|
Zeroisanumber posted:Budwiser is considered a premium brand in China. Marketing is weird as hell.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
DK just ran a story about various right wing outlets complaining about gays being "sore winners". Their main point being that it's more than a bit stupid to be complaining about sore winners when you're still fighting against them, my main point being that what we talked about last page isn't just patting ourselves on the back. Doesn't really matter what your goalpost is for gay rights, having FOX news and co in such a hasty retreat all they can think to do is declare MEANIES!!! is an undeniably good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
I know we're loving this derail but Breibart's California launch promotion lost them one of their contributors because of a Twerking Pelosi picture.http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-breitbart-california-launch-20140407,0,6040800.story#axzz2yIxOQiGi posted:SACRAMENTO -- The launch of a new political website in California, intended to highlight conservative success stories in the Golden State, quickly ran into trouble on Monday when controversial promotional images cost the organization one of its highest-profile contributors. The advertising also caused a conservative blogger to write this: http://jhpolitics.com/2014/04/breitbart-crosses-line-with-disgusting-pelosi-poster/ (AWFUL APP USERS NEED TO SWITCH URL TO DESKTOP VIEW) posted:Breitbart Crosses Line With Disgusting Pelosi Poster
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:DK just ran a story about various right wing outlets complaining about gays being "sore winners". Their main point being that it's more than a bit stupid to be complaining about sore winners when you're still fighting against them, my main point being that what we talked about last page isn't just patting ourselves on the back. Doesn't really matter what your goalpost is for gay rights, having FOX news and co in such a hasty retreat all they can think to do is declare MEANIES!!! is an undeniably good thing. If the article included "being butthurt" over the gays being "sore winners", it would be a never ending wormhole of tasteless, semi-homophobic innuendos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:DK just ran a story about various right wing outlets complaining about gays being "sore winners". Their main point being that it's more than a bit stupid to be complaining about sore winners when you're still fighting against them, my main point being that what we talked about last page isn't just patting ourselves on the back. Doesn't really matter what your goalpost is for gay rights, having FOX news and co in such a hasty retreat all they can think to do is declare MEANIES!!! is an undeniably good thing. In the same vein as people being offended by "not winning gratuitously" there's also a bunch of dumbass forbes contributed editorials claiming that boycotting Mozilla because the CEO is anti-gay is equivalent to conservatives boycotting a company because the CEO is gay and thus bad. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2014/04/06/mozillas-ceo-showed-the-cost-of-disclosure-laws-by-crossing-the-satan-scherbatsky-line/ That is already a stupid argument by someone that doesn't "get" how discrimination works but on top of that conservatives boycott (or threaten to) companies all the time if they are pro-gay. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perkins-rails-against-starbucks-radical-agenda http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/31/conservatives-urge-boycott-of-rose-parade-over-same-sex-wedding-float/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/03/13/conservative-groups-boycott-ford-motor-co-over-gay-rights-support/ It's not the fault of pro-gay people if they are just better at this whole "free market" thing and their boycotts actually work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Andrew Sullivan posted:Thank you for the hundreds and hundreds of emails about the Mozilla-Eich affair. My readers overwhelmingly disagree with me for a host of reasons. But I have to say that this time, the more I have mulled this over, the more convinced I am that my initial response to this is absolutely the right one. And not just the right one, but a vital one to defend at this juncture in the gay rights movement. Oh, gently caress you, Sully. gently caress you until your insides turn to coal, then diamond. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/06/the-quality-of-mercy/ This is so craven it's almost awe-inspiring. He starts by admitting that all of his previous arguments were bogus (there was no government or gay left march to hound Eich), then simply claims that the point is that we should all be merciful and let bigots by the unique precious snowflakes they are, lest we sully their habitat and drive them away. Besides, we are not 100% sure we're in the right. We could all be wrong! Why not err on the safe side and let anti-vaxxers run health organizations and companies, cast Mel Gibson to every movie, and so on? Also, buy his book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
quote:Part of Breitbart’s appeal is that he held our side to a much higher ethical standard  I mean I applaud the guy for taking the non-idiots stance and realizing that sort of thing has electoral consequences but talking about Breitbart holding people to ethical standards and bemoaning an upjumped RW feverswamp blog for having double standards is real deck chairs on the Titanic type stuff. It's like they physically cannot stop themselves from just leaving it at "Breitbarts CA crew are a bunch of idiots who are losing us votes in exchange for a couple of childish laughs and a few ad dollars". Nope, that's just too far for your average conservative so we need to make sure they know we live in the same pretend fairy land they do where Andrew Breitbart isn't widely remembered as a ruthless journalistic hack and a conservative not practicing what they preach is an outlier rather than a defining trait.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
He's not really taking the non-idiot's stance, he's taking the weasel stance. He's just using the typical "there really ISN'T a war on women so please stop making it look like there is Republicans!" line, made more apparent that he thinks Breitbart of all people held himself or his staff up to some kind of positive ethical standard. You can't just take people with sincere misogynist (or racist, homophobic, whatever) ideals and hope that stuff doesn't accidentally come out. You have to chuck those people out or change your policies but we all know that if the GOP does that they will alienate a large percentage of their base. They want the best of both worlds where they can appeal to bigots but have the plausible deniability that they aren't ACTUALLY bigots and people who don't like that aren't really buying their lies as easily.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Well y'know. Baby steps. I don't expect him to become the GOP's womens issues crusader, but I also didn't expect to see anybody even acknowledge that there was a problem with the ads, much less point out the brainless "lipstick on a pig" double standard. And really this is about as explicit as you're ever going to get one of these guys to admitting they have a problem with women so again, baby steps. The idiotic stance to me would be "What's the problem here? It's just a joke! Get over it libs!" seeing as that's someone happily throwing away votes in exchange for whatever emotional charge they get out of weirdo photoshops of people they don't like and a chance to play the victim for the 20th time today. 50 people do that and nothing good happens for the GOP. 50 people say "C'mon, this is stupid and counterproductive" and we might lose out on the next genius Breitbart CA move that can be trotted out as more proof positive that they're garbage. Or someone might realize that being a sexist poo poo who doesn't give a gently caress about more than half the voting populace isn't a good thing to be doing in a number of ways and starts treating women decently. I'm fine with that either way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
joeburz posted:So if I get drive thru taco bell does that mean I support immigration reform?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Jack in the Boxes midnight meals are explicitly advertised to stoned people. Also that chicken sandwich with mozzarella sticks on it is loving fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I guess. I'd just rather they keep saying awful things that make good sound-bytes to highlight how terrible they are. These conservatives that focus on the delivery of the message really want another "welfare queen" or "inner city youth" so they can screw over people but have a way of saying it that makes it popular instead of repellent. The really disgusting stuff they sometimes produce which finally elicits some self criticism, such as the Breitbart Pelosi image is really what they are all saying, just not as blatantly. They understand that there is a line that you can't cross and still claim to not be bigoted since they rely on the argument that you can't see that they are REALLY misogynistic and that's why they're pushing terrible laws. When Aiken or Breitbart makes it too clear they can't pretend to be innocent anymore and that is what they are trying to stop, not anything actually slanderous to women. Making that poster go away isn't going to stop their assault on women's issues. I'd like to believe that them toning down the hateful rhetoric would result in them becoming less hateful but every article written by a conservative pundit or politician on this issues always concentrates on stopping people from saying these things and not anything about changing policies. It's 100% the message they are uncomfortable with while they consider the goals totally acceptable. Intel&Sebastian posted:Jack in the Boxes midnight meals are explicitly advertised to stoned people. Also that chicken sandwich with mozzarella sticks on it is loving fantastic. Bennigan's used to have a burger with a wheel of fried mozzarella on it that my 12 year old self thought was amazing. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Good points, I don't disagree with any of it, but I'm personally not as scared anymore of the modern GOP groping around for the next "welfare queen" seeing as they no longer have the discipline or smarts needed to keep the mask from slipping on even the old ones they know work. They grew up not realizing the point of saying "welfare queen" and now they don't understand what's wrong with just saying black/blagh people are lazy. They know it means the same thing, they've been told it's true and everyone knows it, so why use this weird code word for it? They think it's to protect people's feelings rather than their own gross ideas. Basically I think we could wipe them off the map if we convinced them their own dogwhistle words are PC bullshit. Just say what you mean, it's the American way. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Budweiser is terrible beer. I mean, god drat that's bad beer. Chic-Fil-A chicken is awful and their politics help me not eat there almost as much as their stupid politics. I don't get the fascination with CFA at all. KFC is pretty tasty, or used to be, but their service sucks everywhere. Taco Bell is drive thru diarrhea and I can't see how anyone can eat it, let alone digest it. Most fast food is pretty bad. Having said all that, food derails are the worst and even more distasteful than the lovely food we find a way to discuss every 25 pages or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
quote:RUSH: Here's John in Chicago. John, great to have you. Glad you called, sir. Hello. From yesterday's program: Rush Limbaugh posted:I'll give you another example. How does it work on the other side? Okay, the other day, Stephen Colbert sent out a tweet -- just a total, racist tweet -- making fun of Chinese people, while he was intending to make fun of Daniel Snyder, by the way. He totally blew it, but the left rallied to his defense. "Come on, you know Colbert. He wouldn't intend to make fun of Chinese people." Who doesn't understand parody and satire now? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Hey wanna know a good joke? Rush Limbaugh got caught with boner meds that weren't his on a flight to the Dominican Republic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Someday soon he'll code after a handful of oxycontin and we'll realize what wonderful insanity is forever gone from our lives.quote:CALLER: David Vitter is really likable, and John Ensign was, and Mark Sanford, really likable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Impressive verbal gymnastics from such a fat, greasy man. The truth is whatever I want it to be at any particular moment in time! It's like it doesn't really matter if you catch him in a lie or blatant hypocrisy. He drat sure wouldn't have survived this long if he wasn't adept at weaseling out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Rush seems to be getting a lot of callers who aren't willing to suck his dick lately. Are his screeners slipping or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Maybe he got called out on his planted callers somewhere significant. That flame out into a failed "I was just kidding" landing was epic though. He just reached for the nearest exit and made up a story about how he got there hahahaha. It barely even makes grammatical sense, he just blurts out his escape hatch and starts riffing.
Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Honestly he doesn't seem that great at weaseling out of it. His listeners will believe whatever he says so it's not like he has to really do anything to "win" an argument on his own show. Look at the few instances of him being outside his element to see how great he really is at this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Marlamaid Swordhand posted:I know we're loving this derail but Breibart's California launch promotion lost them one of their contributors because of a Twerking Pelosi picture. Breitbart's entire purpose in life could be summed up as "hurt liberals, help conservatives, gently caress everything else" and his organization hasn't faltered from that in the slightest. His is the place that launched James O'Keefe, and that by itself should wreck any chance of them having anything like a reputation for seeking the truth. Even in my very most "truth is in the middle" moments, Brietbart and his organization are just way beyond the pale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Limbaugh used to be a lot quicker on his feet, mentally, before he fell into his pill addiction. Nowadays, he just splutters word salad when he has to go off script. If it was anyone else, I'd say it's sad, but...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:California has enough liberals to make state politics lean pretty liberal overall, but there are huge swathes of conservatives, especially in the more affluent parts of Southern California. Even San Francisco has a lovely conservative talk radio station (lovely in that it's a conservative talk radio station, not that it's lovely by the low standards of such) and Mike Savage. Cali is overall liberal, and trending even more liberal over time, but there are deep wells of conservatism there too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
THOSE drat COMPUTER MODELS!!!!  quote:RUSH: Now, I got a story here, this from the UK Telegraph. You'll not ever find a story like this in the Drive-By Media. "The Game is up for Climate Change Believers." Oh, and I'm looking for one thing. I hope I put it in this Stack. Yeah, I found it. Okay, here we go. "The Game is up for Climate Change Believers." Before I tell you what's in this, let me tell you something I saw yesterday was reading my tech blogs that buttresses the point. Why yes of course climate science is exactly the same thing as studies on human physiology! If you've ever been wrong once then you are absolutely going to be wrong about anything and everything in the future! When am I going to get my monthly speaker's fee from the Koch brothers?!?! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Oh yeah, people don't realize it, but if you get more than 40 miles from a major body of water in California, you might as well be in Kentucky, politically speaking. California gave the nation the John Birch Society, the Crystal Cathedral, the Trinity Broadcast Network, the Taxpayer's Revolt, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. Take the I5 down the central valley, and you'll pick up militia crank am stations and drive by "US OUT OF THE UN" billboards. Once you get out in the sticks where the majority of Californians don't live, you run into a bunch of small town rednecks with small town redneck political views. Surprise, surprise. And maybe it's just because I hang out in this forum far too much, but social issues aside, San Francisco isn't *that* liberal. On one hand, yes, nobody gives a flying gently caress if you smoke weed (not even the cops) and it's a good, safe place to be gay. On the other hand, it's one of the most snobby, NIMBYish places I've ever lived, and the city government is basically bought and paid for by the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
It's funny, rightwingers generally accept scientific facts, except the small number that clash with their ideological worldview. And those facts are wrong because...well because they have to be, because conservatism is never wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
kik2dagroin posted:THOSE drat COMPUTER MODELS!!!! Is there a response to this besides doubling over in laughter? Because that's the only coherent response I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
kik2dagroin posted:http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/04/08/humorless_caller_doesn_t_understand_how_infidelity_by_politicians_is_made_partisan Thanks for posting this. I caught this exchange this afternoon and was really taken aback by it. Someone got through the screeners, absolutely owned Rush, made coherent arguments and didn't get cut off or dropped and seemed to maintain his cool and sense of humor throughout the whole segment. The most amazing part of it was it was that Rush let him keep going and allowed the dude to eat his lunch. Which I'm certain angers Limbaugh more than anything. I mean having his lunch eaten as a fat joke. The Rokstar posted:Rush seems to be getting a lot of callers who aren't willing to suck his dick lately. Are his screeners slipping or something? The Rokstar posted:Rush seems to be getting a lot of callers who aren't willing to suck his dick lately. Are his screeners slipping or something? Intel&Sebastian posted:Maybe he got called out on his planted callers somewhere significant. That flame out into a failed "I was just kidding" landing was epic though. He just reached for the nearest exit and made up a story about how he got there hahahaha. It barely even makes grammatical sense, he just blurts out his escape hatch and starts riffing. More than likely it has something to do with ratings and "dialing it up notch" or generating controversy by exposing his listeners to the "vast left wing conspiracy" or some such bullshit. Rush doesn't care. He knows he's full of poo poo but he counts so much money every night that it doesn't matter one bit. That's the business model for right wing media. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Freedom of Speech for all. Freedom from government intervention in business and personal affairs. "I dislike a minority group and use hate speech." Business declines as a result of people reacting to bigotry. Resultant populist boycotts are obviously repression of free speech rights. Demands that the President and federal government intervene to protect and regulate trade. Yes. Yes ALL of this is cognizant, conservatives. Really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
~Rushy-poo~ posted:Now, the fact is, their science is bogus! That sounds like a line from a villain from a really lovely Sci-Fi show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
That Irish Guy posted:That sounds like a line from a villain from a really lovely Sci-Fi show. "...and all of SCIENCE will be mine!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
kik2dagroin posted:http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/04/08/humorless_caller_doesn_t_understand_how_infidelity_by_politicians_is_made_partisan quote:They had Undeniable Truth of Life No. Four: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." It's undeniably true. That made 'em mad. What is this even supposed to mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:What is this even supposed to mean? It means Rush Limbaugh thinks he's entitled to the attention of women, and pointing out he treats them like poo poo is getting in the way of that god given right. Standard MRA thought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
No I mean "allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream". What does that even mean? Mainstream what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
No Fat Chicks - fitness guru Rush Limbaugh
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Mainstream media? Culture? Consciousness? It used to be you'd only see pretty girls advertising cigarettes and cookware, now it's all Hillary Clintons and Rachel Maddows, having their short hair on TV. That's feminism for you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
In a patriarchal society, the easiest way for a woman to gain power and influence is to win the heart of a powerful man. This is easier if you're beautiful, harder if you're ugly. By allowing women to gain power without relying on a man, feminism erodes the importance of attractiveness and therefore makes things easier for unattractive women. This is unfair for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:No I mean "allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream". What does that even mean? Mainstream what? I think it's just trying to attack liberal women in any way he can, so he just calls them ugly. In Rush Limbaugh's world I guess the uggos would be kept in the closet and not allowed out in public or something, but I wouldn't think too deeply about it beyond him being a fat sexist poo poo trying to attack liberals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:In a patriarchal society, the easiest way for a woman to gain power and influence is to win the heart of a powerful man. This is easier if you're beautiful, harder if you're ugly. By allowing women to gain power without relying on a man, feminism erodes the importance of attractiveness and therefore makes things easier for unattractive women. This is unfair for some reason. In fairness, historically skill and craft could replace looks. Before industrialization cottage industry was the thing. Which meant women controlled the means of production for a lot of stuff. If you were a shepherd's son would you rather marry the plain girl who makes the best woolen clothe and is heir to a valuable dye recipe or the pretty girl with mediocre textile skills? After all, male infidelity wasn't a vice so you could sleep with all manner of women. But you only got to take labor and the resulting profit from your wife. And since most of what you'll eat for the rest of your life is stuff she cooked that should factor in to the equation somewhere. Bottom line, the historical normal is for your wife's abilities in skilled labor to have significant effects on your personal quality of life. Ergo, A wife with mad skills was more desirable. Then the machines came, took all our jobs, and looks became way more important. Women's work became women's cute nostalgic hobbies and our soft power plummeted. I would argue that folks like that guy actually hold women in far more contempt than his kind 100 years ago did. Modern groups that eschew technology like the Amish are still patriarchs and have specific female roles ... But they honestly respect achievement within those roles. No empty blatherings. Sincere respect. The women's roles include a wide variety of skilled labor which produces desirable goods obtainable in no other way within the community.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 06:57
|
|