|
ClothHat posted:Does anyone worry that too much ironic exposure to this nonsense is going to slowly make them turn? I found myself slightly worried in the weeks leading up to the election because both sides seemed so absolutely assured they were going to win inside their own echo chambers. I was thinking if Romney ended up winning maybe that would mean I was being brainwashed by the insidious liberal media. I was wondering the same thing earlier today actually. I was momentarily worried that perhaps since I considered conservative talking heads to be crazy, and they obviously consider people like me to be crazy, that maybe I'm the crazy one in the equation. Then I did some introspection while validating my opinions with known facts and empirical evidence. I also re-listened to the Maddow comments from yesterday, it was like a shower after slogging through poo poo all day. Bait and Swatch fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Nov 9, 2012 |
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Follow Pat Buchanan's example, Rush. Go for broke on the racism. Real America's depending on you! Even Pat Buchanan admits the Republicans have to get latinos on board to survive now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Pat Buchanan has some marvelous opinions about World War II. I seem to remember him saying a few years ago that it was the Allies who were responsible for Germany's actions. It makes sense because if the Soviet Union, Poland, France, and the UK had just given everything Hitler wanted them to, then he wouldn't have had to launch a massive war of elimination against them, or some such rot. Does anyone take that guy seriously these days?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Dudes! posted:He does like Cubans though. Sometimes I wish he would just let it all out. I mean, how many more sponsors are going to pull the plug on him? Maybe he thinks the gold investment guys and Lifelock wouldn't have it. I just want to see him to go down in horrible bigoted flames before he dies of a heart attack, is that so much to ask? Do it for me Rush, I wanna see you burn. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
Daily Currant is apparently a satire site, but I'm not sure how it's satire if the words you attribute to somebody are 100% in line with his publicly expressed opinions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Daily Currant is apparently a satire site, but I'm not sure how it's satire if the words you attribute to somebody are 100% in line with his publicly expressed opinions. Oh, I'll certainly agree that that's a fair point. What happened was I got that link from a more left-leaning FB friend, who was themselves under the impression that the article was legit. I corrected the misconception (after I edited my post here), and commented that although Buchanan has made  comments before, he didn't actually make these exact comments after Election Day like we had thought. Again, Poe's Law and all that. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
If you're going to parody right-wingers, you need to toss in an obvious tip-off somewhere near the end. Because they really are building the new crazy atop the old crazy at a rate that's difficult for satirists to keep pace with.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:I was wondering the same thing earlier today actually. I was momentarily worried that perhaps since I considered conservative talking heads to be crazy, and they obviously consider people like me to be crazy, that maybe I'm the crazy one in the equation. Then I did some introspection while validating my opinions with known facts and empirical evidence. I also re-listened to the Maddow comments from yesterday, it was like a shower after slogging through poo poo all day. There are the liberal alternatives on talk radio too. For best liberal version of the off-the-rails and spittle on the mic, I nominate Mike Malloy http://www.mikemalloy.com/ Some one commented in another thread about how Bill O'Reilly couldn't say the word "left" without prefixing it with a "far-". All through the Bush administration, Malloy couldn't seem to say the word "bush" without appending "crime family" to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:50
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:All through the Bush administration, Malloy couldn't seem to say the word "bush" without appending "crime family" to it. It literally was though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see whether the doubling-down of the pundits ever ends up classing with what ever realpolitik operatives the Republican party has. It's honestly hard to tell what is the dog, what is the tail, and which one is wagging. Lars Larson, a local guy that with a national show, had a guest on in the last hour who wrote a book about how awesome low taxes and deregulation is. They spent their time trying to parse Boehner's post Obama victory statements about taxes. Trying to reassure hard working small business owners that what Boehner meant was that they would not raise their taxes but just make it so the government got more tax revenue. It was like a glimpse into the birth of a talking point. Going back and worth trying to wordsmith "You are going to pay more taxes" into "You'll pay less taxes".
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:There are the liberal alternatives on talk radio too. It was this thread and literally a page ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 10:34
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:It was this thread and literally a page ago.  I knew I read it somewhere, and figured it was in all the TVIV stuff in here
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:... Eric Dondero: Hahaha no you don't Eric, you just fantasize about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
Pvt Dancer posted:Hahaha no you don't Eric, you just fantasize about it. This dude BRAGS about SHAMING poor people for wanting to EAT. he brags about shaming poor people for wanting to eat. Good lord, this is horrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Sounds like Limbaugh is playing DJ today. He played Feliz Navidad to show his "acceptance" of hispanics, and then a Michael Bolton Christmas song. Why? Well apparently to hammer in a new talking point to equate the Democratic Party to Santa Clause because it gives out "free stuff" to people. Now he's railing on Nixon for creating government programs  All this while using statistics on the hispanic vote from previous elections, saying that previous Republican presidents didn't need the hispanic vote to win. Why should they need it now? This is like watching someone drive a car into a wall, back up 200 meters and then slam on the gas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
This Santa Clause analogy has to be the dumbest thing he's come up with in a long time. Especially since he thinks Santa Clause gives free stuff to everyone, no matter who they are. I'm pretty sure the whole point of Santa Clause is that he only gives stuff to people who deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:There are the liberal alternatives on talk radio too. For a basic craziness barometer, back in the day, Mike Malloy reported the things I said in my white house thread as fact. Specifically, the Donald Rumsfeld refridgerated underwear constant erection/standing desk thing, and Tom Ridge being frightened of bodyhair and sleeping in a nylon bodysock. Martin Random fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
kik2dagroin posted:Sounds like Limbaugh is playing DJ today. He played Feliz Navidad to show his "acceptance" of hispanics, and then a Michael Bolton Christmas song. Why? Well apparently to hammer in a new talking point to equate the Democratic Party to Santa Clause because it gives out "free stuff" to people. Now he's railing on Nixon for creating government programs Typical Pubbie posted:This Santa Clause analogy has to be the dumbest thing he's come up with in a long time. Especially since he thinks Santa Clause gives free stuff to everyone, no matter who they are. I'm pretty sure the whole point of Santa Clause is that he only gives stuff to people who deserve it. Yeah, I came here to post this and it was beyond horrible even for Rush. I hated my radio for broadcasting it. He's back into the outrageous self parody and borderline satire that he was offering when he first started out. I wonder if he appreciates the irony that they say "Merry Christmas" over and over in that song when liberals supposedly have some sort of problem with that. edit: Where's all my free poo poo? I've been voting for Democrats since Mike Dukakis and haven't received anything yet. Where do I register for all the stuff I'm supposed to get? I've been a good boy. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
This is awesome because the next step will be ObamaClaus image macros on Facebook and ObamaClaus T-shirts sold from the Limbaugh website and you can automatically spot who is a douchebag from 2 miles away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
But... I would buy an ObamaClause holiday sweater in an instant. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Hannity is apparently out in front of immigration and has "evolved" and since he gets the faxes from Reince every day thats where the party is going to be headed. Gonna b e interesting to see if the wacko base allows themselves to be led into this by the hannity's of the world should.
mcmagic fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Hannity is apparently out in front of immigration and has "evolved" and since he gets the faxes from Reince every day thats where the party is going to be headed. Gonna b e interesting to see if the wacko base allows themselves to be led into this by the hannity's of the world should. I bet you they still use faxes, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:But... I would buy an ObamaClause holiday sweater in an instant. Off to Etsy I go!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I gorged on right wing media yesterday, listening to Rush, checking out every right wing site I could think of (Daily Caller, American Spectator, National Review Online, Drudge etc. - couldn't even bring myself to go to Hot Air though). I absolutely love the "They outnumber us now" talking point. I heard Bill O'Reilly saying "The White Estabishment is now the minority" and I actually agreed with him. What made it so funny to me was that Bill O'Reilly was saying it with such fear and horror, like "Oh poo poo, we're now the minority, what do we do now?" I live in San Antonio, Texas, so I've been "outnumbered" my whole life, but unlike O'Reilly, Fox News, et al, I think it's great. America is fast becoming a racially diverse country, and whites will soon be a minority. Living in San Antonio, this is already true for me, so all the fear over what I think of as normal is absolutely hilarious. I LOVE living in a racially diverse city; gently caress, do you realize that thanks to San Antonio's Hispanic roots we have an official ten day PARTY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiesta_San_Antonio San Antonio is awesome. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
I posted some disparaging remarks about my fellow catholics in the election thread a few days ago because I always thought we were mostly good people and not divisive moral majoritarians. Fordham (a Jesuit University) College Republicans invited Ann Coulter to an event. College President Father McShane had this response quote:The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus. The college Republicans rescinded her invitation. Sorry this isn't just posting crazy stuff that she said, but I thought this was relevant to this particular thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I absolutely love the "They outnumber us now" talking point. I heard Bill O'Reilly saying "The White Estabishment is now the minority" and I actually agreed with him. What made it so funny to me was that Bill O'Reilly was saying it with such fear and horror, like "Oh poo poo, we're now the minority, what do we do now?" I live in San Antonio, Texas, so I've been "outnumbered" my whole life, but unlike O'Reilly, Fox News, et al, I think it's great. America is fast becoming a racially diverse country, and whites will soon be a minority. Living in San Antonio, this is already true for me, so all the fear over what I think of as normal is absolutely hilarious. I absolutely love the panic the right is in because they are finally starting to realize this. This is why they're blaming their loss on stupid things like the hurricane. And I love living in San Antonio for those same reasons as well! San Antonio and Fiesta are the best! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Its been said before, but it still amuses me. The right wing, for so long, has been saying how great minorities have it, with their Obamaphones, and their welfare queens. But suddenly, when whites are about to become a minority, its the apocalypse. It's like, "oh, are minorities treated badly in the US?" :ironycat:
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted: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. Libertarians don't want the "time of fiefdoms and petty lords" because the view of the individual that they have is a lot newer than the communalist/corporatist ethos that underpinned medieval/early modern governance. They want Hobbes' State of Nature because they think that somehow, they'll win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
I think he means that though they'd like Hobbes State of Nature, what you would end up with is fiefdoms and petty lords, because people abhor a power vacuum
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I think he means that though they'd like Hobbes State of Nature, what you would end up with is fiefdoms and petty lords, because people abhor a power vacuum I know it, I just kind of wanted to pimp my own discipline out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
The O'Reilly Factor (with Laura Ingraham filling in) was on at the bar tonight, and it really seems like doubling down on evil is the next step for the GOP. The logic (and I use that word loosely) was thus: Republicans should absolutely not move toward the center, because Obama didn't move toward the center after the tea party successes in 2010 and he got re-elected. The amount of mental gymnastics required to make sense of that is beyond my comprehension. edit: Like, I can't even type it out in a coherent way that makes fun of the absurdity of it. "Don't become more liberal, because our enemy who refused to become less liberal achieved success," maybe? Nimmy posted:Fordham (a Jesuit University) College Republicans invited Ann Coulter to an event. College President Father McShane had this response Hazo fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Nimmy posted:I posted some disparaging remarks about my fellow catholics in the election thread a few days ago because I always thought we were mostly good people and not divisive moral majoritarians. This was maybe one of the classiest 'gently caress you guys' statements I've read. Jesuits as a whole, in my experience, are pretty drat chill, nice to see their learning institutions are good too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
Jesuits are generally good people. I go to a Jesuit university and both the professors I've had who are ordained members of the order are chill and good scholars. Heck, one of them even studied at Fordham, and their order also helped condemn Paul Ryan's budget for its FYGM attitude towards the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Hazo posted:The O'Reilly Factor (with Laura Ingraham filling in) was on at the bar tonight, and it really seems like doubling down on evil is the next step for the GOP. The logic (and I use that word loosely) was thus: Republicans should absolutely not move toward the center, because Obama didn't move toward the center after the tea party successes in 2010 and he got re-elected. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh was ranting and raving about how everyone blames him now for driving people away from the Republicans. During this rant, he was playing "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" in the background, derided women as the "Vagina Brigade", and kept trying to awkwardly tap his hand on his desk in time to the music. It was either an amazing piece of performance art, or a slow and inexorable collapse into true insanity. I'm not sure which, but all's I know is it was entertaining as hell to watch. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
I'm new to this thread. I have a question regarding a Rush broadcast and a caller that one of my closest friends tried to use in a political discussion after the election. The story goes like this: We both voted for Obama in 2008. Now he says the O administration has been a "dismal failure and if I can't see that, then he doesn't know what to say." Well, I agree about the dismal failure, but for a host of different reasons (the usual list of reasons why liberals are upset with the POTUS that everyone here knows e.g. no public option, non-transparency, drones, etc; as opposed to "the economy," "Fast and Furious," or the now persistent -in some circles-"Benghazi-gate"). So an O-supporting friend of mine sent to a group of us the picture of Big Bird with the "Who's Unemployed, Now? Biotch?" picture. Well it set this guy off on how "if the next four years are like the last four, we're all hosed." I asked him what he meant, and talked about the improvements in the economy. He, despite posting a rather enlightening research article on the growth of the debt under Obama and how most of it was either a) not the results of policies he initiated or b) necessary spending due to the recession; would not get the point of the research he himself dug up, nor give credit for the improvements I cited for him. But that's not what really gets to me. I tried to explain that the tragedy in Benghazi was (as usual) being used cynically by the right-wing to heap scorn on the administration as a political play two months before a Presidential Election using fake moral outrage. I tried to explain that there was nothing we could have done, realistically, to stop it. I explained why it wasn't a cover up. What really bothered me was his outright condemnation that Benghazi was the worst fuckup a president has ever pulled (I tried to remind him of the CIA bombarding Bush II with warnings about 9/11/2001 but somehow that didn't move him at all) and his parting shot was like this: "Watch this if you're ready to have your eyes and ears opened to some REAL facts about Benghazi: (link to anonymous caller 'Doug from San Antonio' on Rush Limbaugh) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljKmmZyCiw When I told him I was not going to entertain the derision of an anonymous caller that Rush Limbaugh put on the air, he told me that this was proof that I am partisan and closed to the truth. When I told him about Issa's PUBLIC kangaroo-court/witch-hunt and how it (I believe) publicly outed a CIA installation and published the names of the Lybians who were helping the US on the National stage, thus embarrassing the US further and putting our allies in danger, he ignored me. No, much worse, he told me that he's been reading about the CIA and the documents released after 9/11 so I shouldn't even talk about the CIA, because he has knowledge I do not, and "anything released by the CIA is a joke." I saw the first  from him since he said it was "too convenient" that Obama would release his Birth Certificate and announce the death of OBL in the same week, therefore he didn't believe OBL was killed by SEALs until he saw "proof."Don't write this guy off, he means well. But was anything ever released about the story told by 'Doug from San Antonio'? I linked a CBS article showing that the In-extremis team was not an option to stop Benghazi but he's stopped talking to me, now. He'll settle down after Obama's win sinks in, but I'm afraid he won't let this Benghazi thing go. I say it was a tragedy that we had no power to stop, and that the President's speeches on 9/12 and on proved there is no cover-up. He says that the Whitehouse absolutely failed and could have done more, and apparently his evidence is from Rush's caller. Is there a thread about Benghazi that I can read, or can someone here help me with sources about 'Doug from San Antonio's' claims, or anything else I could cite to help bring my beloved but misguided friend back to reality? Thanks to those of you who took the time to read this. I'm sorry if it's out of place. I tried Googling but didn't find anything I could count on to sway him, if anything will. I'm sad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Friend who drank the "Benghazi-gate" Kool-aid While I don't mean to sound negative...there probably is really nothing you can do. People here will probably still give you some helpful links to articles that show there really is nothing more to the Benghazi incident than a terrible tragedy, but that's not really going to do you any good beyond confirming what you already know. You've already given your friend facts and figures, and they've responded by saying they believe Rush Limbaugh's anonymous callers over you. I'd say it's probably time to just stop discussing politics with this person unless you enjoy exercises in frustration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Jesuits are generally good people. I go to a Jesuit university and both the professors I've had who are ordained members of the order are chill and good scholars. Heck, one of them even studied at Fordham, and their order also helped condemn Paul Ryan's budget for its FYGM attitude towards the poor. See, that's the thing: part of Jesuit tradition goes back to having to argue, with scrupulous logic and carefully memorized sources, for their political/religious position. That's part of the order's origin. They are not, in my experience, the kind of blind followers that are the subject of most critiques of religious institutions. It's not an anti-intellectual approach to religion, which makes it far above and beyond the vocal "religious right" that is best known in this country. Note that these generalizations are just that: generalizations that can fall down in any particular instance. But I'm fairly confident of the trends, and it gives me a generally positive impression. I'd rather have a political opponent with whom that I could conduct a debate (because either/both of us might learn something) than a political opponent who completely ignores debate and reality in favor of blind faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:This was maybe one of the classiest 'gently caress you guys' statements I've read. It was the Jesuits at Georgetown University that gave Paul Ryan holy hell for focusing on abortion instead of taking care of the poor. They seem to revel in giving poo poo to the Catholic Church though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Don't write this guy off, he means well. No, he does not mean well. He has a deep seated hatered for Obama and wants to see him brought down with no regard for lies or double standards. And radio callers are not a reliable source. Not for Rush, not for Art Bell or Alex Jones either. If ignoring intel and getting troops killed was such a high crime, every president from FDR on would have got a one way ticket to Leavnworth. Sorry to say, your friend has drunk the Kool-aid, and it will probably take some personal experience or revelation to get him out of the bubble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Corbeau posted:See, that's the thing: part of Jesuit tradition goes back to having to argue, with scrupulous logic and carefully memorized sources, for their political/religious position. That's part of the order's origin. They are not, in my experience, the kind of blind followers that are the subject of most critiques of religious institutions. It's not an anti-intellectual approach to religion, which makes it far above and beyond the vocal "religious right" that is best known in this country. Modern Jesuits are pretty logical, but they also have a "tradition" of being blindly loyal to whatever the Church line was. Like Loyola said, "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:38
|
|
