there are two Nobel Peace Prizes out there or something? The nomination processes for Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine all say that only people who have received requests from the board to submit names for nominations may submit them. The Literature prize is similar, but they also take unsolicited nominations from qualified people. Peace Prize nominations are most similar to Literature, but it's a hell of a lot more open. Rygar201 posted:What is the actual Nobel Prize at this point? Apparently the Peace and Economics prizes are both pseudo Nobels? It looks like I was mistaken about this too, and they're actually a lot more closely linked than I had thought. Economics isn't quite legitimate because it isn't one of the 5 that Nobel asked to be given out in his will. While Peace is one of those, he left the handling of it up to Norwegian parliament which makes the entire process very political. The other prizes are all handled by Swedish Royal Academies or Institutes. I don't really know why I thought they were so separate. I may have been getting the Peace prize confused with the Economics one as far as which ones were laid out in the will and which ones weren't.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Bi-weekly committee meetings about taxes and healthcare, at the White House Complex - which includes several office buildings that are not the White House proper. May not have attended all of them - that's just scheduled meetings, not the one they showed up for. Some other meetings too. Also, isn't all that stuff only known because of the increased transparency of the White House and executive branch meeting calendars that happened after Obama took office. Obama's been real poo poo on transparency in general, but I'm pretty sure I remember that bit. If that's the case then Obama is real lovely at pulling off conspiracies. Not meeting in public view is kind of a key element to planning a conspiracy. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Looking at a variety of opinions in a poli-sci class doesn't seem that crazy to me, and doesn't seem like much of a marker for whether or not that professor is right wing. What other books are on your reading list?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-sent-46378040-refunds-23994-unauthorized-aliens-1-atlanta-address It's actually a really hilarious story considering one of the most ridiculous claims about illegal immigrants is how they don't have to pay any taxes. That sure is a lot of refunds for people who never needed to pay any taxes in the first place...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
People were making that very point elsewhere on the forums yesterday. Lots of people are actually really fine with socialism as long as it's just for the approved groups. The second someone they don't like gets something then magically socialism is wrong. I think the example from yesterday is that there's lots of socialist white supremacists who want a lot of clearly progressive things, but only for "white" people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Devour posted:Are you loving serious here? Have you watched any of the top-grossing movies of the past 10 years? Hollywood may be at times token socially-liberally, but overall it's quite a conservative representation of American society.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I have a theory. I think sometimes these types of people genuinely do not understand why the sexist and racist poo poo they say is sexist and racist. They seriously think sexism and racism are random labels just thrown out by Liberals. So, they think they can do the same thing by randomly throwing out labels and acting like its a counter argument. This is true. Their worldview is such that they are the arbiters of all common sense with a healthy dose of naive idealism about the world. "Men loving men is not normal, and so therefore it shouldn't exist."  "Black people don't talk normal so they're dumb, and there sure are a lot in prison so they must be committing most of the crime." "If you don't coerce people by withholding food/housing/healthcare then people won't want to work." The list of really dumb, but very common sense, things abounds.Any kind of more learned perspective on these issues that is at first slightly unintuitive is completely rejected out of hand as being nonsensical when compared with their "common sense" approach to the issues. Anything that requires a second layer of understanding is completely thrown away. So while we, on this forum, have a pretty clear idea of what sexism and racism are, they're really perplexed by it. It feels extremely random to them. They can't fathom how something that is perceived by them to be an innocuous truth about the world could be deemed abhorrent by other portions of society. This is why you see them complain about leftists having these dastardly plans about PC language. They are not capable of understanding the clear logic behind it, and so dismiss all of it as a cudgel wielded arbitrarily against their team. Their blind acceptance of culture war rhetoric and pro wrestling approach to politics causes them to dismiss racism/sexism as a tool in those fights. This is why they're so interested in trying to point out hypocrisy on the left. Any perceived hypocrisy on the left becomes evidence for their claim that Democrats' only interest is in hurting the opposing team.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:Does anyone else find most of the left wing news shows just as intolerable as the right wing stuff? I'm a huge liberal, but I was trying to listen to Progress radio on XM and found most of the hosts to be just as obnoxious as Rush, Hannity, Levin, et al. I'm not trying to start a derail, it just seems that both sides are often intentionally dense, ignoring obvious information so they can blast the other side. But I suppose that's the point. This right here is like the definition of false equivalency. There may be left wing talkers that are just as bad, but they don't draw nearly the audience. They also don't hold nearly as much sway within the Democratic party. Elected officials have had to back down and nearly apologize for statements they've made about Rush Limbaugh in the past. There is no left wing equivalent of that no matter how hard you try to make it. They can jaw on and on about regressives or whatever the hell they bitch about, but there's no way they're poisoning discourse as much as right wing talk radio is. You're essentially comparing the AM right wing media machine to someone like the left wing equivalent of Adam Carolla. They can draw an audience to be sure, but barely anyone gives any fucks about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
I get that, and I'll admit my response might be kind of off the mark. I just think it's important to point out the potential for false equivalency before someone tries to play their Bill Maher trump card with  The only left wing people I can stand are Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes. I hate Chris Hayes as a host, but he does a good job with actual journalism stuff. There's really not anyone else in left wing media that really draws an audience worthy of mentioning. They might be the worst in the world, but if they aren't affecting the dialogue then I'm not sure why we should care. To bring them up in this thread at all to me strikes of some amount of false equivalency. ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
Crowder still seems like he's young enough to maybe come around the other side. He seems really disillusioned by GOP politics. For as much crap as the GOP gives Dems about being young starry-eyed idealists they sure require a lot of that from their followers. Maybe instead of being head over heels for Obama like a lot of young people were he got suckered into being an Alex P. Keaton type.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I'd read them for 6 figures a year. I'm not gonna make any up or pretend I'm anything but a talking head but I'd read them to the choir on FOX in a loving second for money until they found a leggy blonde to replace me. If anyone asked me to explain myself I'd say I don't loving know go ask the guy who came up with this poo poo I need to go wax my hair. They're not gonna replace Chris Wallace with a leggy blonde. That's not the function he serves at Fox. Fox is run by the rules of some incredibly deeply entrenched misogyny. Chris Wallace will keep his job forever because, as a male, he is seen as having more integrity than the female hosts who are "just reading the news." So they have the females play traffic cop on air between the "real" news people who are the men. Also, him shutting down Tucker Carlson in that clip is neither here nor there. The guy is rarely actually objective, and he seems more miffed that Tucker Carlson wants him to bloviate about identity politics instead of the dumb beltway bullshit that he expected to be talking about. Basically the thinking going through his head in the clip is, "Those kind of dumb rear end comments are the reason you're tossing instead of being tossed to."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I think Cruz is smart enough to never show even the slightest bit of moderation. So long as he never fades left anything won't he be able to keep up appearances with his base? It doesn't matter if he never modulates his conservatism because he has very little power to actually further any of his goals. So at some point something's going to happen that he won't have any power to prevent, and then at that point the GOP die-hards will say that he didn't fight hard enough. I give it 6 months.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Dumb question, what is the goon consensus on Charles Krauthammer? Krauthammer is deeply rooted in the GOP establishment, but still very conservative. I think his leanings could be best described as neoconservative. If he's taking ultra-right-wing GOP'ers to task then he's usually making pretty decent points from either a strategic standpoint or a political standpoint. Anytime he's critizing the left, though, it's pretty much just all straw men. Unfortunately that second part with all the straw men makes up like 80% of his job. He's like a more sane version of Karl Rove.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
O'Keefe will never go away. He's too useful, and any dumb or illegal poo poo can be denied by funneling enough money around to where nobody ever has to admit giving him money. He's a perfect hired PR assassin because it doesn't appear as though he's tried to build himself as a right wing on-screen personality. He just kind of lets the video speak for itself and has made good enough connections in the right wing media world via Breitbart, while he was still alive, that he can continue to draw a paycheck as long as he just continues producing creatively-edited videos of stuff in the direction the GOP is pointing. You ask the Fox News idiots about him, and they have no idea who he is despite knowing all about ACORN getting shut down for human trafficking. So it's impossible to take him down by attacking him because he, himself, is so separate from the things that he does. He's like the a comic book villain or something that's in cahoots with evil rich people. The rich people can sit around talking about how distasteful they find him while having their assistants slide him money to continue stirring poo poo up. I thought maybe they would draw the line at attempting to wiretap a senator, but it turns out that's just a badge of honor. It gives him bonafides as a ruthless motherfucker. We talk about him, know who he is, etc., but for everyone not paying attention he may as well be some kind of bogeyman the left's conjuring out of thin air. The only thing that will bring James O'Keefe down is if he gets caught with underage male prostitutes or actually murders someone. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
Right-wingers were always arguing he wasn't white. It was part of their "but he, HIMSELF, is a race" denial of the facts. So now we'll probably just start getting smug, "see, we told you before he was a Mexican, but you dumb libs wouldn't listen!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
That's the tremendously  thing about it. Millions of books plastered with the name of a person who didn't write it being bought by people who will never read it. I never realized the campaigns buying books thing before, but that totally makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The faster old conservatives die off the better. Ill be sad to see my parents go, but man, hopefully then things might actually get better. It won't really solve anything. "Screw the poor" has been a pretty stock conservative view for as long as there have been poor people on earth. Just because younger generations are removing the "screw the gays" chocolate coating doesn't mean the "screw the poor" chewy nougat core won't remain a mainstay. In 50 years the GOP will have a bunch of openly gay people advocating just as much for loving the poor as people are doing now, and the Sunday shows will champion that as progress. The future of the GOP is Matt Drudge, welcome to 2063.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 05:08
|
|