bigtom posted:

"BORDERS...LANGUAGE...CULTURE"

ErIog posted:

Wasn't the story that she wanted to be First Lady kind of a lot more than Mitt actually wanted to be President?

pengun101 posted:

I am pretty sure this hasn't been posted yet, but holy poo poo. Michelle Malkin used her latest column to attack a woman who just died of cancer. The fact that she was President Obama’s aunt apparently made that okay.
http://news.yahoo.com/legacy-obamas-illegal-alien-aunt-070000221.html

Remulak posted:

pussy move

Remulak posted:

Shifting ANY blame to Mitt's wife is a calculated pussy move, done by a pro media manipulator, to make him more sympathetic, and you should NOT fall for it.

Gozinbulx posted:

Hey, you leave Rafalca out of this.

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Since we're in reminiscing mode again I'll bring up one I haven't seen in a while: The time Mitt went to a NASCAR rally and was like "I don't know what the gently caress this is, but I know a few of the guys who own the companies you guys are all such big fans of, that's cool. Right?"

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Since we're in reminiscing mode again I'll bring up one I haven't seen in a while: The time Mitt went to a NASCAR rally and was like "I don't know what the gently caress this is, but I know a few of the guys who own the companies you guys are all such big fans of, that's cool. Right?"

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Since we're in reminiscing mode again I'll bring up one I haven't seen in a while: The time Mitt went to a NASCAR rally and was like "I don't know what the gently caress this is, but I know a few of the guys who own the companies you guys are all such big fans of, that's cool. Right?"

bigtom posted:

You can't even escape Right Wing Media on the holidays it seems. At Passover seder, the Rabbi had passed out an additional handout along with the haggada - titled "The 10 Plagues Of Modern Life." Part of the seder was a discussion, when the topic of immigration and assimilation came up...and the elderly woman across from me drops the phrase "BORDERS...LANGUAGE...CULTURE" when talking about how signs in anything but English are just awful

After dessert, I asked her what she listened to...and of course, she just loves talk radio and Michael Savage.

At least the brisket was good.

Swan Oat posted:

The rich understand what poor and middle class Americans need. After all, they employ us and make the products we buy. If they didn't understand us, how would they know how to provide us with jobs, or with goods to buy? Really makes ya think.

ProperGanderPusher posted:

Ironic how this exact same sentiment was more than likely directed towards her Yiddish-speaking ancestors at some point, who were probably just a generation or two behind her.

bigtom posted:

You can't even escape Right Wing Media on the holidays it seems.

BiggerBoat posted:

Speaking of this, I've been getting a lot of e-mails from my Libertarian brother in law and my right wing conservative father in law loving raging about Common Core. They're in Georgia. We're going up there for Easter. My brother in law's wife is a teacher. The BIL has two kids (13 and 10). Everyone's pissed off and freaking the gently caress out about this.

I don't know too much about it and the internet is proving rather vague, but from what they're sending me it all sucks and is (naturally) Obama's/Democrat's fault. Some of the math homework they sent me looks pretty loving weird. What should I brace myself for this weekend?

What are the lies about Common Core and what's true?

Sharkie posted:

What's true about the common core: it emphasizes "teaching to the test," i.e., regurgitating answers without a solid basis in critical thinking, and removes flexibility in lesson planning from teachers. What's false: everything else. There's nothing in it to transform kids into gay one-world communists.

BiggerBoat posted:

Some of the math homework they sent me looks pretty loving weird.

Rush Limbaugh, 24 hours ago, posted:

I've got people telling me [Hillary Clinton's] reaction wasn't natural. But I'm sorry, I'm ill-equipped to comment. I haven't seen it. (interruption) No. I haven't cared enough to go try to find it. I really haven't. Somebody threw a shoe at Hillary. Big whoop. Maybe it's because in my subconscious I think it was staged our set up or whatever. ...

quote:

RUSH: I didn't do it. It wasn't me. It wasn't me! The Politico is saying I did it. You got USA Today saying I did it, and I didn't do it. It wasn't me! And it's fascinating. It is literally fascinating that they want to take this episode and try to lay this off on me. I'll tell you what I'm talking about in a minute. This is the hook. It makes me think that we might have hit on something here. The caller did it. The caller did it but they're laying it off on me!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, we had a call yesterday from a woman who I could barely understand. She was on a cell phone. Her cell call was not the best connection, and the woman did not have the phone properly positioned so that her oral cavity was near the phone's microphone. Therefore I could barely understand what she was saying. I had to ask her to start again a couple of times. I was able to read the transcription of the call and basically this woman's theory is that Mrs. Clinton staged the whole incident where somebody threw a shoe at her.

Her theory was based on the fact that Mrs. Clinton looked like she knew it was coming. She didn't look that shocked. She had too many really cute, pat answers just ready to go. And then this woman said the Clintons, they stage things, the Democrats stage things and I said, "You know, I hadn't thought about it." I hadn't even seen it. All I had seen was the still shot of Hillary avoiding the shoe on the Drudge Report. I, frankly, didn't care. I don't care anymore about stuff like that. What the Drive-Bys do, folks, I'm just trying to limit my exposure to 'em so as to not be affected by it. It's hard, I know. When you expose yourself to 'em each and every day you can't help but be taken in by it.

...

RUSH: Now, as far as the Clintons staging things, you know, I have this phrase that I employ a lot: "using intelligence guided by experience." The Clintons are well-known for staging things. One of the very first things the Clintons staged -- and there have been many -- I'll give you two highlights. It was at one of the anniversaries of D-Day. They had a camera atop the hillside at Omaha Beach at Normandy, and the camera was focused on a lone destroyer out near the horizon in the English Channel. And as that camera zoomed out, you know what we saw?

...

So intelligence guided by experience, do the Clintons stage things? Heck yes they stage things. Therefore is it outrageous that somebody would call here and think maybe Hillary staged the shoe throwing? No. It isn't outrageous. Intelligence guided by experience. Nobody knows for sure, but it's not ludicrous to think it might be because the Clintons are well known for doing that. The caller was speculating. After years of political staging and planted questions, people are on alert for phonies. Which is clearly what could be the case here.

Now, as far as Colbert, it's clear, folks, it's very important, we have to assume now that having the right guy on a late-night talk show is considered a high political priority. And we gotta turn out the youth vote. That's one of the best ways they think they can do it. Get the right late-night host, and comedians are rapidly gaining stature not just in pop culture, but within the political culture. And by virtue of the left's and media's over-the-top reaction to what I think about it is proof that it is a big deal to them, a very important point.

...

RUSH: Barney in Tucson, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. You were discussing staged events involving the Clintons.

RUSH: Yes, I was.

CALLER: I'd like you to consider that Hillary's most famous outburst during her testimony at the Benghazi hearings was carefully written and rehearsed.

RUSH: Which would that be? The "what difference does it make?"

CALLER: Exactly. But that's not the way she said it. That's the way normal people would say it. The way she said it was very strangely constructed. Normal people, especially under stressful circumstances would just say it exactly the way you did. Or if she wanted to add, "at this point" she would say "at this point, what difference does it make?" Or, "What difference does it make at this point?" But the way she did it, her outburst not only had the desired effect of putting the committee members back on their heels, but equally important she prevents the "what difference does it make?" part from being used as a separate and heartless looking sound bite.

RUSH: Wow, you have really dissected this.

CALLER: Yeah, her accents on the words were -- it's just all wrong if you analyzed the way she said it.

RUSH: Tell me how she said it, in --

CALLER: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

RUSH: A-ha.

CALLER: By inserting that clause in the middle, it's an abnormally spoken construction.

RUSH: Right. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Instead of, "What difference does it make?"

CALLER: Even adding "at this point" at the beginning or the end --

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: -- because if she did it that way, which is the way normal people would do it, you could take the "what difference does it make?" and it would be a devastating political commercial against her.

RUSH: Well, I'll tell you something else. That's an excellent point. You know, I'm a student of the use of language and words, phraseology, and that's a really good point and a good observation, as well. But Mrs. Clinton, if I'm not mistaken, I think there have been planted questions at Mrs. Clinton press conferences.

...

RUSH: How about this, folks? How about all of those people that fainted at Barack Obama's speeches? How many of those do you think were staged, 'cause they don't happen anymore. He still goes out there and speaks where there's crowds and where it's hot, but nobody seems to faint anymore. But it used to be routine when he went out there. The point is: How much of what is liberalism is genuine anyway? The point is, very little of it is. The reality of it is something they can't ever let you see it, when you get down to brass tacks.

quote:

RUSH: Okay, from the Wall Street Journal: "The jump in federal tax rates that kicked in last year is causing sticker shock for many higher earners this tax season. That, in turn, is rekindling a debate over a question likely to smolder for a long time: How much more could -- or should -- taxes go up on the well-to-do?"

What debate? There isn't any debate about this. What are they talking about, rekindle a debate of over a question smoldering for a long time. There's no debate in the media over this. There's no question, the rich need to pay more and more and more. We've got income inequality and why do we have income inequality? The rich have too much in the eyes of Obama and the Democrats. We don't have income inequality because some people have too little. It's an important distinction in terms of illustrating the left's thinking.

By the way, we're always gonna have income inequality and every other kind of inequality because sameness is impossible and equality, particularly of outcome, is also impossible. It's simple common sense. I feel like an idiot having to say it. But it's news to some people. "You mean, we all aren't gonna earn the same someday?" Nah, sorry. Sorry, Steven, but it isn't gonna happen. I feel like an absolute idiot pointing out some of the most obvious things and realizing that it's news to some people.

But the point is, you have income inequality, and the left never says that the poor have too little 'cause that's just fine with them. The less you have the more you need Democrats. They always focus on who has too much, and they're perfectly happy to be the arbiters in what is too much. They're perfectly fine defining when anybody has enough and more than they need. There isn't any debate on this. There's no debate taking place. All there is is a further stigmatization of achievement, a further stigmatizing of accomplishment. Turning people that achieve great things into suspects and then suggesting that those people are benefiting from greed or winning life's lottery. They simply have got too much.

So the focus becomes, how do we take that money away from them? They've got more than they need. It's never, how do we end up raising the people at the bottom. That's what conservatism is all about. Conservatism is actually all about improving everybody's lot in life. Conservatism is all about teaching and educating people to learn what they're capable of. Conservatism is all about showing people how good they can be, about learning how good they can be. Conservatism is all about having people discover that they're capable of doing much more than they think they are. Every conservative going today has somebody in his or her past who got more out of them at some point in their life than they thought they could do.

It may be a coach in athletics. It may be a history teacher. It might be a friend, but everybody who cares about this realizes that at some point in their life somebody showed them or somebody made it possible for them to demonstrate to themselves that they were capable of much more than they thought they were and therefore they should shoot high, their ambition should be limitless, to follow their dreams. Conservatism is all about everybody having the tools necessary to improve themselves. Liberalism is based on an assumption that most people can't improve themselves because most people aren't capable of it. Most people are victims. Most people who've been victimized by the rich or by Republicans, whoever the enemies of the Democrats are that day, that's who's victimizing people.

And so the poor, they can't do any better than what they're doing unless the Democrats come along and punish somebody else and take it from them and supposedly give it to the poor. Conservatism is all about rugged individuality, self-reliance, helping people be better than they ever knew they could be, helping people discover that they were capable of accomplishing more than they ever thought they could accomplish. And when that happens, you love yourself, you have self-satisfaction, purpose, happiness. And that's what is missing in liberalism. There isn't any happiness. Achievement is denigrated. Achievement is suspected. Achievement's not really rewarded. It's suspect.

All of this is done because the Democrats know the numbers. There are far fewer rich people than there are poor people, and so they're just using a shotgun approach to policies or stated policies designed to reach the most people to get votes. But in terms of actually helping people, that's the last thing liberalism does. Liberalism, while it's said that it's all about compassion and helping people, it actually does the opposite. Conservatism is about genuine help, genuine achievement, genuine accomplishment, and instructing and telling people and helping people how to do it. It's all about optimism. It's all about can-do spirit. It's all about improvement. That's what conservatism is.

Conservatism is the individual is gonna do much better acting in his own self-interest than he will allowing government to do something for him. Self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest is a far, far different thing than selfishness. The Democrats, the left, they are selfish, and they use people and they denigrate people and they characterize people, and they diminish people and they destroy. And it's left to us to try to fix and repair. So here you've got this great income inequality, and the left looks at it as a problem as some people have too much. And of course that plays in low-information America, "Yeah, yeah, they got more than they need. Take it away from 'em, yeah, yeah." Except don't take it away from their favorite athlete and don't take it away from their favorite actor.

No, we love those actors living rich lives. We can pretend we're doing it, too. We love those athletes running around nightclubbing and partying, but the CEO of Big Oil, you take his money. The CEO of Big Pharma, you go get his money. The CEO of Walmart, you bet, go get his money. The CEO of anybody on Wall Street, drat right, take his money, leave my athlete alone, leave my favorite actor alone. They can earn whatever they want to earn, 'cause they love me, they understand me. It's just sick. So now we've gotten to the point, ladies and gentlemen, where the top 1% now pay nearly 30% of all federal tax revenue, not just income tax, all, 30% of all federal tax revenue is now collected from the top 1%.

The bottom 50%, it's next to nothing that they pay. And the share of all federal tax revenue paid by the 1% has doubled since the 1980s. And likewise, the top 20% of income earners have gone from paying 65% of all federal taxes in 1980 to 90% in 2010. So the top 1% are paying 30% of all tax revenue. If you expand it to the top 20%, they are paying 90% of all collected tax revenue. And the 20% number includes couples with two kids making more than $150,000.

So if you make $150,000 a year or more, you are in the top 20% of wage earners, and you are in the group that's paying 90% of all tax revenue, and still it's not enough. If you listen to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, it's still not enough. You are still not paying your fair share. In fact, the left is mocking them for even complaining. There's a snarky piece from The Atlantic. "Rich People Are Mad They Have to Pay So Many Taxes on Their Ballooning Incomes."

And this is how the stigmatization takes place. "No group of Americans is less happy about the taxes they pay than the wealthy. The Wall Street Journal's report glossing over the fact that they are paying more in taxes in large part because they are seeing most of the increases in incomes. This is like being mad that you paid more in sales tax on your Bentley than your doorman paid in taxes for a Ford." That is not true. I can tell you from personal experience, that is not true. I can. I could point to you people whose income isn't changing whose taxes are going up dramatically. Obamacare alone is responsible for a huge increase.

There have been something like 442 tax increases that have occurred since Barack Obama was immaculated. And many of them have targeted the so-called wealthiest of Americans. And of course, how dare those rich 20%, which again is couples with two children making more than $150,000. Remember, Jim Moran or some Democrat in Congress said last week, "We can't afford to live here on what we earn." They earn $175,000. We can't afford to live in Washington. We need to earn -- we simply can't afford to live here. I have to tell you, you who earn 150 grand and have two kids, you are in the top 20%, and you got a member of Congress, he can't live on what you earn, and yet you are being targeted.

You are a part of the group that's not paying enough yet, according to the Democrat Party and Barack Obama. And if make $150,000 or more and have -- I don't care what number of kids, just any number of kids, if you make that much money, you're in the top 20% and your group is paying 90% of all tax revenue, and the people at The Atlantic mock you if you complain about it. Meanwhile, we keep hear, well, income inequality. How about income tax inequality, Mr. President?

BiggerBoat posted:

Speaking of this, I've been getting a lot of e-mails from my Libertarian brother in law and my right wing conservative father in law loving raging about Common Core. They're in Georgia. We're going up there for Easter. My brother in law's wife is a teacher. The BIL has two kids (13 and 10). Everyone's pissed off and freaking the gently caress out about this.

I don't know too much about it and the internet is proving rather vague, but from what they're sending me it all sucks and is (naturally) Obama's/Democrat's fault. Some of the math homework they sent me looks pretty loving weird. What should I brace myself for this weekend?

What are the lies about Common Core and what's true?

Sharkie posted:

What's true about the common core: it emphasizes "teaching to the test," i.e., regurgitating answers without a solid basis in critical thinking, and removes flexibility in lesson planning from teachers. What's false: everything else. There's nothing in it to transform kids into gay one-world communists.

Mercury_Storm posted:

I've seen some friends quoting Victoria Jackson posts on facebook about the new methods of teaching things like subtraction under common core. Even considering the source, the method shown did actually seem needlessly complex, and I don't really get the point of the change if this is indeed what's actually happening.

Here's the image in the post:

OAquinas posted:

For a simple problem like 32-12 it's not really beneficial to use the "new" math system. For 2631-1783, on the other hand, it helps simplify the process--you're not "borrowing" anything, and you're largely dealing with round numbers.

Mainly its a more intuitive manner of interacting with the numbers and how they relate. Both systems work; but for people raised on one the other is a more esoteric method. "New thing bad!" is the heart of the ridicule, and we all know that is a rock solid argument.

Mercury_Storm posted:

I've seen some friends quoting Victoria Jackson posts on facebook about the new methods of teaching things like subtraction under common core. Even considering the source, the method shown did actually seem needlessly complex, and I don't really get the point of the change if this is indeed what's actually happening.

Here's the image in the post:

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I have no idea how the "new" system is supposed to work; that looks more like numerology than arithmetic to me. Is there a link somewhere to a basic guide to the "new" system?

Mercury_Storm posted:

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

The idea is pretty straightforward. Let's think of it algebraically: 32-12=x. How do you find x? One way is to figure out what you need to add to 12 until you reach 32. So you can think of it like 12+x=32. Anyway, the easiest numbers to work with arithmetically are usually multiples of 5 or 10, so you first 12+3=15 (a multiple of 5). Then you want to get to the multiple of 10, so 15+5=20. Do it again until you get to 30, so 20+10=30. Since if you add 5 or 10 to 30, you overshoot your mark, so you get 30+2=32. How, then, do you get from that to 20? Easy: add up the numbers you added to get to 32, which is 3+5+10+2=20, an even more straightforward arithmetic problem. On an easy problem like that it's absolutely extravagant, but when you get to big-rear end arithmetic problems it helps a great deal. Try doing some complicated 21009341043-184817412 the way we all learned; it's just absolutely monstrously complicated. This other method makes it much more approachable.

moths posted:

That image, if it's even legit, is likely meant to help kids conceptualize numbers and what they actually mean. There one a while back with rows and columns of circles to illustrate multiplication operations - and FB parents were flipping their poo poo because CIRCLES AREN'T MATH.