|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So did all these ministers you encountered sit down and have a candid heart-to-heart with you where they told you they didn't believe in any of the poo poo they were saying or are you just making generalizations based on how authentic they felt to you? I will reiterate that being a hypocrite and holding contradictory beliefs does not make them not "believers." It makes them stupid, sure, but it doesn't mean they don't wholeheartedly believe in whatever they claim to believe in. Someone claiming to be a devout Christian and not following any aspect of the religion to any degree does not mean they don't fully believe they are what they say they are. Basically the only way you could definitively say someone was full of poo poo would be if they came out and told you they were or they got caught doing something they constantly tirade against, like having a homosexual relationship. You could argue that he's not as good of a Christian as he thinks he is, but I don't think you can reasonably say he doesn't actually believe in the stuff he is saying. Especially not to the degree of clowns like Limbaugh and Beck. If you can't tell when people are obviously full of poo poo I don't know what more there is to say.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
I think a lot of this argument may just be misunderstanding where these beliefs come from. It doesn't really matter why any conservative pundit believes "all women are sluts". That's a pretty standard idea that's inculcated into us by society, and that core idea is what people rationalize their worldview around. When Rush was attacking Sandra Fluke, he believed that he was right to be angry, everything else is just him justifying that anger. Similarly, genuine hatred of Obama is the starting point for the opposition to all of his policies. It's a relationship of emotional reaction -> post-hoc construction of reasons for emotional reaction. Even when people do things they explicitly advocate against in public, there's usually a "the only moral [blank] is my [blank]" emotional justification for why they weren't really sinning when they had sex with that male prostitute. It's all fundamentally rooted in privilege and the belief that they have the right to act in a way others don't. I would argue that all conservative pundits, even the ones people claim are just shills like O'Reilly, harbour emotional reactions like racism in their brains, even if they don't 100% believe every talking point they spew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
SilentD posted:This again though really depends on where you live. I don't ever see fundies here in large numbers, they don't really exist. On the other hand militant atheists are a thing here and it's fairly easy to run into one of them, and they will read the riot act to Christians and call them all idiots. Here, they are the aggressors. I don't have to go travel all that far for the situation to be reversed though. That there are assholes on both sides of the political spectrum is unsurprising - and irrelevent. What matters is how much control a party gives to it's assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
I think SilentD actually lives in reddit, that's the only place on Earth I can think of where you'd constantly be assaulted by militant atheists. aka shit_that_never_happened.txt beatlegs posted:That there are assholes on both sides of the political spectrum is unsurprising - and irrelevent. What matters is how much control a party gives to it's assholes. This is something hard for SilentD to grasp; that atheists are a non-factor in the Democratic party, whereas fundamentalist Christians are a driving force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
I just received a barrage of IMs from a co-worker regarding the "exodus of wealthy" from the US. I'm sure you all know the drill, as it's been big news out of France recently. I couldn't think of anything better to say than, "Fine, let them go." I would love to read an earnest discussion of this topic. What about those who leave but don't renounce their citizenship? What about those who do? Where is there to go? The Bahamas? What might they miss? I invite any and all thoughts on this topic, as I've never really given it much credence (Leave the US? To go where?) What are your thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I just received a barrage of IMs from a co-worker regarding the "exodus of wealthy" from the US. I'm sure you all know the drill, as it's been big news out of France recently. I couldn't think of anything better to say than, "Fine, let them go." It's basically bullshit because a) people don't move around that easily, and not many countries offer the standard of living (including things like schooling for kids) that the US does, for rich people even more so, b)there's only so many beachfront mansions in tax haven countries to go around, and the vast majority of the wealthy won't have the resources to totally uproot themselves and c)the US government isn't above chasing people down like dogs to get money they perceived is owed to them. You should laugh in their face and ask whether any of them have seen the procedures to renounce US citizenship, which includes paying the taxes you owe on everything you have. You can't just up and leave with all your money, and even if people did, the productive assets of most companies still remain in the US so it's not like the the US is loosing that much anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I just received a barrage of IMs from a co-worker regarding the "exodus of wealthy" from the US. I'm sure you all know the drill, as it's been big news out of France recently. I couldn't think of anything better to say than, "Fine, let them go." This comes up every time a tax increase is in the air. Most rich assholes are moving to Latin America or the UAE these days it seems like. Places that are considered third world where there money makes them important. I love suggesting to these types that they move to Somalia, the only true free state, but they never do. I actually wish they would stop talking about it and just loving go galt already. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
I should specify that his "plan" is that they should leave without renouncing citizenship, to avoid the exit tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Watch his HBO show. He spends a ton of time bashing the hell out of liberals as well and has all sorts of libertarians on and keeps agreeing with them. He'll say crap about trolling conservatives because it's easy and makes money. He has Coulter on all the time, they are close personal friends, and she'll fess up there as well. Real Time With Bill Maher, go watch some of them it's pretty entertaining to see Bill defending Coulter and talking about bashing both sides. Speaking of true jackasses, aren't you the guy that identifies as a Democrat (despite hating liberals, progressives, hippies, etc.) because liberal women are supposedly easier to gently caress? C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Speaking of true jackasses, aren't you the guy that identifies as a Democrat (despite hating liberals, progressives, hippies, etc.) because liberal women are supposedly easier to gently caress? SilentD is sort of the token asshat in these forums. He says really stupid things every time he opens his mouth, but he sticks around cause he likes to be a part of the discussion. Don't take his posts too seriously. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
watt par posted:If you can't tell when people are obviously full of poo poo I don't know what more there is to say. I feel like this is the same logic conservatives use to justify their belief that Obama is a Muslim. I don't know, congrats on your superhuman intuition I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:This comes up every time a tax increase is in the air. Most rich assholes are moving to Latin America or the UAE these days it seems like. Places that are considered third world where there money makes them important. I love suggesting to these types that they move to Somalia, the only true free state, but they never do. I actually wish they would stop talking about it and just loving go galt already. I actually wish we'd seize their loving money on the way out as well. While I'm wishing, I'd also like to see that money go to something useful instead of adding more holes in the Middle East but thems the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I should specify that his "plan" is that they should leave without renouncing citizenship, to avoid the exit tax. Well then his "plan" involves tax evasion, since the US government collects taxes on citizens living abroad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
None of those people are really leaving. Why would they? What's stopping them from having multiple offshore tax havens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Not to mention that there really isn't anywhere else in the world where you can enjoy all the perks of a well developed western society with lower taxes. The only 'moving off shore' argument that holds any water is in relation to business operations and the corporate tax rate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
watt par posted:If you can't tell when people are obviously full of poo poo I don't know what more there is to say. Never blame on malice what you can attribute to stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Hey guys, my co-worker today had a really bizarre talking point I'm sure comes off Hannity or Limbaugh, but I'm completely unfamiliar with it. We were talking about the declining GDP of the United States (he saw fit to let me know that the GDP had declined last quarter) and he mentioned something about how "before the 1970s, the prosperity of the US was not measured by the GDP, but by how much money people had saved in their bank accounts". He tied this in some way to moving from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve or something, but he kept insisting that the US's wealth used to be calculated by somehow factoring in how much money the average person ahd in personal savings, which stands in sharp contrast to todays' measurement of "how much people spend money like there is no tomorrow" (his words). Is anyone familiar with this talking point available that can explain this to me? I'm absolutely befuddled. I looked at GNP, but it just looks like a slightly differerent measurement than GDP and has nothing to do with people saving money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Sounds more like Dave Ramsey, who is mostly harmless. His political opinions are wrong and based on falsehoods, but his show is basically all about helping people be responsible with their own money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:12
|
|
Finally, a Safe Space for conservatives on the internet.quote:By Todd Starnes 
az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Finally, a place where I can call the president a jigaboo monkey witch doctor and repost Breitbart links unfettered. Because every comment section on every website in existence wasn't enough.Eulogistics posted:Hey guys, my co-worker today had a really bizarre talking point I'm sure comes off Hannity or Limbaugh, but I'm completely unfamiliar with it. We were talking about the declining GDP of the United States (he saw fit to let me know that the GDP had declined last quarter) and he mentioned something about how "before the 1970s, the prosperity of the US was not measured by the GDP, but by how much money people had saved in their bank accounts". That's a bunch of goldbug kookery stemming from Nixon getting us off the gold standard. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Man, they were taunting us like hell before the election, and now they're crying and taking their ball with them afterwards?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
That place is going to get infested with trolls so freakin' quick. I mean, if the number of troll facebook accounts are any indication and I'm correct in my assumption the "tea party social network" won't have the same kind of central controls facebook has, that should be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Yes. You see, when "their" candidates get elected, it's America sending a message. When "our" candidates get elected, it's because the government is hopelessly lost and corrupt. The whole "let's start over and make a new America" idea was very pervasive within the militia community of the 1990s. It's the same now except that Obama is black and social media allows these people to have a sense of validation by posting stuff online freely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
I bet they start charging for it, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:That place is going to get infested with trolls so freakin' quick. I mean, if the number of troll facebook accounts are any indication and I'm correct in my assumption the "tea party social network" won't have the same kind of central controls facebook has, that should be hilarious. At the very least, Somethingwful will get a new thread out of it. Probably a funny one too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:Hey guys, my co-worker today had a really bizarre talking point I'm sure comes off Hannity or Limbaugh, but I'm completely unfamiliar with it. We were talking about the declining GDP of the United States (he saw fit to let me know that the GDP had declined last quarter) and he mentioned something about how "before the 1970s, the prosperity of the US was not measured by the GDP, but by how much money people had saved in their bank accounts". He tied this in some way to moving from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve or something, but he kept insisting that the US's wealth used to be calculated by somehow factoring in how much money the average person ahd in personal savings, which stands in sharp contrast to todays' measurement of "how much people spend money like there is no tomorrow" (his words). Is anyone familiar with this talking point available that can explain this to me? I'm absolutely befuddled. I looked at GNP, but it just looks like a slightly differerent measurement than GDP and has nothing to do with people saving money. I'd agree with him that 'prosperity' is not well measured by GDP. His contention seems to be that people are using it that way? Then they're wrong, I guess. My suspicion is he's conflating measures of the health of the economy with measures of individual well being, maybe mixed in with some goldbuggery. Someone focused on a big personal responsibility kick might be pretty confused as to why everyone is glad to hear it if consumer spending is up. What is helpful to the individual doesn't necessarily entail a great economy. For example, Japan had great savings rates (which have since fallen) during a crap economy. Also, it's silly to take the viewpoint that one particular indicator must cover everything. We do track individual spending and savings rates as well. All the things he's bitching about needing measurement are on the bea.gov website, literally the very next linked page after their link to GDP-related materials. If he thinks nobody looks at stuff like that, well, he's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Yes. You see, when "their" candidates get elected, it's America sending a message. When "our" candidates get elected, it's because the government is hopelessly lost and corrupt. The whole "let's start over and make a new America" idea was very pervasive within the militia community of the 1990s. It's the same now except that Obama is black and social media allows these people to have a sense of validation by posting stuff online freely. It's a phenomenon that's becoming more and more common in conservative America - voluntary segregation. It's a symptom of a totalitarian mindset and a refusal to accept alternative points of view. It's sad, but a sign of conservative decline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:It's a phenomenon that's becoming more and more common in conservative America - voluntary segregation. It's a symptom of a totalitarian mindset and a refusal to accept alternative points of view. It's sad, but a sign of conservative decline. The Daily Show had a really apt metaphor the other night for conservative isolationism as being essentially a really lovely HOA
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:It's a phenomenon that's becoming more and more common in conservative America - voluntary segregation. It's a symptom of a totalitarian mindset and a refusal to accept alternative points of view. It's sad, but a sign of conservative decline. Funnily enough, they still accuse liberals of being really close-minded and "having no idea how the world actually works."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:Hey guys, my co-worker today had a really bizarre talking point I'm sure comes off Hannity or Limbaugh, but I'm completely unfamiliar with it. We were talking about the declining GDP of the United States (he saw fit to let me know that the GDP had declined last quarter) and he mentioned something about how "before the 1970s, the prosperity of the US was not measured by the GDP, but by how much money people had saved in their bank accounts". He tied this in some way to moving from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve or something, but he kept insisting that the US's wealth used to be calculated by somehow factoring in how much money the average person ahd in personal savings, which stands in sharp contrast to todays' measurement of "how much people spend money like there is no tomorrow" (his words). Is anyone familiar with this talking point available that can explain this to me? I'm absolutely befuddled. I looked at GNP, but it just looks like a slightly differerent measurement than GDP and has nothing to do with people saving money. 100% load of poo poo. The only major country that did not measure growth by GDP that I can think of is the USSR, who switched to the GDP measurement with the Kosygin reform (maybe. I don't recall the exact year or term/initialism for how the Soviets measured growth, which relied specifically on raw materials produced and not the value of a product. Not GNP.) ed NMP, net material product. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
This is easy to laugh at but at the same time it seems like a really strange step to like... self withdraw. Is there much historical precedent or comparisons that could be made?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Heh... my local station has dropped Herman Cain for Glenn Beck. And in the evening spot where there used to be Laura Ingraham, more Glenn Beck. And also some dude I've never heard of named Andy Dean who seems to talk as much about pop culture dreck as political stuff. Also they replaced Alan Colmes with TMZ Radio lololol. Those last two surprised me at first, but now I think about it, it's pretty fitting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:This is easy to laugh at but at the same time it seems like a really strange step to like... self withdraw. Is there much historical precedent or comparisons that could be made? It's going to be at least an echo chamber, or possibly an actual honeypot for conservative advertisers (just like every other form of conservative media). I tried explaining to my co-worker why actually going there even as a conservative would be a very negative idea, and he seems to think that I should join so I could get the "conservative view on events while adding your [my] liberal point of view". I then asked him if he ever tried posting his conservative comments on Huffington Post articles and I think he got what I was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:This is easy to laugh at but at the same time it seems like a really strange step to like... self withdraw. Is there much historical precedent or comparisons that could be made? Conservapedia, FOX News, Drudge, homeschooling, creationist mueseums to name a few...or were you thinking of something on a larger scale and I'm missing the sarcasm?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:And also some dude I've never heard of named Andy Dean who seems to talk as much about pop culture dreck as political stuff. Yeah...we get Andy Dean here in NE Florida and he mainly just sounds like a wannabe trying to fit in with the "cool" conservatives. Like he was made out of a mold or something and is wearing and saying the stuff that the more popular conservatives are. It's pretty bleak. His show's not even interesting enough to make me angry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:This is easy to laugh at but at the same time it seems like a really strange step to like... self withdraw. Is there much historical precedent or comparisons that could be made? Since they couldn't keep everyone else segregated, they decided to segregate themselves. It is actually quite a fitting, but not really new. There are all kinds of right wing only groups, they come and go from decade to decade. They tie very well into the discussion in this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3528385
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:...or were you thinking of something on a larger scale and I'm missing the sarcasm? http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Whitopia-Improbable-Journey-America/dp/B003D7JV8Y
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Conservapedia, FOX News, Drudge, homeschooling, creationist mueseums to name a few...or were you thinking of something on a larger scale and I'm missing the sarcasm? These motherfuckers even have their own version of the Bible because some of the core philosophy of a religion founded 2,000 years ago is far too progressive for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:These motherfuckers even have their own version of the Bible because some of the core philosophy of a religion founded 2,000 years ago is far too progressive for them. Oh, thank you. This is fantastic. http://www.conservapedia.com/Word_Analysis_of_Bible
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:03
|
|