|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Beck is an interesting case too. Former morning-zoo shock-jock (shocking enough to make fun of a miscarriage), he latter found (Mormon) Jesus and got national exposure being the official right-winger for CNN. Even his the story of his religious conversion is half-assed. The story goes, his family was shopping for a church because he figured they should be going to a church, and they settled on the LDS they visited because one of his kids liked it. If you listen to his show, he can't seem to help slipping back into the morning-zoo routine. And it becomes quite schizophrenic, as he'll go from laughing and talking back and forth with the other staff, and then slip back into some dire monologue when he seems to remember he's not getting paid for fun and games any more. I am sure I have at least one friend that converted to Mormonism solely because of Glenn Beck. For that reason alone I have a huge amount of dislike for the man. There's also the rather  letter he wrote to the band Muse about how their music makes him feel (even though the band has said they are disgusted by right-wing American politics and routinely deny conservative requests to use their songs at rallies, on TV/radio shows, and so on).
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Axetrain posted:
One of my old bosses here in Brazil has one. Given fuel, parts, pilot pay, maintenance and other issues, you are looking at about $200K-300K each month, and that's assuming you have a new, reliable airplane that doesn't break often. Bonus fact: said boss' company eventually went belly-up after it was caught is some very dodgy investment hijinks in 2009. He chose to remove all coffee machines and fridges from his offices rather than let his beloved winged money pit go. At one point, he was wearing bullet-proof vests when attending shareholder meetings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:I thought he had one billion+? If so then he should easily be able to afford all those things, even at 1% interest thats 10mil a year not even counting his salary as well. In the case of Rush, there would have to be a credible third party to release his finances for me to believe it. Rush himself has too much of an image to maintain to really speak about it honestly. Also, he could have a gold plated mahogany desk that he paid millions for but he could never get that same amount back out of. He could have lots of things he thinks are worth millions up until he has to beg people to take it off his hands. The millions he spent decorating that NYC apartment he sold probably went right into a dumpster, as the terrible tastes of the nouveau riche rarely appreciate in value. He could be living off the interest of investments, but that is only if he is making sound investments. The internet isn't helping me much here though. No shortage of articles on the crap he spends his money on. Anything on "investments" just turns up cases of the good and bad effects on the stocks of companies Rush advertises for. His "EIB Network" is just him, so it isn't like he's rolling his fame and fortune into building a media empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:This is a great post. Lately I got back into collegiate debate and I've been shocked by the level that libertarianism has infiltrated the circuit, and college in general. I'm at a major urban state school, and the number of self-identified libertarians has been alarming. These are people who read literature about how power works, and then are fundamentally blind to how libertarianism would fall apart in about five minutes just due to the most basic, elementary applications of power relations. Libertarianism is exactly why I'm cautious about saying the political climate will be better once the Boomers are gone. Sure, social issues poll well among the youth and have gotten increasingly more progressive over time, but I swear that economic issues are absolutely hosed. Like you, I have educated friends who are extremely socially liberal (and not just "do as you please," but donating time and money to charity and attending Gay and Women's Rights rallies), but are terrified of scary phrases like "increased spending" and "higher taxes." Like the2ndgenesis said, being a libertarian is sexy, and with that comes a huge amount of young people that value a woman's right to have an abortion or for gay people to marry, but think infrastructure spending and programs like affirmative action need to be slashed because taxes are bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:
I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I've always felt that libertarians are analogues to the bolsheviks in 1912: harmless only because they didn't get their paws on anything big so far. When they do, it's going to get really bad, really fast. And not just because they are the form the hard-rear end right wing will morph nto next after it spends all of its cradibility and/or the boomers expire. The austerity tough love in Europe is a good preview of what may be in store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Libertarianism is exactly why I'm cautious about saying the political climate will be better once the Boomers are gone. Sure, social issues poll well among the youth and have gotten increasingly more progressive over time, but I swear that economic issues are absolutely hosed. Like you, I have educated friends who are extremely socially liberal (and not just "do as you please," but donating time and money to charity and attending Gay and Women's Rights rallies), but are terrified of scary phrases like "increased spending" and "higher taxes." You're only looking at it from one side, though. Keep in mind, a lot of people vote Republican/don't vote Democrat anymore because of wedge social issues, not because they agree with the economic platform. Imagine if the Catholic Church got over their abortion/birth control hangups. They're still among the largest proponents for aiding the poor, and it would be a massive boon for leftists if they got on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
A couple people have touched on this in this thread, but I wanted to specifically point it out: one of the things that alarms me the most about the right-wing media is that somehow it has managed to demonize INTELLIGENCE and EDUCATION with this whole "liberal professors" and "intellectuals in ivory towers" thing. I was born in the late 80s so I'm not sure, but wasn't part of the American Dream post-WW2 the ability to go to college and become a learned person? How has that flipped around to where education is the domain of the liberals and thus not a place to tread? It's a glorification of ignorance that really frightens and disheartens me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:A couple people have touched on this in this thread, but I wanted to specifically point it out: one of the things that alarms me the most about the right-wing media is that somehow it has managed to demonize INTELLIGENCE and EDUCATION with this whole "liberal professors" and "intellectuals in ivory towers" thing. I was born in the late 80s so I'm not sure, but wasn't part of the American Dream post-WW2 the ability to go to college and become a learned person? How has that flipped around to where education is the domain of the liberals and thus not a place to tread? It's a glorification of ignorance that really frightens and disheartens me. Unfortunately glorifying "common sense values" over actual intelligence isn't a new trend, it's been there from the beginning. This is a great book on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
nachos posted:Unfortunately glorifying "common sense values" over actual intelligence isn't a new trend, it's been there from the beginning. This is a great book on the subject. Beyond all that I think that most people who are anti-education aren't against education in general, they're just against specific types of education. In my experience no one would argue against more electrical engineers, but they would argue against more social scientists or biologists. They want educated people to either agree with their "common sense," or to not deal with social issues at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:A couple people have touched on this in this thread, but I wanted to specifically point it out: one of the things that alarms me the most about the right-wing media is that somehow it has managed to demonize INTELLIGENCE and EDUCATION with this whole "liberal professors" and "intellectuals in ivory towers" thing. I was born in the late 80s so I'm not sure, but wasn't part of the American Dream post-WW2 the ability to go to college and become a learned person? How has that flipped around to where education is the domain of the liberals and thus not a place to tread? It's a glorification of ignorance that really frightens and disheartens me. Unfortunately, I don't think this is something we can lay solely at the right-wing media's feet, as entertainment media has by far been the most ruthless in exploiting the fact that there are shitloads of money to be made by appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator, and reassuring them that their lack of education is in fact "common sense" and that they are "regular folks". It feels like it's gotten more crass over the years just because there are so many outlets for it, but it's always been there in some fashion (ex., schools routinely valuing sports programs over academic programs).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Libertarianism is so paper thin and baseless its easy to pick apart, and the nice thing is most libertarians I've met are thoughtful enough to have an honest intellectual discussion about their beliefs. I have found that for many libertarians it doesn't matter one bit what sources you give them to expound your own worldview; if it does not agree with their ideology they will either dismiss it out of hand or curtly link you to a Mises/Cato article on why you are obviously wrong. It's infuriating and very intellectually dishonest. I really do think that libertarianism's thinly-veiled distrust of academia is a major selling point, which might help to explain why so many college kids feel attracted to it after muddling through classes. It's an ideology that allows you to believe what you want about science, the humanities, etc.- to a point. Are you angry about creationism because your religious Republican parents forced it on you as a kid? That's fine, you can still be a good libertarian and an evolutionist because Darwinism doesn't conflict with the idea that the state is always wrong and privatization is the only answer. The same goes for astronomy, math, most of the physical sciences- if your beliefs about a discipline don't interfere with libertarian principles, go hog wild. This makes libertarian objections to mainstream economics, sociology, and history all the more striking. This is especially true of Austrian School scholars and media sources. For example if you hold the opinion that economic regulation/intervention is sometimes a good idea because of, say, global warming, or the depression conditions which brought about the New Deal, you can be certain that libertarian "revisionists" have written ad nauseam on those subjects and why you cannot trust "leftist" academics who write about those subjects. Global warming? Not a big deal/fabricated, therefore we don't need any regulations for it. And did you know that the New Deal was actually basically fascism? Libertarians are all for embracing the academic consensus about Subject X right up until the point where that consensus dares to critique capitalism as a political economy or mutter a single word of praise for the state. In those instances the libertarian media world will happily provide one with the sources one needs to arrive at the Correct Opinion on the subject. There's a very gnostic quality to all of it, and for the person who buys into it it lends itself to the idea that they are a super-informed critical thinker in a sea of statist drones; it contributes directly to the sexiness of the ideology. It is also scholarship of the poorest sort and scarcely more academically relevant than Holocaust denial literature. At its worst it is brainwashing. As a history graduate student I find the prospect of this literature becoming mainstream to be terribly frightening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:A couple people have touched on this in this thread, but I wanted to specifically point it out: one of the things that alarms me the most about the right-wing media is that somehow it has managed to demonize INTELLIGENCE and EDUCATION with this whole "liberal professors" and "intellectuals in ivory towers" thing. I was born in the late 80s so I'm not sure, but wasn't part of the American Dream post-WW2 the ability to go to college and become a learned person? How has that flipped around to where education is the domain of the liberals and thus not a place to tread? It's a glorification of ignorance that really frightens and disheartens me. It probably goes back to the 60s activism that was so centered on college campuses. The huge amount of media coverage of various student movements made a clear association between universities and left-wing politics. Add in the fact that college was still a pretty elite activity back then, and it was pretty easy to build a link that colleges are full of elite leftists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
the2ndgenesis posted:It is also scholarship of the poorest sort and scarcely more academically relevant than Holocaust denial literature. At its worst it is brainwashing. As a history graduate student I find the prospect of this literature becoming mainstream to be terribly frightening. They don't need facts when they have "logic," and they don't need history when their grand project has never been realized. This to me is the most disturbing part of it all. Their fundamental disregard for the forces of history and the nature of power relations is striking. Who needs the state when individuals liberty is the key to everything, who needs regulations when "bad companies" will go bankrupt, who needs taxes when we'd barely have a functioning society at all, and who would serve in their army when the very idea of the state is under attack? It's like they look at society as it is now and just assume it happened this way inexorably, and we'd only have gotten here faster if not for those damned crazy statists. They don't realize that the clean food they eat was bought with blood, the roads they drive on were built because of the fear of other states, and that every modern convenience they enjoy or thing that doesn't kill them is because society got together and did the bare minimum in most cases. They look around at our world and think "gently caress this, burn it down" because "I didn't sign a social contract" and then I shake my head cause they've lost me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
the2ndgenesis posted:Libertarians are all for embracing the academic consensus about Subject X right up until the point where that consensus dares to critique capitalism as a political economy or mutter a single word of praise for the state. In those instances the libertarian media world will happily provide one with the sources one needs to arrive at the Correct Opinion on the subject. There's a very gnostic quality to all of it, and for the person who buys into it it lends itself to the idea that they are a super-informed critical thinker in a sea of statist drones; it contributes directly to the sexiness of the ideology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
fade5 posted:My theory is that Rush started out just saying the rhetoric and not really believing it (maybe he believed bits of it), but after repeating the rhetoric for 20+ years and being supported and praised with little to no pushback he now actually does believe what he's saying. Essentially, he's turned into a "dittohead" himself after listening to himself for so long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
There needs to be more discussion in this thread about Mark Levin. Zewle posted:I nominate Talk Radio Hero Mark Levin. Levin is the most fascinating right wing radio host to listen to. While he's creepy and a huge rear end in a top hat, I have to admire his persuasiveness and the entertainment value he provides. Unlike Limbaugh who talks in a dull monotone robotic voice for 3 hours, this guy will keep you awake on long road trips. Check this out from the past week. He's all but calling Obama a murderer for not preventing the Benghazi attacks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aZ6PTQqJMk "DON"T TELL ME the president of the United States didn't know for 7 drat hours what was going on in Libya!" Why isn't Levin as popular as Rush? I do wish there was a left leaning radio host personality as obnoxious and forceful as Levin. I nominate Jim Cornette for the job. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGp043tHAc8
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Currently watching "Obama 2016" which some mystery PAC sent me today. I was really hoping it would be similar to the truly hilarious Dreams From My Real Father, but it's not. It's actually pretty drat slick, well-produced, and professional seeming. Of course it's batshit stupid and blatantly disingenuous, but still... it kind of scares me that conservatives may be catching on to the fact that competently produced propaganda (bizarro Michael Moore) is better than flirting with Alex Jones poo poo. EDIT: Just kidding, the first 30 minutes are not indicative at all of the rest of this loving movie. It goes full-retard towards the end. cymbalrush fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
My first real exposure to how pervasive free-market attitudes were in economics was in my introductory economics class in college. This was a real article that they published inside of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
How are the right wing talking heads spinning the disaster response in New York/New Jersey? Inefficient and slow response (i.e., a response that isn't 100% comprehensive and 100% immediate) is low-hanging fruit, but the media is inundated with people begging for federal and state help and there's nary a libertarian to be seen gathering hundreds of like-minded individuals and helping out in a more significant way than food drives. Where is the evidence for a non-governmental mechanism for feeding and housing thousands of people? I don't mean to focus on a single issue in particular, but if there's a good opportunity for people to demonstrate the lessons they learn in right-wing media then a natural disaster is it. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:There needs to be more discussion in this thread about Mark Levin. Rush has definitely had better days. I don't catch him on the radio as much as I used to, but from what I have caught he is coasting on his previous glory. His voice went to poo poo when he went deaf, and having relatives with bad hearing loss I would turn the dial as much from a sense of pity as plain disgust. And in retrospect, the drugs took a toll during that early 2000's period. He went from great radio voice and quick wits in the 90's to weird voice and losing his train of thought. But he was a trend setter, got his name out there by giving his product away to desperate AM stations, so he still makes money even though he has really gone to poo poo. Levin is an interesting case because he is one of those guys that got into radio to be a right-wing pundit. I find him pretty much impossible to listen to for any stretch because (as others have mentioned) he has no range and bounces from NPR whisper to that nasal shouting. And he can't keep Reagan's cock out of his mouth to save his life. Granted, the highpoint of his career was working in the Reagan administration. I doubt he'll gain much popularity because the number of people pining for the days of Reagan are declining. The bit of him I caught today was him playing back some old Reagan speeches, and then reading the transcript of them. But he's just so wrapped up in those good old days I don't think he really noticed that Reagan's words really aren't that different then any other politicians. GW Bush promised the same poo poo, but you'll be hard pressed to find a pundit who really champions Bush to any great extant. He's another case of preaching to the choir, but that choir is old and dying off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
cymbalrush posted:EDIT: Just kidding, the first 30 minutes are not indicative at all of the rest of this loving movie. It goes full-retard towards the end. If you want full-retard, Dinesh D'souza doesn't disappoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:Why isn't Levin as popular as Rush? Honestly it's his voice. The people that actively listen to him that are of that mind love him in an almost Beck-like manner, but he drives your average "radio in the background" listener nuts with the nasally yelling. Like someone else mentioned with the Regan fellatio, he also has a far more limited range of topics than your average right wing windbag so he's harder to listen to for 15 hours a week as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
the2ndgenesis posted:I really do think that libertarianism's thinly-veiled distrust of academia is a major selling point, which might help to explain why so many college kids feel attracted to it after muddling through classes. It's an ideology that allows you to believe what you want about science, the humanities, etc.- to a point. Are you angry about creationism because your religious Republican parents forced it on you as a kid? That's fine, you can still be a good libertarian and an evolutionist because Darwinism doesn't conflict with the idea that the state is always wrong and privatization is the only answer. The same goes for astronomy, math, most of the physical sciences- if your beliefs about a discipline don't interfere with libertarian principles, go hog wild. I think libertarians' disdain for letters and humanities stems from the fact that they're not obviously profitable and thus run counter to the libertarian world view by their very definition. In addition, alpha sciences tend to include a large chunk of empathy and deliberate encounters with otherness, two things libertarianism also sucks at big time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:Honestly it's his voice. The people that actively listen to him that are of that mind love him in an almost Beck-like manner, but he drives your average "radio in the background" listener nuts with the nasally yelling. Like someone else mentioned with the Regan fellatio, he also has a far more limited range of topics than your average right wing windbag so he's harder to listen to for 15 hours a week as well. Seconding this. Mark Levin's gimmick gets old quick. After 6 months of listening to him on the way to work his voice is toxic to me. He sounds like Hannity with his balls in a vice, its awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
The basic scientific research that underlies all those neat profitable technological shinies that libertarians love tends to actually happen at public universities, funded by government grants. Maybe Mark Rosenfelder was right, and the frequent invisibility of well-managed government services is a terrible thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:The basic scientific research that underlies all those neat profitable technological shinies that libertarians love tends to actually happen at public universities, funded by government grants. Maybe Mark Rosenfelder was right, and the frequent invisibility of well-managed government services is a terrible thing. Libertarians are people who look at the thousand things that have to go right every day, quietly, for there to be gas at a gas station (and pumped out at proper amounts), or so water comes out of the faucet, and they just don't get how staggeringly difficult an achievement that is. From my personal experience, they just see the world as it is as something natural, and it would only be better if the "state" stopped interfering. They have all the evidence right in front of them, and then they reach the wrong conclusion every time. They practically manufacture their own consent, and the snake oil salesmen and internet blowhards spreading this contemptible ideology are dangerous as all hell. Paul Ryan could be sworn in as VP in a few months. And that's just right now! What about the person twenty years from now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Is there some sort of support network for people whose loved ones watch fox news? I have a family member who is a brilliant engineer, and is hooked on cable news, watching fox news as his main source and using CNN as a left wing foil. I understand that going into a conversation by assuming "I'm right and you're wrong" is pigheaded and close-minded, but I need help finding ways to approach issues so I can engage in civil discourse about them. Often, conversations falter and collapse when it comes to talking points ("Did Obama say 'terrorism' in the road garden?") and post-modern philosophies that shut down discussion ('There are no facts; everything is debatable'). I understand that my ability to change someone's mind is nil, people make up their own minds, but I refuse to believe that we can't have a discourse about our differences of opinion that don't give both of us heart attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Libertarians are people who look at the thousand things that have to go right every day, quietly, for there to be gas at a gas station (and pumped out at proper amounts), or so water comes out of the faucet, and they just don't get how staggeringly difficult an achievement that is. From my personal experience, they just see the world as it is as something natural, and it would only be better if the "state" stopped interfering. They have all the evidence right in front of them, and then they reach the wrong conclusion every time. They practically manufacture their own consent, and the snake oil salesmen and internet blowhards spreading this contemptible ideology are dangerous as all hell. Paul Ryan could be sworn in as VP in a few months. And that's just right now! What about the person twenty years from now? It might also upset them that corporations routinely engage in the type of "social engineering" (marketing, lobbying, speculation on natural resources, investment, eminent domain seizures, rent seeking) and "central planning" (Walmart sure is a shining example of the spontaneous order of the marketplace leading to an optimally efficient allocation of capital  ) they seem to selectively object to when The State does it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Is there some sort of support network for people whose loved ones watch fox news? I have a family member who is a brilliant engineer, and is hooked on cable news, watching fox news as his main source and using CNN as a left wing foil. There sure is, it's this thread!  In all seriousness, it's admirable that you want to continue to engage this person in discourse, but the thing you have to realize is that your efforts may well all be for naught. We can provide advice (my main piece of advice is to be firm and resolute in your positions, and to not come across as condescending or like you're trying to "educate" the person, or like you are attacking them personally). But at the end of the day it really depends on how deeply entrenched the person is in the Fox News/Rush/Drudge bubble vs. how much regard they have for you and your opinions. Some people never do make it out of the bubble, and it's those people that you just have to stop trying to discuss politics with, because you're likely never going to reach them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Fallom posted:How are the right wing talking heads spinning the disaster response in New York/New Jersey? Inefficient and slow response (i.e., a response that isn't 100% comprehensive and 100% immediate) is low-hanging fruit, but the media is inundated with people begging for federal and state help and there's nary a libertarian to be seen gathering hundreds of like-minded individuals and helping out in a more significant way than food drives. Where is the evidence for a non-governmental mechanism for feeding and housing thousands of people? You see, the government artificially lowers the price of emergency supplies so that free market forces can't compete to provide disaster relief. If the government would simply get out of the disaster rescue market, companies would be able to provide cheap and plentiful supplies to the people in need at lower prices with greater efficiency. FEMA is actually making it worse for disaster victims by driving businesses out of the emergency marketplace. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:There sure is, it's this thread! I think anyone is convertable, and I actually think that right-wing media demonstrates this: If you can inundate somebody with your information and bombard them constantly, I think a version of Stockholm Syndrome takes hold and they just begin to see the light in the color you see it as well. It's going to be a long and ardurous process, but if you nudge consistently in small amounts, eventually they will give a little bit. EDIT: Removed some filler poo poo. Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Never change, FOX. Never change. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panthers-back-at-the-same-08-polling-place-in-philadelphia/ New Black Panther spotted at polling station. edit: 
BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Never change, FOX. Never change. First comment: "if i could afford it I’d go find 10-15 klansman and pay them to stand at the same polling place, its legal, just making sure no one tries to scare away the white folks…" Yep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Never change, FOX. Never change. loving hell I just came here to post about this. Nothing sends my blood boiling faster. For fucks sake, it's just blatant racism. The "report" at Fox Nation is literally this: quote:There are reports that the New Black Panthers have returned to the same Philly polling station we saw them at in 2008. This photo came with the report. And it has the picture and video from Fox News from 2008. Literally no new content besides REPORTS OF SCARY BLACK MAN. edit: ughhh 
Logan 5 fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Logan 5 posted:And it has the picture and video from Fox News from 2008. Literally no new content besides REPORTS OF SCARY BLACK MAN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Logan 5 posted:loving hell I just came here to post about this. Nothing sends my blood boiling faster. God, I didn't even catch that. The Blaze article I linked showed one Black Panther dude but I had no idea it was an old photo. As an aside, I couldn't resist subjecting myself to a few minutes of Rush today. He was more insane than usual; going on about polls. I'm not sure what he was driving at or what point he was trying to make but his gist was "the polls are the best thing Obama has going for him/without the polls, where would Obama be?" and I just didn't (and still don't) know what the gently caress. Aren't the polls measuring voter intent and likely outcomes? What does what he said even mean? "Without the polls, the Obama campaign would be...?" What exactly? The polls are measuring data, correct? That's like saying "without all of those home runs, where would Babe Ruth be" or "without all of those voters, where would 'certain candidate' be", isn't it? Without all of those sportswriters I guess Micheal Jordan wouldn't have won all those MVP awards either. I think he was trying to make some weird point about skewed polls or something and how they're in the tank for Obama to keep the election but it came out as "without the polls, Obama wouldn't be winning!" Well...um...yeah...I suppose that's true! Without water cooled to 32 degrees, there'd be no ice either, Rush. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:Meanwhile, Republicans have been caught giving people false information about when to vote, lying to people about ID requirements, handing out "voter guides" that tell you to vote Republican on everything, etc. What!? Surely you mean to say that it is Grand Ole Party supporters are the ones being harassed and threatened by  (These are from today)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The polls are measuring data, correct? What's funny is that raw data is probably favoring Obama a lot more than the poll numbers we see, because more Democrats get categorized as not being likely voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Is there some sort of support network for people whose loved ones watch fox news? I have a family member who is a brilliant engineer, and is hooked on cable news, watching fox news as his main source and using CNN as a left wing foil. You might try to appeal to his sense of wanting to appear intelligent. Maybe try saying something like "You're a really smart guy, why do you watch 24-hour/cable news?" "You don't need that stuff, its not made for people who can decide on things for themselves." etc. If he brings up something he heard off FOX or the like at some later point, just laugh and brush it off, shaking your head. Eventually he might get the point that the stuff he's regurgitating doesn't make him look respectable. Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
WHERE IS DICK MORRIS? BRING US DICK MORRIS!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 05:34
|
|