Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3446 »

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Spacedad posted:

So Palin threatens to leave the GOP unless they impeach Obama for not sending desperate immigrant children fleeing dangerous situations in their home countries all to mexico. Or something? I don't know. I'm very confused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edzvXasiWCs

So she's also crying crocodile tears bashing Obama for the suffering children while threatening to make them suffer more by deporting them. Not sure if that also means putting children who aren't even from mexico into mexico, but I guess it's all brown to her racist goggle-eyes.

I don't even know, really. She apparently wrote a kind of facebook manifesto about it all too - a manifesto that I'm having a real hard time making sense of.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/13/sarah-palin-threatens-leave-gop-obama-flies-abandoned-kids-mexico.html

I think she's trying to string about six different ideas together and connect them with xenophobia, RINO-ish party-riling, and Obama attacks, cemented with some a bloo bloo crocodile tears for children she doesn't give a poo poo about. It's like she literally took the bullet point list of topics she's supposed to repeat endlessly as recommended to her by a Republican strategist, and then failingly tried to cram them all in a meat grinder.

i just read her screed and did she really just take issues with staying on your parents insurance til 26, because i and alot of others would have been hosed with out that.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 13:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 05:17

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

Star Man posted:

Ann Coulter, ladies and gentlemen: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html

I seem to recall there was a fill in host for Hannity that was bitching about how his son was playing soccer with Day Laborers, and banned him from watching "Dora the Explorer" in the house for some stupid, bullshit reason.

Racism really is the backbone of the modern conservative movement!

# ? Jun 26, 2014 14:36

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

TheBalor posted:

So your contention, then, is that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she will be able to call upon wide-ranging conservative support from decades of favors owed and connections?

Nope. My contention is that while Obama was teeth and toenails from a supermajority in 2008 -as the fellow above who did the research showing that Obama didn't quite get there and thus didn't really have a supermajority demonstrated - that Hillary could have made that last mile and actually had cloture in the senate. Her supporters/sympathizers would not have had to actually vote for her laws, just let it be known that they weren't going to play the filibuster game as that took complete GOP unity to do.

So had Hillary won in 2008 we'd have had two years of a dem's controlling every branch of government and a bunch of stuff that died on the senate steps under Obama would have happened.

As a secondary contention, I'm arguing that putting someone who lacks executive experience or hill connections into the White House is a mistake and we shouldn't rush Warren for the same reason we should not have rushed Obama. Give her time to build some networks. She'll be a better president in 2024 than in 2016.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 15:02

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

I like that in her mind American Football, which has more scoring than soccer, is somehow the sport in which it is more difficult to score.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 15:50

Occupy Sesame Street!: Nov 20, 2012

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

I like that in her mind American Football, which has more scoring than soccer, is somehow the sport in which it is more difficult to score.

No no, you see football is a sport which only rugged, Real American Men play, which means that despite overwhelming opposition (The liberal media), they are able to score (Take are country back).

Meanwhile, soccer is played by kindergarten children, such as David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo (noted foreigners) who can only score goals by accident (much like how the foreigners in our government only get political wins by accident).

The fact that it is popular is just a global conspiracy that only America is Free enough to see.

Edit: more bad analogies

Occupy Sesame Street! fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 26, 2014

# ? Jun 26, 2014 16:37

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

While the forums were gone I tried getting my GOP Schadenfreude fix by touching the poop a bit on twitter...

ho-lee shiiiiiit, the absolute swamp you can end up in just by getting a bit loose with your follows and RT's. There's accounts I'm convinced cannot be real people who post a new conspiracy/obama hate/clever quip literally about once every 5 minutes and have tens of thousands of followers. The hilarious "promoted" tweets you see as people just try and get a leg up into the "I'm popular with tea partiers" competition. Just straight up blind rage.

I don't recommend actually engaging but I do definitely recommend creating some kind of new account and seeing what happens after you follow/fave/rt a few things from the #tcot hashtag waterfall of sadness.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 19:04

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

quote:

This doesn't technically seem to account for actual working days, which the other article seems to do. I am willing to concede I could be incorrect, but it looks like a pretty important detail to me.

The other thing to remember is the serious illnesses of Byrd and Kennedy at the time.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 19:05

kik2dagroin: Mar 23, 2007; Use the anger. Use it.

protastic posted:

No no, you see football is a sport which only rugged, Real American Men play, which means that despite overwhelming opposition (The liberal media), they are able to score (Take are country back).

Meanwhile, soccer is played by kindergarten children, such as David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo (noted foreigners) who can only score goals by accident (much like how the foreigners in our government only get political wins by accident).

The fact that it is popular is just a global conspiracy that only America is Free enough to see.

Edit: more bad analogies

This is funny given the other posts because Limbaugh whines about liberals liking soccer and losing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dopuky9PXM

Ah yes, and now Hank Paulson is disavowed because he believes in climate change

quote:

RUSH: So how's this for timing? "Hank" Henry Paulson, one of the truly smart people, Goldman Sachs CEO, multibillionaire, banker extraordinaire, Treasury secretary that was the engineer of all the bailouts and TARP during the 2008 so-called financial crisis where we only had 24 hours to do it or the world economy would collapse. And yet two weeks later, the world economy had not collapsed. Remember that? We only had 24 hours to act. The Republicans in Congress only had 24 hours to act approving TARP and the bailouts, and if they didn't, the world economy was gonna collapse.

Okay, so on Sunday Hank Paulson has an op-ed. I happened to see it. It was a stand-alone. I didn't know of his involvement with the environmentalist wackos at the time. And in his op-ed, Hank Paulson -- he's another guy that you wouldn't think, okay, Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, multibillionaire, filthy rich, worked in the Bush administration, you would think Republican, you would think conservative, you would think free market -- here's a guy writing an op-ed promoting a carbon tax, promoting massive new tax increases on energy.

Why? Because of climate change. He made the point that the greatest threat that the economy faces now is climate change. Well, that was bad enough, because that's absurd. But then, I guess it was two days ago, there was a news conference in New York City. Tom Steyer was there, big Democrat donor, hundred million dollars to the Democrats if Obama will continue to oppose the Keystone pipeline. He was joined, Steyer was, by Mayor Doomberg of New York and Hank Paulson. And the three of them on stage at the news conference released their risky business report titled, "The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the US." And I thought this is brand-new.

Economic risks of climate change, and what it was, this whole press conference was a PR stunt to remake the climate change issue into an economic issue rather than a weather issue or a climate or science issue, because it's bombing out. They're not convincing anybody. We just had the coldest weather on record. There are still icebergs in the Great Lakes. We're coming up on July. They're blaming the cold weather for a horrible first quarter economy, and yet they're out there talking about global warming. So it's not working.

I'll tell you what this is. This is a narrative change right out in the open. This is a change in the storyline or the template. The purpose of this press conference a couple days ago was to remake the climate change issue into an economic issue and story. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the Drive-By Media cannot wait to glom onto this. They will not talk about the economy.

And how about Paulson's timing? He writes a piece on Monday that global warming, climate change, the biggest threat to the economy, and two days later, the Regime announces that in the first quarter the economy shrank 3%. I still can't get over that, how horrible that is and the fact that it is the direct result of policy. It's the direct result of the cultural decline that's happening in this country. It's the direct result of open borders and swarms of illegals who are uneducated and poor swarming into the country. It's the direct result of Obamacare and the Regime taking over one-sixth of the economy, the private sector economy.

So here's Hank Paulson, he's one of the smartest people in the world, on Sunday with an op-ed, and guess what? The greatest economic risk that we face is climate change. They've gotta change the narrative. They have to, 'cause as a science issue, it's bombing out. But then Hank kind of got bit on the rear end 'cause two days later here comes the economy contracting by 3%, because it was cold. I mean, imagine. In normal circumstances this guy would be so humiliated and embarrassed and discredited, he couldn't show his face.

The economy contracts 3% because it was cold. It was so cold nobody could go out of their houses and shop. It was so cold they couldn't open the malls. It was so bad. It was so bad. He has a piece saying global warming is the greatest threat to the economy two days prior. And the specific item that he mentioned in his op-ed piece that ran Sunday, he called for a carbon tax. The Democrats have been trying to tax energy in earnest since Bill Clinton in 1992. It probably predates that. Clinton was one of the early proponents of a massive -- and his idea was a massive carbon tax combined with the EPA now assaulting power plants, this demand that power plants reduce emissions by 30%.

Your electric bills, if these people get what they want, without a carbon tax, your electric bills are going to skyrocket. They're gonna skyrocket so much you're gonna have to make lifestyle changes. You're not gonna be able to use disposable income for gasoline or air-conditioning or heating. This is gonna be mandatory spending. It's going to curtail people's lifestyles. This is massive. The hit that's going to take place on energy costs, you tax carbon, you're taxing everything. Gasoline at every level, every stage of the transportation system. It is going to be punitive.

And here comes Hank Paulson -- they got him I don't know how. They think he's bringing credibility, Treasury secretary, in charge of the bailouts, TARP, oh, smart guy, and even Paulson realizes we've gotta have a carbon tax increase. All it's designed to do is to transfer wealth. It's just designed to spread poverty, folks. Let me put it another way. Rather than say the carbon tax primary purpose is to spread poverty, the primary purpose of the carbon tax is to prevent the accumulation of wealth. The income tax is a direct obstacle in the way of accumulating wealth. The carbon tax will be, as are other taxes, and that's what the objective here is, to prevent the accumulation wealth.

Now, I can imagine some of you, "Rush, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Why would our leaders who are looking out for us, why would our leaders who want the best for us --" That's where you're wrong. "Why would our leaders want to prevent us from accumulating wealth? Wouldn't that mean the economy's doing well?" I'll tell you why. It's real simple. You just have to have the courage to understand and admit this. The reason they want to retard the accumulation of wealth is so you will forever be more and more dependent on Washington, government, whatever, for the necessities in life. They own you then.

They're already on the way to owning you with Obamacare. But that's why. It's power. If everybody is able to take an equal stab at accumulating wealth, and a lot of people do, what results? You've got independent people. You have self-sufficient people, self-reliant people. That's the biggest enemy to people who want as much power over other people as they can get. And that's the express purpose of all of this. And has as an ancillary effect, it will spread poverty. It will make people less affluent. It will make people less wealthy, and it will retard everybody's ability to accumulate wealth.

And they'll justify that with silly talk about income equality and fairness and family issues and whatever else they need to do to put a scarlet letter S on the achievers and make them suspects, which is part and parcel of what the Washington establishment is all about. So you probably will be hearing in the not-too-distant future about climate change as a great economic threat.

Since they have failed to convince people on the basis of the so-called science, since they have failed to convince you that you are destroying the planet, the next gambit is to try to convince you that global warming is destroying your ability to earn money and that you had better make changes in your lifestyle and allow Washington to take even more control in order to fix this serious problem -- and both parties are part and parcel of it.

That is what the establishment is aiming to do.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/25/hank_paulson_joins_global_warming_nuts

# ? Jun 26, 2014 20:22

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

Intel&Sebastian posted:

While the forums were gone I tried getting my GOP Schadenfreude fix by touching the poop a bit on twitter...

ho-lee shiiiiiit, the absolute swamp you can end up in just by getting a bit loose with your follows and RT's. There's accounts I'm convinced cannot be real people who post a new conspiracy/obama hate/clever quip literally about once every 5 minutes and have tens of thousands of followers. The hilarious "promoted" tweets you see as people just try and get a leg up into the "I'm popular with tea partiers" competition. Just straight up blind rage.

I don't recommend actually engaging but I do definitely recommend creating some kind of new account and seeing what happens after you follow/fave/rt a few things from the #tcot hashtag waterfall of sadness.

This is the wrong thread for it, but one of the dudes from AI has some pretty awful friends and he posted an article about Gary Oldman saying some awful poo poo. One of this guy's friends was the most strawman of all authoritarian strawmen ever. Internet Libertarian Racist Bingo was completely covered almost immediately and I didn't even have to prompt him to say some really vile stuff. It was an uroboros of awfulness.

Just off of the top of my head:

- White privilege isn't a thing
- Al Sharpton is a race baiter
- Affirmative action is racist
- Food stamps are racist
- If we went back to the gold standard than our money would actually be backed by something with value
- War of Northern Aggression
- You honestly think that the Civil War was about slavery?
- Reparations are hard and unfair

- We can end racism if we just stop talking about it
- The disparity between the overall black population and the black population in prison (13% vs 60%) can't be tied to racism, there's literally no way to know
- Former military
- Lives in Florida
- Words about individual property rights
- Etc, etc, etc...

I tried to hook him with Fourteen Words, but he didn't take it, unfortunately.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 20:27

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

FuzzySkinner posted:

and banned him from watching "Dora the Explorer" in the house for some stupid, bullshit reason.

Multiculturalism and bilingual education would be my immediate guess.

Intel&Sebastian posted:

While the forums were gone I tried getting my GOP Schadenfreude fix by touching the poop a bit on twitter...

ho-lee shiiiiiit, the absolute swamp you can end up in just by getting a bit loose with your follows and RT's. There's accounts I'm convinced cannot be real people who post a new conspiracy/obama hate/clever quip literally about once every 5 minutes and have tens of thousands of followers. The hilarious "promoted" tweets you see as people just try and get a leg up into the "I'm popular with tea partiers" competition. Just straight up blind rage.

I don't recommend actually engaging but I do definitely recommend creating some kind of new account and seeing what happens after you follow/fave/rt a few things from the #tcot hashtag waterfall of sadness.

This is why I always say that the effect that right wing media has on the country is bigger than most of us give it credit for. It affects discourse more deeply than most of us want to admit.

BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 26, 2014

# ? Jun 26, 2014 20:29

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

Phone posted:

This is the wrong thread for it, but one of the dudes from AI has some pretty awful friends and he posted an article about Gary Oldman saying some awful poo poo. One of this guy's friends was the most strawman of all authoritarian strawmen ever. Internet Libertarian Racist Bingo was completely covered almost immediately and I didn't even have to prompt him to say some really vile stuff. It was an uroboros of awfulness.

Just off of the top of my head:

- White privilege isn't a thing
- Al Sharpton is a race baiter
- Affirmative action is racist
- Food stamps are racist
- If we went back to the gold standard than our money would actually be backed by something with value
- War of Northern Aggression
- You honestly think that the Civil War was about slavery?
- Reparations are hard and unfair
- We can end racism if we just stop talking about it
- The disparity between the overall black population and the black population in prison (13% vs 60%) can't be tied to racism, there's literally no way to know
- Former military
- Lives in Florida
- Words about individual property rights
- Etc, etc, etc...

I tried to hook him with Fourteen Words, but he didn't take it, unfortunately.

Did he unironically agree with Tal Fortgang saying that "white privilege" is a liberal conspiracy theory?

# ? Jun 26, 2014 20:52

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Phone posted:

- If we went back to the gold standard than our money would actually be backed by something with value

"So you're saying the US military is worthless?" :smug:

# ? Jun 26, 2014 20:59

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Did he unironically agree with Tal Fortgang saying that "white privilege" is a liberal conspiracy theory?

This is what I told him that kicked it off

me posted:

Hey Jeremy: you're a shitlord who's never examined your own status as a white male in the US. I hope this was concise enough for you.

Jeremy posted:

My own status? I don't need to examine my own status. Nor does being white have anything to do with my status. The implication that I am better off because I'm white is not only racist, but horribly ignorant as well.

and after I responded with a hearty "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Jeremy posted:

Just so everyone is clear. you're trying to tell me that my status in life is better because I'm white, I disagree saying that the color of my skin has had no play and has no play in my status in life, yet your implication is that I'm the racist one?

If that's the case. Wow. you are what's wrong with this world.

Phone fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jun 26, 2014

# ? Jun 26, 2014 22:21

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

Phone posted:

Does this count?

Literal refusal to do any introspection? Sounds about right.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 22:22

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Clinton probably would have dealt with the same amount of poo poo from Congress but only a black man could have led to the Tea Party.

I actually think they probably would have sprung up - maybe with some different rhetoric, but with the same ferocity and the same big money groups backing them. The very fact that she's Hillary Clinton, ie: the poster girl for right-wing hate from the 90's, pretty much would have guaranteed it.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 23:01

mr. mephistopheles: Dec 2, 2009

Misogyny is probably a more widespread issue than racism, but people aren't as feverish or aggressive about it, and the Tea Party is extremely fueled by racism. I really can't see them having the same hate boner for a white person, woman or not.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 23:19

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Misogyny is probably a more widespread issue than racism, but people aren't as feverish or aggressive about it, and the Tea Party is extremely fueled by racism. I really can't see them having the same hate boner for a white person, woman or not.

It's pretty clear that the ground level for the GOP gets an enormous kick out of pretending Obama is incompetent satan. They could surprise me but I just can't see them maintaining the same intensity, especially since the hypothetical situation includes a 3rd straight POTUS election loss, a white person, and a person they've known and made runs at since the friggin 90's. It's not even like it'll take that much, the Tea Party is already fizzling out and losing skirmishes to the establishment Republicans, if they take another blow like that Boehner's crew is going to gut them.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 23:40

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Fox has figured out the real reason why you're suddenly hearing about this so-called 'World Cup' all over the place these days.

Keith Ablow on Fox posted:

At a time when there�s so many national issues and international issues of such prominence, I am a little suspicious of yet another bread and circus routine. Let�s roll out the marijuana, pull back the laws and get people more crazy about yet another entertainment event. This is to distract people. This is like Rome. I can see why Obama would love the World Cup.

Obama used his time machine to travel back to 1906 or whenever and create the world's most popular sporting event just so he could knock the IRS emails scandal off the front page. These Muslim Fascist Commie Kenyans play a deep game, I tell you.

More seriously, is there any question that Fox is aimed squarely at 74 year olds who love nothing more than yelling back at their television set to make them feel alive?

# ? Jun 26, 2014 23:53

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Misogyny is probably a more widespread issue than racism, but people aren't as feverish or aggressive about it, and the Tea Party is extremely fueled by racism. I really can't see them having the same hate boner for a white person, woman or not.

I think part of it is also time, really. Feminism and related movements had a great deal of their happening before the civil rights era. Jim Crow ended 49 years ago, which is still very recent memory. Somebody that was 18 when women got the right to vote would be 112 now. Somebody that was 18 when Jim Crow laws were struck down would be 67.

It's also much, much easier to convince a race to hate another race than it is to convince a gender to hate another gender.

# ? Jun 26, 2014 23:54

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

So I found out recently that Syria had just surrendered the last of its declared chemical weapons stockpile, partially in response to a threatened missile strike, which itself came about as a response to Syria probably using chlorine-gas weapons on rebels in its own country. There hasn't been a single mention of it in this thread, which I assume is because Fox, et. al. haven't mentioned it either. Is that accurate? If so, that seems like another case of the RWM not saying anything in response to something like the Vegas shootings, because there's just no way to spin it for their side.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 00:54

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Misogyny is probably a more widespread issue than racism, but people aren't as feverish or aggressive about it, and the Tea Party is extremely fueled by racism. I really can't see them having the same hate boner for a white person, woman or not.

It's not just the misogyny factor with Hillary, though; hating her is a really, really, really personal, deeply-felt thing for them. They loving haaaaated her in the 90's. They've shifted their hatred onto Obama since then because he won, but had Hillary gotten the nomination in 2008, you can bet they would have hated her as much today as they did twenty years ago.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 00:59

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Majorian posted:

It's not just the misogyny factor with Hillary, though; hating her is a really, really, really personal, deeply-felt thing for them. They loving haaaaated her in the 90's. They've shifted their hatred onto Obama since then because he won, but had Hillary gotten the nomination in 2008, you can bet they would have hated her as much today as they did twenty years ago.

I feel like in the case of Hillary they kind of admitted defeat, though. The right absolutely did not want her to have a political career beyond "be married to Bill Clinton" but she got one anyway. At this point the right can't destroy her so they're just letting her be and focusing on people they think they can actually destroy.

Granted I also feel like they just kind of let her presidential aspirations destroy themselves. I remember that campaign being a gigantic failure.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 01:26

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

In the summer I work part-time at a fairly large nationwide specialty retailer. Today word came down from on high that following the 4th, sales associates will no longer be allowed to be scheduled for more than 20 hours a week. Ostensibly this is to prevent employees from even getting close to accidentally breaking the 30-hour limit that would allow them to receive benefits (the company obviously refused to allow 30+ hour scheduling before now, but I guess these new restrictions are just a safety buffer for corporate). Naturally, this was followed by a renewed batch of "Thanks Obama" grumbling from the mostly-college-age employees.

I still don't get this type of missing the forest for the trees. Obama's health care act didn't go out and say "Corporations cannot give employees more than a certain number of hours." The law says "Corporations can schedule workers however the gently caress they want, but if you're going to make them bust their asses by working nearly full-time, you need to give them fair benefits in return." The refusal to provide benefits and hours is on the company, not the president or lawmakers. I don't understand how this is hard to grasp.

Although I do get that this is one of many shortcomings in the law and could have been avoided by just going with a fully socialized option, but try explaining that to a bunch of college kids who, as one girl said today, "don't need Obamacare because I don't get sick."

Hazo fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 02:24

Mercury_Storm: Jun 12, 2003; *chomp chomp chomp*

quote:

Jeremy posted:

Just so everyone is clear. you're trying to tell me that my status in life is better because I'm white, I disagree saying that the color of my skin has had no play and has no play in my status in life, yet your implication is that I'm the racist one?

If that's the case. Wow. you are what's wrong with this world.

I don't think there's any way to convey to this guy the incredible magnitude of how far he has his head shoved up his own rear end.

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Misogyny is probably a more widespread issue than racism, but people aren't as feverish or aggressive about it, and the Tea Party is extremely fueled by racism. I really can't see them having the same hate boner for a white person, woman or not.

Counterpoint: American white male masculinity isn't challenged by there being a black man in the highest office of the land.

Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 02:27

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

Hazo posted:

I still don't get this type of missing the forest for the trees.

This is easy. Republicans are way, way better at messaging and also never apologize for anything so they alpha dog the debate and get people to view things on their terms.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 02:50

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

quote:

He writes a piece on Monday that global warming, climate change, the biggest threat to the economy, and two days later, the Regime announces that in the first quarter the economy shrank 3%. I still can't get over that

Yes, I too can't over the fact that the "regime" would for some reason release bad economic news. Obama really needs to go back to one of his fancy liberal universities and re-take Despotism 101.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:46

beatlegs: Mar 11, 2001

Hazo posted:

In the summer I work part-time at a fairly large nationwide specialty retailer. Today word came down from on high that following the 4th, sales associates will no longer be allowed to be scheduled for more than 20 hours a week. Ostensibly this is to prevent employees from even getting close to accidentally breaking the 30-hour limit that would allow them to receive benefits (the company obviously refused to allow 30+ hour scheduling before now, but I guess these new restrictions are just a safety buffer for corporate). Naturally, this was followed by a renewed batch of "Thanks Obama" grumbling from the mostly-college-age employees.

I still don't get this type of missing the forest for the trees. Obama's health care act didn't go out and say "Corporations cannot give employees more than a certain number of hours." The law says "Corporations can schedule workers however the gently caress they want, but if you're going to make them bust their asses by working nearly full-time, you need to give them fair benefits in return." The refusal to provide benefits and hours is on the company, not the president or lawmakers. I don't understand how this is hard to grasp.

Although I do get that this is one of many shortcomings in the law and could have been avoided by just going with a fully socialized option, but try explaining that to a bunch of college kids who, as one girl said today, "don't need Obamacare because I don't get sick."

I guess they have more important college-age stuff to do than investigate why they're actually getting shafted, so they probably relied on their talk-radio-informed parents for that insightful political analysis.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 05:05

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

beatlegs posted:

I guess they have more important college-age stuff to do than investigate why they're actually getting shafted, so they probably relied on their talk-radio-informed parents for that insightful political analysis.

Possible. Most of them are older students with multiple jobs and aren't completely politically ignorant, which is why it's odd to me that people can't make the very simple connection that the company is screwing them, not the law. It's just more of the 'Blame Obama for everything" rhetoric that's poisoning everything related to politics.

This may be a case where I can actually interject if it comes up, since it's a pretty open-and-shut explanation without much subjectivity to it that could trigger an uncomfortable argument.

Mr Interweb posted:

Yes, I too can't over the fact that the "regime" would for some reason release bad economic news. Obama really needs to go back to one of his fancy liberal universities and re-take Despotism 101.

It's great that he says "Obama said climate change will hurt the economy, then shortly afterward the economy showed evidence of being hurt" and doesn't reflect on the implications of that statement at all.

edit: Though I'm open to suggestions for calm, friendly, succinct ways to explain that it's not the law, it's the company the next time someone says "We're getting our hours cut because of Obamacare"

Hazo fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 05:29

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

Hazo posted:

Although I do get that this is one of many shortcomings in the law and could have been avoided by just going with a fully socialized option, but try explaining that to a bunch of college kids who, as one girl said today, "don't need Obamacare because I don't get sick."

I compressed my ulnar nerve by leaning on my desk and lost feeling in part of my hand for four months when I was 22 in 2009. I can only imagine what that would have cost my parents if I wasn't under their plan. These dumb loving kids.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 05:36

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

Hazo posted:

Possible. Most of them are older students with multiple jobs and aren't completely politically ignorant, which is why it's odd to me that people can't make the very simple connection that the company is screwing them, not the law. It's just more of the 'Blame Obama for everything" rhetoric that's poisoning everything related to politics.

This may be a case where I can actually interject if it comes up, since it's a pretty open-and-shut explanation without much subjectivity to it that could trigger an uncomfortable argument.
It's great that he says "Obama said climate change will hurt the economy, then shortly afterward the economy showed evidence of being hurt" and doesn't reflect on the implications of that statement at all.

edit: Though I'm open to suggestions for calm, friendly, succinct ways to explain that it's not the law, it's the company the next time someone says "We're getting our hours cut because of Obamacare"

The free market cannot fail, it can only be failed. :colbert:

Mercury_Storm posted:

I don't think there's any way to convey to this guy the incredible magnitude of how far he has his head shoved up his own rear end.

I hear that the sights, sounds, and smells are amazing.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 05:50

Axetrain: Sep 14, 2007

The right will definitely go heavy on the misogyny because it's their nature but that's a much more dangerous game to play then racism. Women make up 51% of the population so your essentially going to be attacking a majority population, that has way more potential to backfire on them really really hard come election day.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 05:57

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

While on the road this evening I decided to switch off my iPod and surf the radio.

Mark Levin really does sound like Master Shake. It is beautiful.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 06:11

pig slut lisa: Mar 5, 2012; irl is good

kik2dagroin posted:

This is funny given the other posts because Limbaugh whines about liberals liking soccer and losing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dopuky9PXM

Ah yes, and now Hank Paulson is disavowed because he believes in climate change

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/06/25/hank_paulson_joins_global_warming_nuts

Funnily enough, Rush does a commercial read for blinds.com that goes something like, "Hey, don't you hate paying high electric bills in the summer? Buy some blinds and you'll be able to run your AC less frequently!"

Which is of course a very environmentally savvy thing to do and makes me want to call in and ask what other eco-friendly energy saving tips he has for his listeners :allears:

# ? Jun 27, 2014 06:21

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

pig slut lisa posted:

Funnily enough, Rush does a commercial read for blinds.com that goes something like, "Hey, don't you hate paying high electric bills in the summer? Buy some blinds and you'll be able to run your AC less frequently!"

Which is of course a very environmentally savvy thing to do and makes me want to call in and ask what other eco-friendly energy saving tips he has for his listeners

He will only see it from the cost savings standpoint.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 06:39