|
Warchicken posted:How is it not racism? They look different, therefore I am scared of them because they are awful and will do terrible things(while I am better than them because I am white). Just because they are 'scared' doesn't make it more fear than racism. It's fear because they are racist. It's definitely racism, but I think people ascribe way too much active malice to these people. There's a ton of malice, sure, but it's not conscious.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Maddow 'plays into' that by being smart. It's a bit absurd to blame her for not talking down to everyone. She literally calls them teabaggers on air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:She literally calls them teabaggers on air. Yes, when they called themselves it without realizing the joke, she made fun of them. What a monster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Culture war works both ways. This is the same bullshit "moral equivalency" argument conservatives make when people criticize them for being so goddamned hateful, and it's disingenuous at best and outright false at worst. There is no way that what Maddow and co. do is anything remotely like the bile and bilge and outright hatred spewed by so many on the right. There's an enormous difference between conservatives' feelings being hurt because they think Maddow or Matthews talk down to them or aren't properly "respectful" enough, and Fox News people like O'Reilly and Hannity flat-out saying anyone who disagreed with Bush (or supported Obama) is out to destroy America. Volkerball posted:She literally calls them teabaggers on air. So? They were calling themselves that for a good long while until someone finally figured what connotations it might have. And it's still a hell of a long way from the racism and sexism perpetrated on a daily basis by Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:She literally calls them teabaggers on air. Which is totally the same as having an African American PhD Colombia professor on a show and saying he looked a little bit like a cocaine dealer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdaHrGwlWvk
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
 Why Rachel, why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Crossposting from the Republican Rebuilding thread, Maddow's slowly starting to beat Hannity in the ratings. That would explain why Drudge hasn't run his cable news ratings blurb lately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Crossposting from the Republican Rebuilding thread, Maddow's slowly starting to beat Hannity in the ratings. Yay, MSNBC's doing really good!  Now if they could nail the "24-hour" news thing I'd be really happy. The prison documentaries are cool, but 1. when they're airing I can't get news and 2. they get kinda depressing after a while. It's really noticeable on weekends; I want to watch news on Saturday and Sunday evening too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Yay, MSNBC's doing really good! They need to fix that, and also the "let's show Hardball twice daily during afternoon/early evening hours" thing. There have been rumors going around that Ezra Klein might get his own show at some point, so maybe they'll give over one of those hours to him. az posted:
Eh, she's only a year younger than me, and that was pretty much the way most young ladies looked back in those days.  She's pretty foxy in that pic, but her current style definitely suits her a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:She literally calls them teabaggers on air. That was what they were calling themselves. Literally. You can't possibly think that this is anywhere in the same league as suggesting that Obama is a communist Kenyan usurper who stole the election
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
I remember when OWS was a big deal, one of the big arguments against it was that the U.S. income disparity wasn't a big deal when you compared it to Africa, therefore, it was fine. It's the same logic you guys are putting out here. Who cares how MSNBC looks compared to FOX? My point is that objectively, they run poo poo like Harry Reid's "bain investor" hot scoop which is basically LeeAtwater.avi, and aren't attempting to show the news so much as pandering to the echo chamber. It's kind of funny to think that in the political and economic climate that bred FOX loving NEWS, that it's even possible for its political counterpart to be honest and free of the shackles of special interests.Glitterbomber posted:Yes, when they called themselves it without realizing the joke, she made fun of them. I'm not saying she's a monster. Just that this type of thing is what you would hear on Letterman. Not "The News." A Winner is Jew posted:Which is totally the same as having an African American PhD Colombia professor on a show and saying he looked a little bit like a cocaine dealer. Instead of FOX, make this point in comparison to Al Jazeera and see how plausible it comes off. Just because it's not AWFUL doesn't mean we should just accept the polarized, dishonest messaging that is the U.S. media, and run around like  MADDOWAnd holy poo poo does she look different with her hair like that. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Ok Maddow called them teabaggers as a joke because they were so goddamn stupid they did it first. How does that change the fact that, objectively, she is highly educated and knowledgeable about the subjects she discusses and you can't blame her for people she discusses the subjects with not being as educated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
There are plenty of ways to complain about Maddow/MSNBC, but trying to paint her as trying to start a culture war/A new Lee Atawater is one of the worst ones to pick. Hell I am not even sure how it works, by any stretch of the imagination, to be frank.
CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I remember when OWS was a big deal, one of the big arguments against it was that the U.S. income disparity wasn't a big deal when you compared it to Africa, therefore, it was fine. Your example is really nothing like that at all. The Tea Party activists were calling themselves teabaggers long before Maddow did it, and it makes no sense for you to suggest that this is indicative of some sort of equivalency between MSNBC and Fox News. This was the colloquial term that they were using to describe themselves.   LOOK OUT, A LIBERAL PLANT  OH GOD ANOTHER ONE e: Oh but I guess this makes Maddow as terrible as Beck because anything that can even be slightly construed as mean to the other side must be equivalent to the worst-case from the other side QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
quote:Here's the thing. Maddow plays right into the "they're dumb, we're smart" angle that pisses conservatives off. Go find me a clip where Rachel ever calls someone 'dumb', 'stupid', etc. Even when she is dealing with the most intolerable guests - Hell, even after she finished watching Clint Eastwood scream at an empty chair - she doesn't resort to name calling. The reality is that conservatives get pissed-off when they see someone who is actually intelligent / articulate talking about issues that they are wrong about, so they call those people 'elitists' and frame the conversation as though the other party is 'making them look dumb' when, in fact, they are making themselves look dumb by being forcefully ignorant. quote:Watch her show and think if you supported the Tea Party. Do you think that her talking about how stupid and horrible the people they respect are doesn't completely undermine her message? FOX got its base by hyping up the us vs them mentality, and yes, Maddow and a lot of others do the exact same thing, and provide evidence that fits the narrative of the elite liberal who laughs in your face and thinks you are retarded because you talk slow. Watch any loving channel and then try to pretend that you're a racist, sexist, homophobic poo poo head. Wow, gee whiz, all of these channels are awful, with all of these faggots and niggers and bitches everywhere! Well, except Fox News, but man, even good ol' Fox seems like it's slipping under the control of the commies these days. They didn't even point-out the obvious fact that Obama had relied on massive voter fraud to steal the election and dared to suggest that he actually won the presidency instead of Romney.  Maybe the problem isn't Maddow, and maybe the problem instead is the racism, homophobia & sexism present in the average Tea Party audience member? Again, Maddow has never called anyone stupid (much less 'retarded'): it's not her problem that a large demographic in the U.S. is so hateful & selfish. quote:It's not just the Southern strategy that makes the Republicans the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice for southerners. It's the Nope, wrong. It's 100% the southern strategy that makes the Republican party the choice of white racist southerners. That's why it's called 'The Southern Strategy'. What, you think those guys were voting for Romney because they actually liked Romney? Ever read Free Republic or StormFront?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
So it's unironically being argued that the real issue is people like Maddow, one of the few non-idiots on MSNBC, should dumb herself down to make it fair when she gets a dude who thinks Obama is a secret Muslim anti-American on her show? Is this a thing we're doing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Hell either last week or the week before she ended the Friday episode of her show with a bartending lesson on how to make an alternate whiskey sour. Rachel Maddow would be the best person to party with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNurztGCCEk
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:So it's unironically being argued that the real issue is people like Maddow, one of the few non-idiots on MSNBC, should dumb herself down to make it fair when she gets a dude who thinks Obama is a secret Muslim anti-American on her show? Is this a thing we're doing? The part where she's right makes them feel sad, so...yes. Saying that Maddow should stop talking down to people or calling them dumb would be fine if insults were what her show was based on. They're not. Your average Freep poster is going to hate Maddow no matter what she says, and attempting to pander to the emotions of people who already hate us is one of the reasons the American "Left" has sucked so hard for the past thirty years. You cannot ask someone to be a team player with someone else when the second person (1) hates you anyway and (2) is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Frankly, I think if a conservative turns on MSNBC, watches Maddow, and think she's talking to them like they're dumb, there might be just the slightest possibility that they are dumb. That's just me though. E: Also I'll just agree with the posters above me, and reject once more the false "moral equivalency" claims. Even at their worst, MSNBC is nowhere near as bad as Fox News in the "pandering to what an audience wants to hear" stakes. You'd never have seen O'Reilly or Hannity get pissed off at Romney's poor debate performance the way Matthews got pissed off at Obama in the first debate. This is because Fox News deals in doling out safe conservative fantasies, and so they blamed everyone but Romney for his lovely performance in the last two debates (Obama was rude, the moderators were biased, the questions were loaded, and so on). Whereas Matthews was pissed off squarely at Obama and his team for obviously sandbagging the first debate and not treating it seriously. He didn't lay the blame on the moderator, or on Romney being an absolute prick (which he was), he saved his wrath for the guy he's supposed to be backing for not doing enough prep work. Similarly, it's why you'd never see a Karl Rove-style meltdown by an MSNBC pundit. Because A)their guys would have been unhappy, but they wouldn't have waffled over Ohio on orders from the Obama campaign the way Rove did under Romney's orders; and B)because MSNBC wouldn't have hired a loving guy running an Obama (or Romney) super PAC to provide "political analysis", because it's an obvious conflict of interest. E2: Also, I just remembered when MSNBC had a big flap over Keith Olbermann donating some money to Democratic Congressional candidates without prior approval. Do you think Fox News would have a similar policy (and policy-related shitfit) regarding their guys donating money to Romney or other Republican candidates? Hell, it's probably a loving payroll deduction over there. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Eh, she's only a year younger than me, and that was pretty much the way most young ladies looked back in those days. I think she's dreamy.  http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/21/foxs-tantaros-treats-food-stamps-as-a-diet-plan/191497 Andrea Tantaros wishes she could live on food stamps. She'd lose all that icky fat lol!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Frankly, I think if a conservative turns on MSNBC, watches Maddow, and think she's talking to them like they're dumb, there might be just the slightest possibility that they are dumb. That's just me though. Dunning-Kruger, motherfucker!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I think she's dreamy. Oh, oh, dear lord. This is legit  This is like Marie Antoinette, 'Let them Eat Cake' (and yes I know she didn't really say that but you get the idea) Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Phone posted:Dunning-Kruger, motherfucker!! I prefer the "As You Like It" theory: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Cal Thomas doesn't come up much in this thread (or frankly at all, which is as it should be), but he's syndicated in our newspaper, and while I was proofing our Opinion section the headline "Could Rubio be the second coming of Reagan?" caught my eye. http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=3795 Cal Thomas posted:Conservatives have been dreaming that a political reincarnation of Ronald Reagan would lead them to an electoral promised land. I never put my faith in such a possibility, because the past is a dangerous place in which to live. Reagan never lived in the past, though he learned from it. It's nothing ground-breaking from a man who I know better for seething culture warrior diatribes, but it is fascinating to see the usual suspects begin hoisting the banner for one of the "good ones," as it were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:There are plenty of ways to complain about Maddow/MSNBC, but trying to paint her as trying to start a culture war/A new Lee Atawater is one of the worst ones to pick. Hell I am not even sure how it works, by any stretch of the imagination, to be frank. Whoa, definitely not trying to take the assumption that far. And culture war is a dumb term, but I do think MSNBC's coverage is very polarizing. And I wasn't claiming that she's the next Lee Atwater by any stretch of the imagination, but that Harry Reid story was very Atwater-esque. Maddow's coverage wasn't as bad as some, even though hers started with Harry Reid's claim and ended with "What IS Romney hiding?" At least she put forth some legitimate effort to make Reid's claim appear as completely unsupported hearsay. QuarkJets posted:Your example is really nothing like that at all. The Tea Party activists were calling themselves teabaggers long before Maddow did it, and it makes no sense for you to suggest that this is indicative of some sort of equivalency between MSNBC and Fox News. This was the colloquial term that they were using to describe themselves. Don't be dense. They were calling themselves teabaggers, not  teabaggers. The sentence after you stopped quoting was "Who cares how MSNBC looks compared to FOX?" So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I'm making an equivalency between MSNBC and FOX. I'm simply looking at the way the future looks lined up. The way I see it, by 2024, the GOP will have managed to keep its base and will have locked down a number of other votes somehow or another, or a split off of the Democratic party will be the next serious contender against the Democratic candidate. The media coverage, and how the politically active Dems act over the next several years is going to play a huge role in that, and I just don't think that MSNBC is doing anything other than preaching to the choir and slandering the other guys. Which brings me to my next point. The Ender posted:Watch any loving channel and then try to pretend that you're a racist, sexist, homophobic poo poo head. Wow, gee whiz, all of these channels are awful, with all of these faggots and niggers and bitches everywhere! YEP. And while we're tossing around stereotypes as fact, all those lazy welfare queens are just sucking up our tax dollars so they can buy Lamborghini's with their link card while I'm at work. Are you really insinuating that EVERY Republican is a racist shitlord? That StormFront is the homepage of every single person who voted for Romney? That's pretty drat ridiculous when our side is supposedly the one that is trying to break down barriers like that. I know plenty of Christians who vote Republican because they feel oppressed (wrongly), or people who researched a little about the effects of the Reagan tax cuts when big business owners really did need a boost and mistakenly think it's a magic bullet, or people who have been disenfranchised by the GOP but refuse to vote Democratic for whatever reason, and several other circumstances. Often they see things on FOX and are disgusted by it, and look other places for news. It's not like it's a big secret that FOX is dishonest as poo poo. Guess who they aren't going to watch? The channel that portrays the Tea Party the same way FOX News portrayed OWS, when there's people involved with it who take things seriously and want to be engaged with the world, and chose to help out with that for whatever reason. That's just one example. Seriously, is it that hard to show some common decency and give the benefit of the doubt to at least SOME people? Sure, there's people who I'd rather bash my face into a wall then have a serious discussion with, but I don't think it's out of line to suggest that there's people out there who are reasonable, traditionally Republican voters who we could make an effort to reach out to simply by NOT WILLFULLY OSTRACIZING THEM. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:... Are you really insinuating that EVERY Republican is a racist shitlord? That StormFront is the homepage of every single person who voted for Romney? That's pretty drat ridiculous when our side is supposedly the one that is trying to break down barriers like that. Edit: Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to people who believe things that are objectively false, any more than I should give an A to a student who thought Hitler was French because otherwise they might feel bad about me? Edit 2: The media has been giving the Right the benefit of the doubt for the past thirty years. This has been actively counterproductive. It's why people think there's a global warming "debate" or an evolution "debate." It doesn't change what the hardcore true believers feel about us, because nothing will. All it does is manage to persuade the people on the fence--like your reasonable, dissatisfied Republicans, whose historical counterparts, before the collapse of objective journalism and the rise of the New Right which it helped enable, would have been way more reasonable--that the "truth lies somewhere in the middle." HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
In the case of Teabaggers, you're left with very few other options. A certain percentage of people out there can be convinced to your side, and a way to do that is to ridicule the opposition. Seriously, trying to be conciliatory is what lost the democrats so much ground prior to recent history. Not everyone is worth courting or listening to, or even acknowledging. Especially when those people are racists poo poo bags who are objectively wrong about almost everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Yea, teabaggers are pretty legit dominated by racist loons. They literally formed like, days, after Obama was elected to angrily declare themselves Taxed Enough Already and tell us how taxes were killing us and it's all his fault because he's a communist-Nazi-socialist- They literally formed as soon as the black guy won, even at their very best they ignored everything up until the black guy won and then blamed him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:Cal Thomas I really want to see a left-wing pundit, or anyone, crush this right-wing dillusion that conservatives are somehow more pro-family than liberals. As if wanting to help single mothers somehow makes you anti-marriage.  Relevant: http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_Republicans_vs._Democrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea, teabaggers are pretty legit dominated by racist loons. They literally formed like, days, after Obama was elected to angrily declare themselves Taxed Enough Already and tell us how taxes were killing us and it's all his fault because he's a communist-Nazi-socialist- It goes even further than that. The Tea Partiers have been systematically excising any moderate Republicans from the party, to the point where even the Republicans that are normally open to compromise and doing business in Washington have been literally bending over backwards to try and paint themselves as hardcore no-compromise conservatives. This is because the Tea Partiers have made it so that Republicans that would likely win in a national election are getting stomped on in the primaries and so have no shot at gaining the nod. Look no further than the 2012 presidential primaries for evidence. As a result, this is why you saw very few Republicans (prior to 2012) come out and say that the "birther" movement was complete lunacy, or that they needed to tone down the racism and sexism and appeal to a younger demographic, or that they shouldn't play chicken with the country's credit rating the way they did, or that they should pass the veterans jobs bill regardless of what advantage it might give Obama. Because the Tea Party and the insane right-wing conservative movement have pretty much entrenched themselves in the modern-day Republican party to the point where the more moderate politicians and pundits are literally poo poo-scared to denounce anything that's obvious insanity, because they know it won't be popular with the extremely vocal minority that makes up the Tea Party and its' base. Post-election, there have been some brave souls in the Republican party that are making increasingly louder calls for compromise in Washington, along with the rejection of the conservative entertainment complex and the Tea Party that it arguably spawned. That said, we're still a loooooong way away from that happening (if it ever does). That's why it's (for the most part, anyways) currently not worth wasting time on trying to win back anyone who's bought into the nonsense that the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News currently peddle. They're too far gone. The Democrats won this election in part by showing they had a spine, and standing up to them and speaking truth to fools. And if Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews making some of those same points on their shows offends their delicate Republican sensibilites, well boo loving hoo. Lord knows we've had to put up with O'Reilly  and Hannity  and Beck  and Limbaugh  for a hell of a lot longer than they have had to put up with MSNBC and its' shows.
Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Sure, there's people who I'd rather bash my face into a wall then have a serious discussion with, but I don't think it's out of line to suggest that there's people out there who are reasonable, traditionally Republican voters who we could make an effort to reach out to simply by NOT WILLFULLY OSTRACIZING THEM. There is no way to reach out to the people wearing teabags and screaming about death panels. For those "traditionally Republican voters" who are actually reasonable there's nothing in Maddow's show that should be disturbing to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Anyone who is still a teabagger in TYOOL 2012 probably won't be swayed nowadays by anything but someone hosing President Obama down with bleach, desperately hoping he'll turn white. My take: Good loving riddance. gently caress them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Whoa, definitely not trying to take the assumption that far. And culture war is a dumb term, but I do think MSNBC's coverage is very polarizing. And I wasn't claiming that she's the next Lee Atwater by any stretch of the imagination, but that Harry Reid story was very Atwater-esque. Maddow's coverage wasn't as bad as some, even though hers started with Harry Reid's claim and ended with "What IS Romney hiding?" At least she put forth some legitimate effort to make Reid's claim appear as completely unsupported hearsay. If you think Maddow is polarizing I wonder what you think of Keith Olbermann. I like him, but I'll admit a lot of his shows descended into yelling at various conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Where did the meme that the US hasn't had a budget in four years originate? I've encountered it at least twice today. Also, I'm curious as to whether the "he's a muslim" lady at the McCain rally went on to be a teabagger. Anyone know her name? Sydney Bottocks posted:So? They were calling themselves that for a good long while until someone finally figured what connotations it might have. And it's still a hell of a long way from the racism and sexism perpetrated on a daily basis by Fox News. Now they all take offense at it. They've been trained to take offense to it, because clearly they didn't know it could be offensive at first. The thing is, that was in the first couple months...it went away pretty quickly. There are a lot of current teabaggers who don't know how it came and went. If the point is to try and engage them and not turn them off and turn them away instantly, it doesn't matter who started it, it only matters how you interact with the current state of the teabagger's (or any conservative who sympathizes with them even if they aren't one) mind. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Where did the meme that the US hasn't had a budget in four years originate? I've encountered it at least twice today. I'm fairly sure that it is referring to not budget passed in time for the new fiscal year, requiring a continuing resolution to bridge the gap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I'm fairly sure that it is referring to not budget passed in time for the new fiscal year, requiring a continuing resolution to bridge the gap. The USFG does not fund itself with budgets, it funds itself with appropriations bills. Funding the government for a fiscal year usually takes 10-12 of these bills, usually 2-3 departments per bill. When the congress can't come to an agreement on appropriations, they use continuing resolutions to bridge the gap and buy themselves time for negotiating. A budget is just a proposal on how appropriations should be structured. It's a formality, and the talking point is disingenuous in that it makes it sound like the government hasn't funded itself or something in four years, when in fact appropriations and CRs have been passed. Without them the government would shut down. That being said, budgets can be blueprints for fiscal and government initiatives, so they can be important. They can also outline revenue streams, offsets, proposals, etc. However, they are not critical to government functioning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's definitely racism, but I think people ascribe way too much active malice to these people. There's a ton of malice, sure, but it's not conscious. Which stands, of course, in stark contrast to the passivity and open mindedness of this particular exchange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
To quote Seth Meyers: "President Obama, if your hair got any whiter, the Tea Party would endorse it."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Culture war works both ways. I think a little respect would go a long ways, considering how many people literally vote against their own interest out of spite due to the lefts portrayal of them, and inability to see what the problem is. Regardless of the factuality of what they are reporting. There is no culture war. There is only culture and the people who fling poo at it because they have none.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:Cal Thomas doesn't come up much in this thread (or frankly at all, which is as it should be), but he's syndicated in our newspaper, and while I was proofing our Opinion section the headline "Could Rubio be the second coming of Reagan?" caught my eye. From that article alone Rubio doesn't sound bad, but the problem will be the transformation he'll need to go through in order to win the Republican primary. Just look at the issues Mitt Romney had to flop on in order to align with the Republican Platform. If the GOP decides to break from social conservatives and he doesn't, then tough luck for him. He'll lose out to someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 10:08
|
|
