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!

«‹›2 »

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Soviet Commubot posted:

There was a plan to have a conservative standup show on the failed Right Network. It's as painful as it sounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_mQPvKXw3U

There was exactly one joke that could be described as funny in there, when the guy talked about his dental plan being "chew on the side that doesn't hurt". All of the rest of them were either not funny, or not even jokes. It proves my thought (which is hardly original) about conservative comedians, which is that they really do think of themselves as conservatives who are comedians, rather than the other way around. That is to say, they didn't get into comedy because they like making people laugh, they got into it to use it, as the head guy says, "as a weapon" to spread conservative ideology. You see the same problem with Christian rock music, if you get into rock music not because you love playing but because you wan't to spread Jesus' message, it's going to suck compared to people who actually love what they do for its own sake.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2013 14:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:25

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Bill Whittle, noted smug rear end in a top hat, is back with another insightful commentary, this time about BENGHAZI!!!!!!

Bill Whittle posted:

Hi everybody. I�m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

Before we get into what Benghazi is, let�s address what it isn�t. It isn�t irrelevant, isn�t trivial, and it isn�t a �witch hunt� as many prominent Democrats and their supporters desperately want you to believe.

For example, this graphic has been going viral: It shows the date and location of ten embassy or consular attacks during the Bush presidency, with a total of 60 people dead and the number of outraged Republicans set at zero; therefore these attacks happen frequently, therefore Benghazi is a hypocritical, witch hunt staged simply to get Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

Unfortunately for the millions of people who have seen this graphic and passed it on, one of them � at least one � knows how to read, think and research.

Kyle Becker, at the Independent Journal Review, took a look at each of these ten attacks. In eight of them, the total number of Americans killed was � zero. It is not the responsibility of the US State Department and the President of the United States to protect the lives of foreign nationals, no matter how tragic or common these attacks may be. Their job is to protect American citizens and especially Consular personnel living abroad.

In 2003, a truck bomb killed 36 people, including nine American defense contractors. President Bush immediately called it a terrorist attack, the Saudis investigated and killed two of the attackers in the raids that followed.

On March 2, 2006, in Karachi, Pakistan, a suicide bomber killed 4, including an American diplomat named David Foy. It was instantly denounced as a terror attack; there were no advance calls for additional security; Mr. Foy was killed instantly with no possibility of rescue; and there was no cover-up or attempt to spin it other than what it was.

Every day in America there are over 6,000 burglaries. But one break-in may be more important than the others, because one of those burglaries � Watergate -- may go directly to the lawfulness, integrity and candor of the President of the United States of America.

Benghazi matters, because it goes directly to the two most important qualities in our elected officials: Competence, and Character.

Let�s go to competence first:

In late March, 2012, former US Ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, calls for additional security assets from Secretary of State Clinton. These were ignored.

On April 4th, terrorists threw an IED over the consulate wall; on June 6th, terrorist blow a large hole in the consulate gate.

On June 15 Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security, tells the staff in Libya that the existing security team contract would not be renewed.

On the 9th of July, Newly appointed Ambassador Christopher Stevens requests an additional 13 security personnel, citing the increasingly dangerous situation on the ground. On August 2nd he sends an urgent cable to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, requesting a �protective detail bodyguard;� three days later the State Department orders the removal of Ambassador Stevens existing SST � his security team � and by the 8th of August his SST has left Libya.

On August 16th, the Regional Security Officer sends an email to Secretary of State Clinton, warning of a dire security situation in Libya.

On September 10th, top Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri calls for Libyans to avenge the death of his secretary, and on the next day, September 11th, 2012, Ambassador Stevens sends a final warning about lax security.

Later that day, he would be captured, tortured, raped and killed, his body then dragged through the streets. His last, unsigned journal entry was another complaint about his security situation.

Now, once the attack started, we switch focus from the competence of the Secretary of State to that of the Commander in Chief. All teams are local times in Washington DC, September 11th, 2012:

3:59 pm: The Defense Department orders an unmanned surveillance drone vectored to the consulate in response to first word of the attack.

4:05 pm: A State Department email officially notifies the Pentagon and the White House of the attack.

By 5:00 pm Eastern time, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are in the White House, and ten minutes later, the surveillance drone arrives overhead, providing real-time imagery of the events in Benghazi.

At 5:40 pm the request for FEST � the Foreign Emergency Support Team, a counter-terrorist unit specifically trained to rapidly respond to exactly these kinds of situations -- was officially refused by the State Department. CBS reporter Sheryl Attkisson, who left CBS when they would not cover the story, reported on May 17th of 2014 that a FEST counter-terrorism response was ruled out by the White House from the start, to the �puzzlement� � if not the outright despair � of State and Defense Department officials.

At 6:06 pm a State Department email said that the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack � within three hours of the first shots being fired.

By 8:00pm Eastern, Deputy Chief of the Libya Mission, Gregory Hicks, phones Hilary Clinton and tells her unequivocally that the Consulate in Benghazi was hit by a terrorist attack.

Two hours later, at around 10 pm. Clinton and Obama discuss the situation by phone, at about the same time as former SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed on the roof of the annex by enemy fire, six hours after the first shots were fired. They had been fighting, alone, under the eyes of the surveillance drone, for two and a half hours.

At 10:30 that evening, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton publically blames �inflammatory material on the internet� for the attacks.

Three days later, on September 15th, CNN�s Arwa Damon finds Ambassador Stevens diary, quote, "on the floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where [Stevens] was fatally wounded." It, like the rest of the sensitive, classified documents, had not yet been secured three full days after the attack.

Alright. So much for competence. Now to character.

On September 12th, the State Department�s Elizabeth Jones prepared a summary of talks with the Libyan ambassador which concluded that Benghazi had been a terrorist attack.

On September 13th, White House spokesman Jay Carney blamed the attack on an obscure internet video, posted months before, on YouTube.

On the 14th, the first draft of an internal State Department memo blamed terrorists. 24 hours and twelve drafts later, it would be changed to place the blame of the attack on the internet video. Also on the 14th, standing with Hilary Clinton and the returning coffins, President Obama again blamed the internet video, while Secretary Clinton told Charles Woods, father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, quote, �We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.�

On the 15th, President Obama once again blamed the video for the violence.

On the 16th, then UN Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the attack on the video, backed up the next day by a State Department official.

On the 18th, Carney again blamed the video for the violence. On the 19th he repeated the claim that there was no evidence the attack had been pre-planned. On the 20th, both Carney and President Obama blamed the video, and the White House on that same day spends $70,000 airing apology ads for the video.

Finally, on September 21st � a full ten days after the attack � Secretary of State Clinton finally publically admits what she had been told three hours after the shooting started: it was a terrorist attack. But that didn�t stop the President from announcing to the UN, three days later on the 25th, that the internet video was to blame, adding, 'The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam.�

On September 27th � the man who made the video that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton blamed for the attack, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was placed under arrest for parole violations, and served almost a year in prison.

The President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces and the man ultimately responsible for the safety of Americans at home and abroad, is given a daily intelligence briefing. It is short and to the point, outlining the major developing threats of the day.

On September 6th, 2012, -- five days before the attack -- President Obama missed that briefing, but he did give a speech to the Democratic National Convention calling Mitt Romney inexperienced in foreign affairs. On September 7th, he did not attending the briefing, as he was campaigning. On the 8th, the President elected not to attend his daily intelligence briefing. On September 9th, President Obama decided not to attend his daily intelligence briefing. Nor did he attend it on the 10th. On September 11th, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the President declined to attend his daily intelligence briefing. For six consecutive days prior to the Benghazi attacks, the President of the United States placed his campaign schedule ahead of his duty as Commander in Chief to remain informed of the critical intelligence issues of the day.

On August 9th, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States to avoid impeachment, for his role in the cover-up of a petty burglary at the Watergate complex in which no one was killed or wounded. He was threatened with impeachment because he lied to the American people.

President Obama lied to the American people, and the World, for ten days after an event that cost four American lives, including that of the sitting Ambassador who repeatedly called for help, and those of the two men who ran toward, not away from, the sound of gunfire to protect their country and their people.

This President lied to the American people, and so did his presumptive heir, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who also lied to Congress. This matters. Benghazi matters. It shines a direct light and unflattering light on the competence and character of the President and the Secretary of State, and we, the American people have not only a right but an obligation to hold them accountable for their actions.

I admire his bold admission that he doesn't give a poo poo about the lives of anyone who isn't an American, but as for the rest, does anyone who's more plugged into the details of the Benghazi incident have a succinct refutation?

# ¿ Jun 11, 2014 23:48

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

I think his stuff has been mentioned here before, but for those of you who don't know him, I'd like to introduce you to Matt Walsh. Mr. Walsh is a blogger that's, if my facebook feed is any indication, widely read amongst conservative Christians. His schtick is a typical one, based largely on hyperbole, a willingness to say incendiary things and an overall aversion to facts. Some sample headlines include:
"Satan is a liberal"
"Want birth control? Go buy it. Nobody is stopping you."
Referring to the recent lion hunting controversy "Just pretend this dead lion is a human baby, and then you won�t be so upset"
and so on.

What brought him to mind is that today he published an article entitled, "If you want to prove you don�t hate gays, all you have to do is worship at their feet" regarding the Dungy/Sam controversy. I won't copy past the entire thing because it's massive, but here are some choice bits:

Matt Walsh posted:

I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I�ve never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal�s rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, �man, these people REALLY need to chill.�

Matt Walsh posted:

So I suppose my point here is simple: if you aren�t willing to become a liberal, you might as well finally stand up and condemn it. There is no middle ground anymore. There never was to begin with, but even the illusion is fading. Either fight for life, family, and Truth, or else join the ranks of the nihilists and hedonists. The distinction between the two sides is not a murky no-man�s land colored in hues of gray; it is a stark and sudden line in the concrete. You are either for truth or you are not.

Matt Walsh posted:

Is an unspectacular player worth the media circus that will follow? Would any coach in their right mind relish the thought of being accused of bigotry if Sam has to be cut to make room for better players? Does any football organization want to be tossed into the middle of a �gay rights� fight when their only concern is winning football games? One poor team answered �yes� to these questions, but 31 did not. Tony Dungy echoed the sentiments of the 31 teams � the sane ones.

He has an incredibly annoying writing style, psuedo-intellectual and pompous in the extreme, to say nothing of verbose. That said, I decided to touch the poop on this one and here's what I got in return:

:eng101:

Tony Dungee's comment could be written off as "just business" if not for his history. This is the man who made it a point to mentor and lobby for Michael Vick's second shot at an NFL career. Now it's true, Michael Vick never did anything so heinous as telling people he's gay and kissing his boyfriend on TV, he merely tortured dogs for money and spent 23 months in federal prison. Apparently, Tony Dungee believes that Michael Vick, a convicted felon, drug user, and animal abuser, is worthy of a second chance at an NFL career, but Michael Sam isn't even worthy of a first chance. How do you square that circle as anything other than either personal animus towards homosexuality, or abject cowardice at the fear that his team might suffer the slings and arrows of the conservative movement?

:rant:

Just a note...I love animals & would never participate...but it is big in certain cultures...as is cock fighting...as is bull running...& excuse me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Vic got on National TV & said I'm a dirty dog fighter love me as I am...cause nobody would...but he "invested" in something factions of his culture have participated in for generations...he got caught...he got convicted...her served his time...he obviously has talent so why should he not be given a chance...as far as I'm concerned if you put it out there...your asking for opinions...if not f who you want but keep your mouth shut its not our business or your coach until you make it that way which he did!

:eng101:

Your comment is a bit confusing, but did you really mean to equate animal cruelty to homosexuality? And what's more, are you also saying that your problem isn't with Sam's homosexuality, but with the fact that he came out? If so, why should he have to remain closeted? What's wrong with being honest about who you are?

:rant:

excuse me you equated the 2 and personally i could care less if he sucked his own Dck �.but do not tell me you suck your own & not expect some commentary from the people around u�some will be hey thats cool dude some will say eeew thats gross, some will say don' sneeze at the wrong time & by drat if you have the right to say it they have the right to respond�if your to much of a chicken poo poo to take the comments then for sake Shut-UP�.i believe the crux of this article was that people such as yourself want no dissenting positions�.our children�our families should have only the influence of liberals�.NOT!

Even after reading this thread from beginning to end, it amazes me how many people still think that gays are oppressing them merely by existing out in the open. This lady seriously thinks that Michael Vick is more morally upright than Michael Sam, for no other reason than that Sam is honest about who he is.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2014 03:33

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Matt Walsh is back with another article, and I don't know why, but this one really got my blood boiling.

I won't quote the whole thing because it's, as usual, way too long and verbose. That said, I honestly had trouble sleeping after reading this, I was so angry with it. A sample:

Matt Walsh posted:

The synopsis on your website says that the pro-infanticide film After Tiller paints a �humanizing� portrait of the �doctors� who openly kill fully developed babies who could survive outside of the womb � if they weren�t first poisoned or dismembered by these very �courageous� medical professionals.

Imagine if you aired a documentary which painted slaveowners or Klan members as compassionate. You�d be condemned across the globe, funding would be cut, the President would publicly admonish you, and thousands of death threats would fill up your mailbox. But, instead, you broadcast a love letter to people who kill infants, and a mob of morally bankrupted liberals celebrate you for it.

Still, I don�t condone aborting abortionists. I think it�s morally wrong, but only a fool would act as though they don�t understand why a man who made millions through putting children down like rabid dogs at the kennel might be the target of considerable and passionate disapproval.
I hope his killer has asked for God�s forgiveness, but I also hope that the many people who feel no anger in the face of such unspeakable atrocities have also begged for the Lord�s mercy. I can tell you this: those who sit silently and condone the violent destruction of innocent children are, without question, guilty of a sin as serious as, if not more serious than, the man who let his disgust at these crimes against humanity get the best of him.

Late term abortions are not done out of concern for the �health of the mother,� and under no circumstance is a third trimester abortion necessary to save a mother�s life.

While real doctors work to save these children, blood thirsty, perverted, despicable, degenerate quacks charge enormous sums of money to steal their lives away.

The lies I can handle, Matt Walsh is a liar by trade. What bothers me significantly more is the overheated rhetoric that's so common to pro-life people. Despite his protestations to the contrary, it's clear that Walsh really doesn't have a problem with the guy who shot Dr. Tiller, and that angers me more than just about anything else. Because if he actually doesn't, and he (and those like him) really believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, then why do they act so shocked when someone hauls off and kills one of these doctors? And, more to the point, why aren't they killing them themselves? He casually compares these people to slavers, klansmen and nazis, and yet somehow tries to pull the reigns at the last second and suggest that he doesn't think killing them is morally right (although being pro-choice is significantly worse, in his estimation, than killing a doctor). gently caress this rear end in a top hat.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2014 21:24

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

LloydDobler posted:

My favorite part of that O'Reilly bit is where he goes "They would be a US trained force operating under the Geneva convention" or something like that. Don't we already have that? Called the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?

Is the summary of his whole argument that our current armed forces are too visible and stuck following the law and we need an elite force that isn't bound by such trivialities?

Not even that. He (I think rightly) believes that the US population would not support another invasion in the Middle East. His bonkers solution is to duplicate existing forces, call them something other than the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines, and then voila! We don't have to care what the country thinks because reasons.

It's surprisingly stupid, even by O'Reilly's standards.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2014 16:32

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

PerniciousKnid posted:

Does anybody have a clip of this? I want to rewatch and weep for humanity.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/09/21/oreilly-surprised-there-was-no-difference-betwe/139893

The best part about the story to me is that he was at dinner with Al Sharpton.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2014 17:45

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Conservative The Blaze correspondent Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh is the loving Skip Bayless of right wing shitheads. He just stakes out the most contrarian position on every issue, then turns that poo poo up to 11.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2014 18:01

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

P.S. If there is still anyone out there like myself, people who still find strong female characters appealing, a white male Republican directed this movie called �American Sniper,� and gave Sienna Miller a part Barbara Stanwyck would have killed for.

Has this idiot actually seen American Sniper? Taya (Chris Kyle's wife) is so poorly characterized it's almost funny. We know precisely three things about her based on the film, 1.) She initially dislikes SEALs because a friend had a bad breakup with one 2.) She likes shots of Jameson 3.) She's pregnant a lot. We never learn her last name, anything about her family, what she did or does for a living, how she spends the time while Chris is deployed (aside from being pregnant), etc etc etc. Like every character in that film, Taya as Taya is simply not even given a second thought, she's only important to the extant that she has some direct, immediate impact on Chris Kyle.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2015 00:46

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

This article has been making the rounds on facebook, with the typical, "See, even liberals think SJWs have gone too far!" kind of nonsense attached. Apologies in advance for the formatting.

Aristotelis Orginos posted:

Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice
Social justice, as a concept, has existed for millennia � at least as long as society has had inequity and inequality and there were individuals enlightened enough to question this. When we study history, we see, as the American Transcendentalist Theodore Parker famously wrote, �the arc [of the moral universe]�bends towards justice.� And this seems relatively evident when one looks at history as a single plot line. Things improve. And, if history is read as a book, the supporters of social justice are typically deemed the heroes, the opponents of it the villains.

And perhaps it�s my liberal heart speaking, the fact that I grew up in a liberal town, learned US history from a capital-S Socialist, and/or went to one of the most liberal universities in the country, but I view this is a good thing. The idea that societal ills should be remedied such that one group is not given an unfair advantage over another is not, to me, a radical idea.

But millennials are grown up now � and they�re angry. As children, they were told that they could be anything, do anything, and that they were special. As adults, they have formed a unique brand of Identity Politics wherein the groups with which one identifies is paramount. With such a strong narrative that focuses on which group one belongs to, there has been an increasing balkanization of identities. In an attempt to be open-minded toward other groups and to address social justice issues through a lens of intersectionality, clear and distinct lines have been drawn between people. One�s words and actions are inextricable from one�s identities. For example: this is not an article, but an article written by a straight, white, middle-class (etc.) male (and for this reason will be discounted by many on account of how my privilege blinds me � more on this later).

And while that�s well and good (that is � pride in oneself and in one�s identity), the resulting sociopolitical culture among millennials and their slightly older political forerunners is corrosive and destructive to progress in social justice. And herein lies the problem � in attempting to solve pressing and important social issues, millennial social justice advocates are violently sabotaging genuine opportunities for progress by infecting a liberal political narrative with, ironically, hate.

Many will understand this term I used � millennial social justice advocates � as a synonym to the pejorative �social justice warriors.� It�s a term driven to weakness through overuse, but it illustrates a key issue here: that, sword drawn and bloodthirsty, millennial social justice advocates have taken to verbal, emotional � and sometimes physical � violence.

In a dazzlingly archetypical display of horseshoe theory, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocates have warped an admirable cause for social, economic, and political equality into a socially authoritarian movement that has divided and dehumanized individuals on the basis of an insular ideology guised as academic theory. The modern social justice movement launched on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Jezebel, Slate, Huffington Post, et al. is far more reminiscent of a Red Scare (pick one) than the Civil Rights Movement.

When George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four (and here some will lambast me for picking a white male author from a historically colonialist power despite the fact that he fought and wrote against this colonialism), he wrote it to warn against the several dangers of extremism on either side of the political spectrum. Orwell�s magnum opus is about authoritarianism on both ends of the political spectrum. If the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, then the arc of the political spectrum bends toward authoritarianism at both ends.

The very fact that I am drawing a connection between the text most referenced when discussing politics-gone-bad is a problem in itself. But it warrants further exploration.

2+2=5
�In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.� � George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
This particular brand of social justice advocacy assaults reason in a particularly frightening way � by outright denying it and utilizing fear-mongering to discourage dissent. There is no gray: only black and white. One must mimic the orthodoxy or be barred forcibly from the chapel and jeered at by the townspeople. To disagree with the millennial social justice orthodoxy is to make a pariah of oneself willingly. Adherence to the narrative is the single litmus test for collegiate (and beyond) social acceptance these days.

A social justice blogger reacting to the news that �Jackie� may not have been a reliable source.
Take, for instance, a topical example: the University of Virginia/Rolling Stone rape story debacle. The author of the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, writes an article accusing several members of the UVa student body of raping a girl named �Jackie.� �Jackie� is Erdely�s only source. In the Rolling Stone�s redaction article, Erdely and the Rolling Stone�s fact-checking is called into question and it is argued that �there were a number of ways that Erdely might have reported further, on her own, to verify what Jackie had told her.� Erdely took Jackie at face value. Why? Because, at the behest of millennial social justice advocates, we are told not to question rape victims. To do so is �victim blaming� and can potentially �re-traumatize� the victim.

In �Fighting Against �Rape Culture� Means Never Having to Say You�re Sorry,� author Charles C.W. Cooke expands on the issue of this Rolling Stone debacle. Cooke writes that there was an initial questioning of Jackie and Erdely and he notes that the backlash to this line of inquiry was met with extreme hostility. Cooke writes:

In the Washington Post, Zerlina Maxwell argued that �we should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser [of rape] says,� for �the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.� This view was seconded by the lawyer and journalist Rachel Sklar, who confirmed for posterity that she considers �women who speak of their own experiences� to be automatically �credible,� and anybody who asks questions to be a rape apologist. On Twitter, meanwhile, Slate�s Amanda Marcotte concluded that anybody who has questions about a given account must by definition be engaged in a dastardly attempt to demonstrate that no rape stories are ever true, while CNN�s Sally Kohn grew angry at Jonah Goldberg when he asked for more evidence. Perhaps the best example of the all-zetetics-are-heretics presumption came from the remarkably ungracious Anna Merlan, who rewarded Reason�s Robby Soave for his investigative work by throwing an epithet at him: �idiot.�
Much of this rhetoric comes from the idea that there is a pervasive rape culture on campuses nationwide that must be stamped out; more systemically, there are socially-endorsed and institutionally-endorsed modes of patriarchy that continually oppress women. The ideas purported in the quote above seek to remedy that under the name of social justice. But in what world are these statements liberal, let alone in accordance with social justice?

In �No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims,� author Zerlina Maxwell suggests that we should generally write the equivalent of a blank check to someone who comes forward with a rape accusation. This is not justice and it certainly is not social justice either. It is an illiberal perversion of the justice system. Sir William Blackstone is famous for what is known as the Blackstone formulation: �It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.� This axiom is a foundation of modern justice systems worldwide. It as a formulation that assumes innocence; to condemn on the basis of a certain accusation because of the identity or oppressed status of the accuser is a dangerous road to go down. It erodes the most essential tenet of liberalism: due process.

Portrait of Sir William Blackstone (via National Portrait Gallery / Wikimedia commons)
Due process, or the idea that a governing body must respect all legal rights of an individual, is granted to Americans by the 5th and 14th Amendments. To suggest that there is no recourse for the accused � and to ask for it is actually rape apology � is absurd, reactionary, and further highlights the black-and-white nature of this certain brand of millennial social justice advocates. To speak dissent against� or even question at all � the orthodoxy is to have your words twisted into less positive terms: one does not ask for �due process,� one asks to let rapists go, perpetuates rape culture, and favors rape apology. Why, after all, would someone ask for due process when a woman is accusing a man of rape? The millennial social justice advocate views this as an insidious question that results from sexism against women and is corroborated, they feel, by a statistically insignificant rate of false rape accusations.

To the social justice advocate of our time, conclusions are not contingent on facts; rather, facts are contingent on conclusions. In a global example of confirmation bias, the truth is malleable. The malleable truth is molded around the theoretical viewpoints of social justice. In order to uphold the sanctity of this viewpoint, adherents ostracize dissension. It�s nothing new � it�s a tactic as old as religion itself. Instead of holy texts, though, the millennial social justice advocate bows at the altar of the currently-in-vogue ideological Trinity: Marxism, Feminism, and Post-Colonialism.

Newspeak
�Don�t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.� � George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
The Newspeak of the millennial social justice advocate is an intricately and powerfully designed mechanism that seeks to eradicate and socially criminalize dissent.

Let�s talk about racism. The mantra of the movement is thus: It is impossible to be racist against white people because racism is the equivalent of prejudice and power. Since white people have social and economic institutional power and privilege (in America), those who are racially oppressed cannot be racist toward whites since those who are racially oppressed do not have power.

Why can�t I simply rebut this with a trip to the dictionary? Because this is laughed at by social justice types. The image of a white person walking to the dictionary to define racism is literally a trope at this point because the millennial social justice advocate finds it so entertaining that a dictionary, constructed by those in power for those who speak the language of power, can possibly give an accurate definition of a word.

Do you see where I�m going with this? It is now possible to absolve yourself of guilt by working enough academic nuance into a word to fundamentally change it � in your favor.

The same is said of sexism and men � that one cannot be sexist against men because we live in a patriarchal society (I thought I�d link to Tumblr since this social justice plays out on the every day stage of social media just as much as it does in article headlines). And yet, when it is brought up that men face legitimate social, political, and economic issues, they are told that feminism has the solution for them as well.

Orwell calls this �doublethink.�

Instead of the discussion being focused on how advocating to �kill all white people� as a political statement or how the hashtag #KillAllMen are prejudicial and hateful sentiments, the millennial social justice advocate excuses and legitimizes these phrases and behaviors by suggesting that they are not racist or sexist but are legitimate expressions against their oppressors. The discussion of how legitimately hateful and anti-liberal these statements are does not ever surface because, as the script goes, this is �derailing� discussions of legitimate problems of oppressed people to focus on the non-problems of oppressors.

What I am talking about so far is not meant to discredit feminism or any social justice position that seeks to empower oppressed people or remedy social ills. As I made abundantly clear to begin with, these are fundamentally good and necessary goals. What is the issue here are the tactics used by some from a purported place of moral high ground to immunize themselves from criticism while promoting a close-minded authoritarian vice-grip on society through chillingly sinister tactics.

This brings us to the supposedly sound statistical underpinnings of the modern social justice movement. But, as Mark Twain famously said: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

A social justice advocate attacks a prominent blogger for researching and supporting a controversial conclusion.

Let�s return to the Rolling Stone/UVa Rape example. There is an oft-cited statistic that �one in five women will experience sexual assault on campus in America.� This shocks the conscience, as it should, and is used to fuel the hysteria of rape culture on campuses nationwide. Unfortunately for social justice advocates�and fortunately for college-aged women everywhere�this statistic is criminally misleading. As Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post writes, this one in five statistic results from �a single survey, based on the experiences of students at two universities. As the researchers acknowledged, these results clearly can be generalized to those two large four-year universities, but not necessarily elsewhere.� But why should advocates for victims of sexual assault include that? 1-in-5 is a great way to fear-monger. In a report released by the Department of Justice�s Bureau of Justice Statistics entitled �Rape and Sexual Assault Among College-Aged Females, 1995�2013,� Lynn Langton, Ph.D. and Sofi Sinozich report that �the rate of rape and sexual assault was 1.2 times higher for non-students (7.6 per 1,000) than for students (6.1 per 1,000).� Using deliberately misleading statistics in a Machiavellian campaign � wherein the eradication of sexual assault on college campuses requires the misinterpretation of data and the removal of due process � does more to �derail� genitive conversations of sexual assault on campus than having productive, legally responsible conversations ever will.

Take also, for instance, the wage gap statistic recited everywhere between a sociology class and the President�s speeches: That women make 70-something cents on a dollar to a man. The truth is that this is, again, a misleading statistic that tries to apply nationally aggregated data to the level of the individual. TIME writes that �the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.� This is corroborated by a seemingly endless amount of sources like the Wall Street Journal and Abigail Hall who quips that �you wouldn�t compare the incomes of elementary school teachers with Bachelor�s degrees to those of individuals with PhDs in physics and complain that there is a �teacher-physicist wage gap.�� Note that there are five sources in this paragraph alone.

Using misleading statistics to push an agenda does no one any good. It derails progress by attempting to support a legitimate cause with shoddy foundations. Foundations that, in time, will collapse � and a movement with it.

Here�s the issue � many reading this will be incensed just by the fact that I am bringing up these statistics in a negative light. After all, why would I do such a thing if not to paint feminism in a bad light or to play down the issue of rape on campus? As a heterosexual male, it is assumed that I am doing this fact-checking not in the name of academic honesty, but for sexist reasons or because I am a rape apologist or because I think women are �asking for it.�

But here�s the thing � who I am does not (or should not) have any bearing on facts. The problem with this brand of modern social justice advocacy is that who one is as a person (race, class, gender, etc.) is the be all and end all of their capacity to have a certain viewpoint. A millennial social justice advocate can discount an opinion simply because it is said or written by a group they feel oppresses them. It is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem whereby one attacks the person saying an argument rather than the argument itself. But this logical fallacy has become the primary weapon of the millennial social justice advocate. It is miasma to academia, to critical thinking, and to intellectual honesty. Yet it is the primary mode of operating on college campuses nationwide.

Conclusion
This already long article could go a lot further. I could talk about how the balkanization of individual groups of people based on Identity Politics is a regressive, inflammatory ideology that flies in the face of true diversity. I could talk about how �separate but equal� does not become a good thing because the Left repurposes it and calls it a �safe space.�

The fact of the matter is, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocacy is destructive to academia, intellectual honesty, and true critical thinking and open mindedness. We see it already having a profound impact on the way universities act and how they approach curriculum.

The arguments made under the banner of this type of social justice are often petty, usually mean-spirited, and always absolved of any guilt by the speaker�s moral self-positioning. And yes, sometimes they�re sexist and racist, too.

To view everything through a particular theoretical viewpoint (that is, feminist, Marxist, post-colonialist, etc.) is an intellectual limiting exercise that works only in a vacuum. The world is more than one viewpoint. The ostricization of those who hold alternate viewpoints is not any way conducive to social progress. The opposite of hatred is not hatred in the opposite direction. There is no excuse � none � for being a bad person toward another on the basis of their identity.

Let me finally be abundantly, abundantly clear (I learned this was necessary a few months back). Social justice and social justice advocacy is a good thing. To utilize one�s education to solve social ills is an admirable goal.

The version of millennial social justice advocacy that I have spoken about � one that uses Identity Politics to balkanize groups of people, engenders hatred between groups, willingly lies to push agendas, manipulates language to provide immunity from criticism, and that publicly shames anyone who remotely speaks some sort of dissent from the overarching narrative of the orthodoxy � is not admirable. It is deplorable. It appeals to the basest of human instincts: fear and hatred. It is not an enlightened or educated position to take. History will not look kindly on this Orwellian, authoritarian pervision of social justice that has taken social media and millennials by storm over the past few years.

Those who need to hear this message will probably respond that I am 1. too privileged to understand 2. tone-policing the oppressed (and that I shouldn�t tell the oppressed how to treat their oppressors) and 3. really just a closet racist/sexist in a liberal�s clothing. I expect these responses � partially because I am so used to having seen this script play out over the last four years at NYU.

But the fact of the matter is � anyone unwilling to engage in productive, open, mutually critical conversations with people they disagree with under the moral protection of liberalism and social justice are not liberals, are not social justice advocates, and are not social justice warriors; they are social justice bullies.

It's got almost everything you could hope for in a pseudo-intellectual piece of tripe: Conflation of the violence of actual bigots with the "violence" of people speaking out against the same, horrible invocations of 1984 specifically and George Orwell generally, and projection out the rear end. I worry though, because this article wasn't just posted by the usual stable of conservatives, but by a lot of folks who I think are otherwise sympathetic to generally liberal ideas, but are being increasingly convinced that we've somehow swung "too far" in the direction of tolerance. Has the right wing been successful in poisoning the "social justice" well?

JohnClark fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Apr 19, 2015

# ¿ Apr 19, 2015 05:24

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

VitalSigns posted:

Hahaha.

"There's no racism in broadcast, none. No one is racist, they just want to hire the most qualified people which naturally is never going to be a black or a chick. So naturally you assume anyone other than a white man at your job must be there because of quotas, because of course there is not way they could ever deserve that job."

I have to admit, even by Limbaugh's standards, this is pretty shockingly racist. He doesn't usually just come out and say that blacks are unqualified to do professional work and that hiring them to do so turns them into murderers by dint of their incompetence.

Jesus loving Christ.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2015 12:30

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

We've gotten some recent stuff from Matt Walsh and Steven Crowder, so why not Milo Yiannopoulos too?!

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/

Noted racists Milo posted:

Neil deGrasse Tyson made the decision a long time ago to be a sort of media cheerleader for science instead of an actual scientist, and although he isn�t a great communicator, it was the right decision because he was unlikely ever to trouble the Nobel committee. Also, he is stupid and his politics are dumb.

Tyson, whom liberals love because they are racists who can�t believe a black guy could be smart enough to be a scientist and so spontaneously ejaculate and soil themselves every time they see him on TV, hasn�t published anything of note for years. The advantage of being a celebrity scientist is that you don�t actually have to do any science. You�re exempted from the usual �publish or perish� rules.

Even when he was making a go of being a proper academic, Tyson didn�t exactly have the most glittering record. He didn�t get the PhD he was studying for at the University of Texas and had to go elsewhere for his qualification. Obviously, rather than take responsibility for his academic performance, Tyson has blamed racism. In reality, Tyson was playing in bands and appearing on stage instead of completing essays. Typical science PhD students are at any given time either studying, teaching or sleeping.

It�s tough to avoid the conclusion that much of what is frustrating about Neil deGrasse Tyson stems from identity politics and the victimhood ideology peddled by leftist academics and journalists. Despite all his media success, Tyson insists that racism is responsible for his academic failures, alluding to sinister �forces� that keep women and ethnic minorities down.

In 2005, he said: �I know these forces are real and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you gotta come up with a system where there�s equal opportunity.� He of course doesn�t address the fact that the only reason Neil deGrasse Tyson is on television at all, given his intellectual shortcomings, is that he is black.

Perhaps realising how ridiculous he sounds, the world�s most celebrated populariser of science has stopped talking about race in interviews and says he has never given an interview whose primary focus is race since 1993. Which is something, at least.

Social justice-inspired grievance culture has flavoured much of Tyson�s output during his media career. Indeed, some observers say he�s more left-wing propagandist than rigorous thinker these days. His reboot of Cosmos, for instance, was saturated with progressive garbage designed to appeal to liberal-minded students and lefty geeks.

The problem is, every time Tyson plays to this crowd, he has to get his facts wrong to make the argument work. Take his gushing tribute to Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake. None of the details are correct. Bruno wasn�t a scientist: he was a cult leader who dined out on wild conjecture and guesswork.

Elsewhere in Cosmos, Tyson makes other serious errors. I say �errors� but for a man of his ostensible erudition you do have to wonder how these mistakes and bizarre claims keep creeping in. He says Venus is suffering from global warming, for instance. And I think we can live without the televisual trope of space ships making sound in space � unless Tyson is claiming no more astrophysical literacy than an episode of Star Trek.

Because he has given up on the scientific method in favour of progressive politics, Tyson has jettisoned fairness and fact in favour of slipperiness and propaganda: he is caught again and again repeating quotes that he appears to have simply made up, or which at a bare minimum are stripped of essential context or provenance. He shows no interest in correcting the record or addressing these mistakes � we�ll be diplomatic and call them mistakes � which does rather cast doubt on his entire benevolent genius schtick, don�t you think?

His Twitter feed, naturally, is packed to the gills with daft comparisons, meaningless apples-to-oranges number crunching and red meat for his hyper-progressive fan club.

Observers are left to conclude that Tyson is an attention-seeking media troll who courts adoration from bloggers, students and hipsters while picking off low-hanging fruit and mocking people he doesn�t like. But he often does this not with the master troll�s scalpel but the clumsy tin ear of the lumbering buffoon who pisses people off for all the wrong reasons, with cheap, sarcastic bait masquerading as sassy intellect.

Everyone remembers his infamous Christmas tweet, but what many don�t know is that even this is factually wrong: Newton wasn�t born on Christmas Day, but by today�s calendar some time in January. Oh, and by the way, Neil: Newton was a devout Christian who said the laws of nature were an expression of the divine will of God. Just like a lot of the other guys you look up to whom you conveniently forget to mention were men of faith.

Tyson has a complex relationship with the Almighty. He loves to bait Christians, despite claiming � at least some of the time � to be an agnostic. Incredibly, he believes that Christians have no right to call Scientology crazy. His silly, provocative comparisons between Christianity and Scientology are becoming a regular thing.

Needless to say, the argument against Scientology isn�t � or isn�t only � restricted to its goofy belief system or even that it�s essentially a tax dodge cooked up by a bad sci-fi writer. Rather, Scientology is a litigious, dangerous cult that cuts impressionable people off from their family and friends and brainwashes them into handing over all their money and devoting their lives to its comically absurd strictures.

Tyson pretends he doesn�t understand basic theology when responding to questions about the problem of evil. Here we are on Earth, the perfect habitat for humanity with a million random variables somehow ending up in our favour and the most Tyson can say is: �Every account of a higher power that I�ve seen described, of all religions that I�ve seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.�

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine with no love of learning except for popularisations and oversimplifications that serve his political purposes. Just look what happens when he�s asked about the study of philosophy: �I don�t have time for that.� Asking too many questions, he says, �can really mess you up.� For someone who so obviously wants to be laureate � and who is said to be lobbying hard for this behind the scenes � his attitude is unprecedented and his mystifyingly proud, deliberate ignorance an affront to science.

For all his pontificating about climate change and the evils of guns, Tyson seems unable to grasp some basic ethical realities: for instance, that science without ethics or philosophy is likely to produce weapons and all manner of stomach-churning experiments in cloning and on babies, stem cells and animals. It�s not like we haven�t seen that happen in history. Tyson actively ridicules those who ask us to consider the moral implications of our actions.

And he does all this with unearned and undeserved vanity and an intergalactic ego. He once even said: �Scientists are smart and doctors are stupid.� Tyson constantly situates himself in the big brain league, but he has done nothing in his life to demonstrate that he belongs there � and a lot to suggest he doesn�t. Not for Neil deGrasse Tyson the lowly, humble, intellectually curious aspect of the modest lab researcher.

And then there are the exaggerated claims. Tyson claims to have been �mentored� by Carl Sagan, for instance. Yet it appears this �mentorship� boils down to little more than a couple of traded letters. If Tyson thinks that qualifies as mentorship, I wonder what he�d call my nocturnal liaisons with other men who share his skin colour. Adoption?

As dumb as Tyson is, his fans are even more preposterously thick, which is probably to be expected given that they�re all liberals. But the extent to which they hoover up and retweet his contradictory and brainless provocations is matched only by the hilarity of the occasional social justice car crash, in which the politics of grievance that Tyson likes to encourage comes back to bite him.

Does anyone learn anything from Tyson�s pop sci pronouncements? Who knows. But what little they do glean from his persnickety commentary on Star Wars v. Star Trek and his nitpicking about Interstellar and Gravity is called into question when his own shows make the same errors and his grasp of accuracy, sourcing and evenhandedness are shaky, to put it mildly.

There�s a silver lining to Tyson�s outsized notoriety, of course, and it�s that the internet always hurts the ones it loves: outside of reddit, and even within it, Tyson is known primarily as a meme. He has been reduced to a clutch of vacuous funny soundbites and obnoxious reaction images sprayed across image boards.

Tyson has been relegated to a place of widely-known obscurity where little is known about his ill-thought-out opinions and he�s instead celebrated for his facial expressions and attention-seeking media persona. Everyone knows his face, but few know or care to discover anything about the man or the views behind it. If you ask me, that�s a fitting tribute.

Liberals are the real racists? Check. Blacks only succeed because of their race? Check. "Some observers say..."? Check. Wildly dishonest assertions about Tyson's history and statements? Check. Liberals are all idiots? Check. You don't even need a free space to get a conservative hack piece bingo!

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 03:50

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

ManlyGrunting posted:

Wait, I know Adams thinks some people are "wizards" or whatever, but does he really thing he is a master persuader type? The man couldn't talk his way out of jury duty, much less figure out how to influence large swaths of people.

Not only does he believe himself to be a master persuader, he believes his training as a hypnotist makes him especially well suited to understanding and describing the "3D world" of such people.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2016 20:02

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

tacodaemon posted:

Trump is having a Sunday afternoon tweetfest, and welp:

The official position of the next administration on the legitimacy of elections

Other people have said this, but statements of this sort are the scariest thing about Trump. Much as we venerate it, our system of "checks and balances" actually kind of sucks and relies a great deal on norms of behavior rather than actual procedural limits. We've sent the problems with this approach for the last 8 years as the republicans have all but destroyed the government's ability to accomplish meaningful things, and now we're going to see what it means when those same people control all 3 branches and don't give a poo poo about previous political norms or even basic human decency.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 22:39

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Twelve by Pies posted:

Noted shithead Adam4d drew a comic illustrating that Jews don't actually believe in God and are all going to burn in Hell.

http://adam4d.com/christians-jews/

Apparently Christian Comics are a lot like Christian Music or Christian Stand-Up, very poor imitations of the original. I wonder what Oatmeal would think of this, given that the guy is obviously a huge fan and yet wouldn't know funny if it smacked him in the head.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2016 06:32

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

GutBomb posted:

California and middle America are not the same thing and don't have the same values. Eliminate New York and California (2 states she would have won even if each state had several million fewer Hillary voters and 2 states that don't reflect the values of the typical republican voter)

The anti-female sentiment wasn't a factor in these particular states but it certainly was in most others.

Democrats winning tons of votes in California and New York, even enough to influence the popular vote over the EC vote, is not an accurate reflection of the will of the people of the entire nation. She didn't get hosed by the EC. The EC did what it was supposed to do and not weigh the entire election based on blowouts in particular enclaves.

If you think the fact that she was a woman wasn't a major factor in her losing the election or a factor in the way she was treated by her competitors and the media during the election I don't know what to say but you're dead wrong. The things I heard people (pundits and otherwise on both the republican and Bernie camps) mentioning about her period or her clothes are things that would never be said about a male candidate in any serious way.

How does one measure "the will of the people of the entire nation" aside from how they voted?

Because, you know, they voted for Clinton. Or do excess votes in blue states not count somehow, because they're not real america (presumably precisely because they consistently vote in a left-leaning way)?

# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 02:14

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Remember the common right wing complaint (read: lie) that the ACA exempted congress? I doubt this will surprise you:
http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

Vox Headline posted:

Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal
Republican legislators want to keep popular Obamacare provisions for themselves and their staff

The article lays out exactly how the statute is conceived, but goddamn, the hypocrisy of the Republicans never cease to amaze.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 17:39

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Matt Walsh on facebook posted:

They tore down a Robert E Lee statue in New Orleans last night. I'm sorry, this is madness. General Lee was opposed to slavery. He called it a "moral evil." He never purchased a single slave and the slaves he inherited from his father-in-law, he freed. Which is more than can be said for the numerous Union generals who owned slaves. General Lee was also opposed to secession. He was offered the job commanding the Northern Army, but he declined because, as a Virginian, he could not bring himself to march an army against his home and his sons. Tell me: would you do differently? Would you take up arms against your family? Is that such a simple choice? Can you really not appreciate the complexity of the situation that General Lee faced?

General Lee was widely respected on both sides. Read the accounts of his surrender at Appomattox to understand just how highly regarded he was by the men who actually did the fighting. He was one of the greatest Generals this country ever produced, and he was a man of honor and dignity. General Grant recognized that, his soldiers recognized that, Lincoln recognized it, yet we today, in modern times, cast him aside as a racist and a traitor. Disgraceful.

We can talk about the political causes of the Civil War, but it cannot be disputed that the men who actually fought did so to protect their countries. Southerners considered their states to be their countries first. We may not understand that nowadays, but sometimes a bit of historical perspective is necessary. You know, the same historical perspective we afford to the slave-owning Founders, such as Jefferson, who not only owned slaves but desecrated the Bible and created his own. Yet we put these evils aside and build monuments to him. Can we not then put the Civil War in context and allow a great man like Robert E Lee to be remembered and honored, as both his compatriots and his enemies honored him?

One last note to those conservatives who celebrate the destruction of Confederate monuments. Mark my words: they will come for the slave-owning Founders next. And what will you say then?

Can we not appreciate the difficult decision Lee faced? Is it not disgraceful for us to judge him a traitor, simply because he lead the armies of a traiterous rebellion? Is there no room in our hearts for compassion?

BTW liberals are evil and abortion doctors should be shot.

# ¿ May 20, 2017 18:01

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

The GOP leadership sends out email blasts now and then, and they recently rebranded it "The Everyday American". You'll never guess what they have to say about the CBO's score of the AHCA!
Link here: http://mailchi.mp/mail/the-everyday-american-tax-reform-634193?e=2a6c082ca1

The Everyday American posted:

THE AHCA GOT A NEW REPORT CARD

As you may have heard, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an updated report on the American Health Care Act (AHCA).

There has been (and will be) a lot of talk in major news outlets about what this means for everyday Americans like you and me, and it certainly can be confusing. But you�re in luck! We are here to break it down for you.

Here�s what you need to know...

TODAY�S BIG THING: THE AHCA�S CBO SCORE

WHAT�S THE CBO?

The CBO is a nonpartisan office that produces independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues. Basically, it tells Congress what the CBO predicts will be the budgetary and economic effects of the bills Congress votes on.

SO WHAT DO I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SCORE?

The AHCA, according to the CBO score, will...

Lower average premiums in the individual market by 4 to 30 percent or more, depending on your state. In contrast, Americans faced a 25 percent on average increase this year alone under the failed Obamacare status quo.
The premium reduction under the House-passed bill is achieved by expanding affordable coverage options, giving states more flexibility, and establishing the innovative Patient and State Stability Fund.

Reduce the federal deficit by $119 billion through responsible federal spending and tax relief.
Deliver tax relief of nearly $1 trillion. Obamacare taxes have driven up costs for consumers, stifled job creation and wage growth for workers and families, and jeopardized access to care.
ACHA eliminates Obamacare taxes that directly hurt low- and middle-income Americans, including the individual and employer mandate penalties, the Medical Device Excise Tax, the Health Insurance Tax, and the tax on prescription medications.

Increase coverage by 3 million in 2017, 2 million in 2020, and 1 million in 2026, relative to CBO�s previous score.

Strengthens the job-based insurance market with 4 million in increased enrollment in 2026, relative to CBO�s previous score.

WHY ARE PEOPLE SAYING THAT 23 MILLION PEOPLE WILL LOSE COVERAGE?

Under Obamacare, millions of Americans were forced to purchase expensive, inadequate insurance they did not like and couldn�t afford to use. This meant that Americans had no choice but to enroll in a broken Medicaid system, purchase expensive private insurance that failed to meet their needs, or else pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 2016 alone, more than 19 million taxpayers either paid the penalty or claimed an exemption from the individual mandate. That�s more than the number of people who gained coverage through Obamacare�s exchanges.

By eliminating the individual mandates, the AHCA delivers more freedom and choice, helping Americans buy the health care that�s right for them, if they so choose. For the CBO, when people chose to not buy health insurance, they will be counted as �losing coverage� even though it was voluntary.

SIDE NOTE: For the 15 percent of Americans who do not receive health insurance through work or a government program, the AHCA provides a monthly tax credit to purchase insurance. In fact, more Americans would be eligible for this new tax credit than under Obamacare.

WHAT�S NEXT?

The American Health Care Act is just the beginning of Congress� efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that revitalize the individual insurance market and help more Americans access affordable, quality health care. We will be sure to keep you updated along the way.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM LAST WEEK:

JIM�S EMAIL:

Thanks for sending these updates. I'm so tired of the mass media demagoguery. They fail completely to report on actual happenings.

Jim

RESPONSE:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your support! We know how hard it can be to keep up with everything that�s going on here on the Hill since the media's attention is focused elsewhere. Glad to make your life a little easier with The Everyday American.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts! Keep them comin�.

Best,
Maurice & Katelyn

KAY�S EMAIL:

OK - good news in my inbox. Better news would be Town Halls all over the US where people hurt by Obamacare could tell how much they want healthcare to be reformed. I don�t understand why we are not hearing from all the people who are being crushed by Obamacare financially and who�ve lost their doctors and the healthcare choices.

The opposing �protestors� are doing a much better job of controlling the story in the media, on all fronts and all issues. Hope you can shift that dynamic and help the other voices be heard & broadcast.

Kay

RESPONSE:

Hi Kay,

Thank you for reaching out.

We absolutely agree that more media coverage should be given to the millions of people who are suffering under the weight of Obamacare. Unfortunately, that's not the narrative the media wants to highlight, so their stories go unheard by most everyday Americans.

Congressional committees have done their best to get the word out. Check out this blog series by the Ways & Means Committee, highlighting the stories Congressmen hear every day. And spread the word! By sharing these stories with your community, we raise awareness for the people who desperately need this law to be repealed and replaced.

Best,
Maurice & Katelyn

WHAT�S NEXT:

The American Health Care Act is just the beginning of Congress� efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that revitalize the individual insurance market and help more Americans access affordable, quality health care. We will be sure to keep you updated along the way.

While you�re at it, encourage friends and family to sign up for The Everyday American!

The whole thing is transparently dishonest, but the bolded part is perhaps the mast galling. "Hey, we cleaned up the bullshit a little, so it's not as awful straight away as the previous noxious poo poo we released". I see no way around concluding that the GOP, at its core, is a completely immoral, disgusting institution. You don't see their members coming out against any of this sort of lying, to say nothing of the bill itself.

# ¿ May 25, 2017 20:04

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Greg Gianforte is currently leading over his democratic challenger in Montana, ~50-45. Is there anything republicans can do that their voters will view as disqualifying?

# ¿ May 26, 2017 04:58

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Wang_Tang posted:

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/871154923832061954

Sentiments like this are my favorite. They always pull up just short of saying what they'd change, but it's increasingly clear that what they mean is genocide.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2017 20:19

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

KickerOfMice posted:

e- wait that Louder with Crowder rear end does comedy?

Prepare for some of the worst stand up you're ever likely to see. https://youtu.be/6UdCUzsSNUA

# ¿ Jul 8, 2017 20:23

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Not exactly right wing media, but I feel like you could change a few details and the RWM would have an absolute conniption fit. Two sheriff's deputies stole marijuana from their evidence room and sold it through a CI. The judge was so moved by their contrition that he went under the already laughable 9 month sentence recommendation from the prosecutor, and gave them probation and community service. http://www.bakersfield.com/news/for...11bab0efca.html

# ¿ Aug 11, 2017 02:06

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

dinesh is amoral and shameless, he's consciously chasing outrage dollars. It's too deliberate...dont think he's stupid per se. Although, jail.

I read something a while back (which sadly I can�t find now) in which the author argued that Dinesh is desperate to be liked by the academic and journalistic world, and the fact that the only people who take him seriously are idiots has curdled into a supreme hatred of those two spheres. It makes sense to me; the guy is really nothing but a failed historian who can�t stand that no one who knows anything is interested in even speaking with him.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2017 01:08

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/nyregion/senator-robert-menendez-corruption.html

Bob Menendez got a hung jury, so I'm sure the hot takes from RWM will be coming fast and furious. Still, it does point out just how much of a cruel joke our bribery laws are, made crueler still by the Supreme Court and poo poo like the McDonnell ruling.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 01:15

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Koalas March posted:

Form in real time? Dude Oprah's been a thing for decades.

Also lmao @ who said Oprah didn't do anything "intellectually taxing". because it's the easiest thing in the world to grow up from a CSA victim in poverty to one of the world's biggest billionaires, multiple Oscar/award nominated actress.. especially as a black woman who was born in 1954.

I'm not here to say if she should run or not, I don't care about that.

But nobody itt needs to act like she hasn't accomplished some amazing poo poo, hasn't worked hard to do it, and act like she isn't smart because you don't poo poo about her other than she's a woman and she's black.

While I completely agree, I really REALLY hope she doesn't run. While I don't doubt that she is leaps and bounds more intelligent the Trump, having zero experience in government should exclude someone from the presidency, full stop. There's simply too much to know to allow someone who's completely ignorant of how things work to take over.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2018 18:51

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Tatsuta Age posted:

lets see what well adjusted the_donald thinks of the memo

oh, word

I'm confident that all four pages could've been blank, and their reaction would've been the same.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 22:54

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Leofish posted:

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/960565890336149504

Editorial standards?

# ¿ Feb 5, 2018 22:32

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

It's unfortunate that Grant, in the 19th century, understood the need for adjusting to the present circumstances in terms of how we apply the constitution better than many current federal judges. To wit:

US Grant posted:

The framers were wise in their generation and wanted to do the very best possible to secure their own liberty and independence, and that also of their descendants to the latest days. It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies. At the time of the framing of our constitution the only physical forces that had been subdued and made to serve man and do his labor, were the currents in the streams and in the air we breathe. Rude machinery, propelled by water power, had been invented; sails to propel ships upon the waters had been set to catch the passing breeze�but the application of steam to propel vessels against both wind and current, and machinery to do all manner of work had not been thought of. The instantaneous transmission of messages around the world by means of electricity would probably at that day have been attributed to witchcraft or a league with the Devil. Immaterial circumstances had changed as greatly as materials ones. We could not and ought not to be so rigidly bound by the rules laid down under circumstances so different for emergencies so utterly unanticipated. The fathers themselves would have been the first to declare that their prerogatives were not irrevocable.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2018 17:49

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

BiggerBoat posted:

Ah, Ok. I mis-read that post. Then wtf is he trying to imply though? ALMOST appointed? So?

The right wing views any governance by the left wing (or the Democrats) as defacto illegitimate. So the fact that she was considered for a position by a democrat means that she too is illegitimate, as is anything* she does.

*Note: If she does what they want instead this will be used as a point in her favor, ie "Bill Clinton considered her for AG and she agrees with us, how about that libtards?!".

# ¿ Apr 18, 2018 15:34

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Groovelord Neato posted:

looks like he found the final solution.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/988990196095111168

The comments on this tweet are fantastic. Do you think it ever bothers Peterson that so many of his most ardent supporters are out-and-out anti-semites?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2018 20:31

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

https://twitter.com/FoxNewsInsider/status/994018362710634496

I don't even know what to say. Is the Fox News social media person subtly mocking Fox News, or are they just that blinkered?

# ¿ May 9, 2018 20:25

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Groovelord Neato posted:

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1013362251259088896

Enough people have pointed out the stupidity of this clip that I have to ask: what in the gently caress is Crowder wearing? He looks like an extra from MadMax who got done filming 3 hours ago but has yet to change out of his costume.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2018 15:55

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

BiggerBoat posted:

And it begins. I'm gonna cross post this here:

Some dude shot up a radio station in Wisconsin.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/us/radio-station-shooting-wort/index.html

Any idea if WORT FM is particularly political? Seems like a music station but it also plays "talk shows". Says it's "community station, listener supported and non-commercial" so I assume they're not running Limbaugh and Hannity

I've been extremely worried that sooner rather than later that the rhetoric against "the media" was going to escalate.

Here's the radio station's FB page. Their website is crashed. Their logo says "resist the status quo" so likely progressive minded.

https://www.facebook.com/WORTFM/

Yeah. So definitely looks like a left leaning "community supported" radio channel. Keep your eye on this story. I think it's only the start. Can't fin what happened to the gunman.

EDIT:

Police said investigators were still searching for the suspect Sunday afternoon.

I live just down the road from WORT and know a number of folks who volunteer there. It's leftist in the sense that it's a largely volunteer run community radio station, which is to say that a lot of their talk programs are about queer issues, poverty, police misconduct, etc. I say talk programming specifically because quite a lot of their stuff is just music or local happenings. It's incredibly sad that this happened to them, and I hope that whoever did this is quickly caught and punished, and turns out to just be some random nut. If this is some QAnon or pizzagate bullshit that's going to be bleak, cuz WORT is a deep pull for the anti-left crowd.

JohnClark fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 6, 2018

# ¿ Aug 6, 2018 23:41

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

BiggerBoat posted:

What do you mean?

Particularly in Madison, there are many more obvious targets for someone who gets radicalized by Alex Jones types to go after. WORT is a very small operation with a very small listenership, I would be alarmed to discover that even something of its size and influence (small on both accounts) is now fair game for members of our Well Regulated Militia.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2018 23:54

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Cythereal posted:

Wonder how the RWM will spin this.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1268053040524918786?s=20

I have good news! The spin is to say, "the rioters made them do it", and also demand, repeatedly, to know the age of this man's daughter.

https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1268181584886337536

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 13:59

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Race Realists posted:

ThatGuyT wants to be the next larry elder so bad

https://twitter.com/TaleedBespoke/status/1272975418409263104

- Signed,

The First Against The Wall

The replies to that post are genuinely frightening. Not only do these people believe things which are completely false, but they are prepared to kill based on those false beliefs.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2020 06:18

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Old Kentucky Shark posted:

It's not really an option. Unlike in some systems of government, where the chief executive is chief executive until replaced, the President is only the president for a set period of time unless re-innaugurated. Even if he stamps his feet and contests the outcome of the election, to the point where the electoral college can't meet to certify the results, he still stops being the president on January 20th, 2021, at which point President Pelosi gets to tell the secret service to bundle him out of the office.

I have seen this opinion expressed elsewhere quite a lot, and I just don't understand it. After everything that Trump has done, criminal, corrupt, "norm-breaking", etc., how can people still believe that some sort of non-self executing time stamp is going to restrain him? What happens when he says the election is fraudulent and specifically refuses to accept the results? What happens when Bill Barr says the constitution demands this or that and that the DoJ is investigating "wide spread irregularities"? What happens when the Chief Justice refuses to conduct the inauguration because "we owe it to our constitution to get this right"?

Why, in other words, do people still believe that our system is anything other than an absolute house of cards, just waiting for the slightest breeze to topple it completely?

# ¿ Jul 16, 2020 16:14

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

I understand that Trump is, himself, and incompetent moron. But there are a lot of people who have entirely cast their lot with him, who are not that. Just look at this:
https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948
Someone gave the order to have this poo poo done, likely Bill Barr. Why are we so confident that Republican senators or whoever else is going to stop him, if he makes a move come election time?

# ¿ Jul 16, 2020 20:02

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

This has become something of a cause celebre in Madison, a little girl was shot in the head during what seems to have been a shootout between multiple cars, and she tragically died.

I don't understand how this implicates defunding of the police at all. All their grenade launchers and M4s didn't protect this girl, and police generally suck at solving crimes that don't have an obvious culprit. How is this meant to demonstrate that defunding the police is not just an incorrect policy, but so terrible that it should be beyond the pale?

# ¿ Aug 13, 2020 23:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:25

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

loving newsweek allowed the op ed

https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/status/1293541246489649154?s=19

The backlash was strong enough to warrant a response by news week

Stuff like this is incredibly irritating, because either the editors of Newsweek are absolute drooling morons, or they think we are. This crap about it just being a debate in constitutional law and having nothing to do with birtherism is obviously fatuous, and it's insulting that they would dare to make that argument. gently caress these people who, to borrow from Judge Judy, constantly piss on our legs and then get annoyed when we won't accept their claim that it's raining.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2020 01:51

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

«‹›2 »