|
Zeroisanumber posted:I wouldn't even mock him, just point out over-and-over that his industry, job, and livelihood all depend on the government spending money. He'll come back with something like, "Well, we do useful stuff!" Then ask why he's so sure that everything else the government spends money on is useless. You might try something close to that but a bit more visceral. The numbers in going to use here are from a few years ago. Google to get up to date numbers. I doubt the ratios have changed much. The federal government employs 5 million people. 800,000 of them are the post office since it has to have offices everywhere. This is also revenue neutral since the post office pays for itself. Yes it takes out loans now and then. Then it raises stamp prices to pay them back. 3 million federal employees are military. That's all branches plus the DOD. The remaining 1.2 million federal employees - less than one in four federal employees - do everything else. All of it. They are the CDC, the national institute of health, the FBI, the federal court system ( judges, attorneys, staff), the house and senate with their staffers. They are the people who maintain the federal highway system, manage the national parks, and monitor the cleanliness of your water. These people figure out where food poisoning originates and impound the contaminated food not yet consumed. They fight wildfires larger than entire towns. They secure our ports and stop things from being smuggled into or out of the country. They build and maintain our energy grid . The military invented the routing tech the Internet is based on - but the civilian side National Science Foundation laid the internet's backbone and footed the bill for it till it became profitable enough for private industry to step up. And they continue advancing the state of the art today. NASA. Aviation authority. The FDA. Running hydroelectric damns and the remaining nuclear power plants. And on and on and on. When you look at just how physically big our nation is, its astounding that so few people can do so much. The military has over twice as many people ( even ignoring contractors ) and their list of accomplishments is far shorter.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Trouble is, how long do you go acting out that character five days a week before you become him/her? That sort of happened to Limbaugh. He always wanted to be a football announcer. When he finally got a chance to do a football show, he blew it with some "because he's black" comment. quote:Pretty sure Levin is crazy enough to believe what he's saying, but I find it hard to believe that the rest of them actually do. Levin is a true believer. The guy worked for the Reagan administration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
McAlister posted:When you look at just how physically big our nation is, its astounding that so few people can do so much. The military has over twice as many people ( even ignoring contractors ) and their list of accomplishments is far shorter. A large part of the military sits idle until conflict arises, because they're just bodies to throw into the grinder. Ask anyone in GiP what they spend the majority of their time doing and you'll probably hear "picking up cigarette butts, cleaning vehicles and drinking". That's definitely what the majority of my time was spent doing, and I was in a fairly high-demand, intelligence-intensive job. These guys who sit idle are mostly idiots anyway and would be loving up McDonald's orders left and right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
quote:RUSH: Linda in Lake City, Michigan. Glad you called. You're up next. Hello. A terrorist attack on American soil is absolutely the same thing as an incident happening independently overseas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Um, excuse me? You're not a mind reader, you don't know what I'm thinking when I say Hussein. Now lets move on...*20 minute segment about Obama secretly plotting to destroy the nation based on how far he bowed one time*
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Ah yes conservatives, known for their love of precision, are just being accurate by using the President's full name and reminding us his brother is a hut-dweller. But racist liberals assume "Hussein" means Muslim or that living in a poor country is bad, so they constantly try to cover up and silence conservatives' non-judgmental descriptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Well this is the first I'm hearing about Obama's hut-dwelling brother. This changes everything, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I call him Hussein because his brother lives in a hut, you see. Also, not racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
What does "not a ripple from the drive-bys" mean? Is that some pundit industry term that I'm not familiar with, or is it exactly as racist as it sounds?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What does "not a ripple from the drive-bys" mean? Is that some pundit industry term that I'm not familiar with, or is it exactly as racist as it sounds? It's a slang for "drive-by media" which is conservative slang for "media that isn't Fox News"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
I'm calling him Barack Hussein Obama, not Barack friend of the family Obama like I want to. Ugh these callers, where do they come up with this stuff? Anyways, after the break (for Lifelock) I'm going to break down why black people are genetically inferior intelligence wise but genetically superior for blood sport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What does "not a ripple from the drive-bys" mean? Is that some pundit industry term that I'm not familiar with, or is it exactly as racist as it sounds? He's talking about major media sources. The idea being that they do shallow, biased reporting about the newest, shiniest, bloodiest thing going on and then never revisit it with substantive coverage. I actually kind of agree with Rush on that matter, but from a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
You know how we call lawyers that do only cases involving tradagies "ambulance chasers"? Rush calls the mainstream media "drive-by media" because he thinks they don't do enough
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I think the greatest thing with Limbaugh being all 'You can't know what's going on inside my head when I say Hussein!!!!  ' was that he earlier today railed on Obama for misspelling RESPECT at the Women in Soul event at the White House last night. quote:RUSH: Hey, stop the music, stop the theme. Would you play audio sound bite number one for me? I have to hear this before I actually use it in the show. Obama is just so stupid he doesn't know how to spell the word because it wasn't on his teleprompter! He didn't know what to do! But the lamestream media would rather jump on Dan Quayle than point out our Kenyan Muslim Usurper _resident can't spell a word without a teleprompter!!! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I don't know how any normal-thinking person could listen to Limbaugh on a frequent basis. For me it would be like listening to some horrible, cheesy song over and over and over. He becomes predictable very fast, you don't learn anything new. He and his listeners are terrible people with ugly, ignorant opinions. They're a personification of everything that's wrong with the current political culture. What's the point? Isn't it fairly easy to predict what Limbaugh's gonna say about any new development? Like Stern, I think a lot of Limbaugh's ratings are driven by people who don't like him. Stern not so much anymore since he went to satellite, of course, so he only draws fans now who are willing to pay to hear it, but a lot of their audiences early on were generated by folks listening for the shock value and the rage. Edit: Jerry Manderbilt posted:to some extent I'm scared of the real life repercussions of being someone with a strong opinion. Like what? BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
It gets you fired pretty fast if someone above you hears that you think Limbaugh is a nut and he does not. At will employment is awesome for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cpac-gay-marriage-ban-liberal-liequote:Conservative radio host Michael Medved said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference that no state has ever banned gay marriage and any claim to the contrary is "a liberal lie."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
No see a gay man can marry a gay woman so....
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
What in the pale blue gently caress? I had to read that 2-3 times just so it would register in my brain because out of every lie the right wing has said since I started paying attention to them, that lie was finally a bridge too far for my brain to simply go "bullshit" and keep reading. I mean really, prop mother loving 8 literally banned every marriage but hetero ones in the most populous state in the union.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:What in the pale blue gently caress? Prop 8 didn't technically ban anything, though, it just restricted the legal definition of marriage. It's word wizardry bullshit brought to you by the party that is still making hay about the difference between the phrase "act of terror" and "terrorist attack."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:What in the pale blue gently caress? It's true that a gay guy can't marry another dude, but a straight guy can't marry another dude either. So where's the discrimination? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Looks to me like everybody plays by the same set of rules. Check and mate, libtards. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Prop 8 didn't technically ban anything, though, it just restricted the legal definition of marriage. It's word wizardry bullshit brought to you by the party that is still making hay about the difference between the phrase "act of terror" and "terrorist attack." Law question: what is the legal difference between banning certain types of marriage and restricting marriage only to certain types? I know the effect is the same but what is it like on the books?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Grognan posted:It gets you fired pretty fast if someone above you hears that you think Limbaugh is a nut and he does not. At will employment is awesome for this. I've never seen that happen. Not saying it doesn't though. My former boss was the biggest right wing Ditohead around and I watched him fire lots of people but he never got around to me for some reason. He actually used to call me into his office to debate these sorts of things. I was the token liberal in the office but he seemed to have a grudging respect for me if only because I was pretty good at my job, not too bad at debating and wasn't scared of him beyond a "biting the hand that feeds me" sense. I'd be interested to know what Jerry Menderbilt thinks though because, in my experience, having strong opinions mostly helps you unless you're the type that can't admit when they're wrong, can't change them and are just a dick about it constantly. To me, it always helped to weed out the assholes, false friends, shallow thinkers and generally folks who I'd rather not hang around. And those who'd rather not hang around me for that matter. Saves me a lot of time and trouble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:Law question: what is the legal difference between banning certain types of marriage and restricting marriage only to certain types? I know the effect is the same but what is it like on the books? A ban and restriction are the same thing. I think what you mean is the difference between a ban and a definition in regards to marriage, and I suppose a simple definition probably leaves legal room for a common law marriage. But most states that define marriage either by statute or by constitutional amendment also add language saying that THIS marriage is the ONLY marriage permitted. So while technically they're only defining marriage, they're essentially prohibiting anything else from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
FMguru posted:A gay guy can still marry a lady, same as a straight guy I've seen people make this argument and then immediately turn around and say that allowing gay marriage gives gay people rights that straight people won't get. Don't look for logic with these people, you won't find it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
There's a lot of conservative dickhats who like to brag that they've fired people for being liberals/voting for Obama/badmouthing Rush/being a woman but unless you're running a business where people are lining up to do no-skill work for low pay they are, in effect, bragging about being incredibly lovely at staffing. In reality it's bullshit and they are posting from a public library on a day trip with their retirement community.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:Law question: what is the legal difference between banning certain types of marriage and restricting marriage only to certain types? I know the effect is the same but what is it like on the books? IANAL but I imagine it would be a lot easier to legally challenge a law saying "two men may not be legally married" than one saying "only one man and one woman may legally be married." It also fits the asinine "tradition not bigotry" narrative better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:A large part of the military sits idle until conflict arises, because they're just bodies to throw into the grinder. Ask anyone in GiP what they spend the majority of their time doing and you'll probably hear "picking up cigarette butts, cleaning vehicles and drinking". That's definitely what the majority of my time was spent doing, and I was in a fairly high-demand, intelligence-intensive job. These guys who sit idle are mostly idiots anyway and would be loving up McDonald's orders left and right. Oh absolute. But the goal is to break the guy out of his mental loop and since his livelyhood is military pork hitting that directly will send his brain into emergency shut down. The goal is to get him to acknowledge that the rest of the government does really useful stuff too and there aren't actually that many of them. The size comparison is for a framing where he can't say the 1.2 million number is to high without also saying his 3 million is way to high. Since his 3 million isn't to big he can't point at the piddly 1.2 million and complain. Its a baby step. But that's how you start journeys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:I've seen people make this argument and then immediately turn around and say that allowing gay marriage gives gay people rights that straight people won't get. Don't look for logic with these people, you won't find it. The people they're copying used this same argument about ending segregation. That's where the logic comes from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Michael "slavery wasn't too bad for black people" Medved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Hey let's talk about NewsBusters and Brent Bozell's laugh-tracked rip off of Weekend Update, "NewsBusted with Jodi Miller": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw_ZSpm5HrA http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2014/03/07/newsbusted-what-ronan-farrow-barack-obama-share-common-no-its-not-frank-si
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
I feel bad that people spend their time making that.  So...terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:I feel bad that people spend their time making that. The fake laughter (and applause at the end) had me actually laughing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
The cheesy "Home Improvement"-type opening, the canned laughter and applause, the 3 obvious edits that were made because she probably hosed up her lines, the deadly unfunny "jokes", her smug smile after each as if to say "nailed it". I almost want to see more because it's oddly fascinating to watch someone so clueless be so horribly awful with such confidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:I feel bad that people spend their time making that. It's like something a woefully unpopular jr high kid would make by himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Is newsbusters still raging against every incident of the media not hating gays as evidence of the liberal conspiracy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
 the wave of laughter that sounds exactly the same everytime. This owns.
Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
NewsBusted owns
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
pd187 posted:Hey let's talk about NewsBusters and Brent Bozell's laugh-tracked rip off of Weekend Update, "NewsBusted with Jodi Miller": So I ended up stumbling across this crap a couple years ago. My radio theatre group has performed a couple scripts this NYC-area writer submitted to our contests, and I ended up looking through his YouTube channel after he used our recording of one of his scripts to promote his book version. A lot of his videos were highlight reels of "jokes" he'd written for Newsbusted. They were all really bad and I'm half-convinced the dude was phoning it in for the money. According to his website, he stopped writing for the show some time in 2012. It's nice that they've got two different awful canned laughter sounds now. Moving on up!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
Its has nearly 600 Likes for 16 Dislikes (?). The comments are full of conservatives unironically saying its hilarious.quote:"Rumors are surfacing that Hillary Clinton may be too sick to run for President. Oh, don’t worry, she'll be fine… it's not like she's enrolled In Obamacare." -Jodi Miller That "Give it up" is NOT sarcastic. These people are broken. I wonder how bad something has to be for them to hate it even though its conservative. I think I just answered by own question. If they don't like something it would cease to be conservative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:43
|
|