|
I'd love to see how the right reacts to Rand's works being branded as "secular Satanism."
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Did Paul Ryan ever explain how reconciled his love for Rand's economic theory with her atheism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Did Paul Ryan ever explain how reconciled his love for Rand's economic theory with her atheism? Does Paul Ryan ever explain anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Did Paul Ryan ever explain how reconciled his love for Rand's economic theory with her atheism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
I remember he came out with a token "oh I was a different person then, but now Jesus blah blah blah..." delivered with his trademark sociopath dead glare of insincerity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:Paul Ryan hasn't even explained how he manages to listen to Rage Against The Machine without bursting into flames of pure irony, so you might be waiting a while on that one. I'm sure he just thinks they're baggers who hate big government. Probably never saw the Shining Path video they did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Did Paul Ryan ever explain how reconciled his love for Rand's economic theory with her atheism? He's an absolute idiot. It's not like he thinks before he does stupid stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:Paul Ryan hasn't even explained how he manages to listen to Rage Against The Machine without bursting into flames of pure irony, so you might be waiting a while on that one. Personally I would rather hear him explain how he reconciles RATM with anything about himself than Rand. I can't even think of a song they did that could be ironically misinterpreted, like that tweet the other day claiming Hendrix was pro-gun because of "Hey Joe." "Down Rodeo" is pro-gun, you just have to stop the song real quick to miss "These people ain't seen a brown-skinned man since their grandparents bought one." Maybe there's a Republican edit of "Pistol-Grip Pump" that only has the first 3 bars of the chorus?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Did Paul Ryan ever explain how reconciled his love for Rand's economic theory with her atheism? He wrote a 5 page essay that included some numbers so we all just assumed it was above board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
wixard posted:Personally I would rather hear him explain how he reconciles RATM with anything about himself than Rand. I can't even think of a song they did that could be ironically misinterpreted, like that tweet the other day claiming Hendrix was pro-gun because of "Hey Joe." The weirdest thing is, if he just liked the music rather than the message he could've just said Audioslave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I was watching a documentary on youtube last night on the rise of evangelicals within the political sphere. This was mainly because I wanted to see how in the hell Pat Robertson survived a few primaries in 1988 while running for President. To put it mildly he finally got tripped up by a few journalists who did some digging and revealed he had some batshit insane version that the "End Times" were going to be coming in a war with Russia. He also decided to run for President because apparently God told him to he could after "praying away" a hurricane from reaching Washington DC. It also helped that during this time there was quite a few scandals featuring Televangelists that simply made him look bad by association. The insane thing is how BIG the Evangelical Demo was during the 80's, 90's and 2000's. They also seemed to imply a bit of a divide within the party between "Traditional" Republicans and Evangelicals. For example, George HW Bush really didn't understand these people. He was criticized for inviting people associated with Gay and Lesbian Rights to the White House. The reason why they were invited? He had signed a Hate Crimes bill into law. It was also implied that his family was very much pro-contraceptive, and you could tell he felt awkward when the matter of religion was brought up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
wixard posted:Personally I would rather hear him explain how he reconciles RATM with anything about himself than Rand. I can't even think of a song they did that could be ironically misinterpreted, like that tweet the other day claiming Hendrix was pro-gun because of "Hey Joe." Duh..."Know Your Enemy"....libtards 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
wixard posted:Personally I would rather hear him explain how he reconciles RATM with anything about himself than Rand. I can't even think of a song they did that could be ironically misinterpreted, like that tweet the other day claiming Hendrix was pro-gun because of "Hey Joe." You would be referring to Grover Norquist, who claimed that "Hey Joe" was both pro-god and pro-family.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
I can actually understand that. Personally I just don't internalize lyrics anywhere near the level of instrumentation. 80% of the time I have no idea what's being said and I'm just listening to vox melodies, 15% I can understand what's being said and I think it's stupid or obtuse, 4% I understand and don't think it's trash and then 1% is Jarvis Cocker and his lyrics own bones. Edit: That is, I can understand enjoying their music and not giving a poo poo about the lyrics...I can't understand being dumb enough to not be aware that the lyrics are like 2 steps from a personal dress down and letting the world know I'm a big fan while I'm in the middle of a presidential campaign. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The weirdest thing is, if he just liked the music rather than the message he could've just said Audioslave. Yeah, but nobody actually liked Audioslave
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
I know someone who likes Audioslave. He also unironically likes the Leet Street Boys though, so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Have any of the big right wing shows had their victory parties for the Hobby Lobby thing yet? SCOTUS ruled today that religious exemption can be used as a reason to not cover birth control under Obamacare. I'm interested to hear Rush on this, seeing as he was a big wheel in the whole case against sluts, as he calls them. Maybe it's still too fresh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Have any of the big right wing shows had their victory parties for the Hobby Lobby thing yet? SCOTUS ruled today that religious exemption can be used as a reason to not cover birth control under Obamacare. I'm interested to hear Rush on this, seeing as he was a big wheel in the whole case against sluts, as he calls them. Oh boy, I can see where this is going. "We can't cover this operation since it violates our religious beliefs!" "We can't cover regular doctors since it violates our religious beliefs. Have you considered prayer?" gently caress you, Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
It's suddenly fiscally advantageous for your poo poo-rear end company to ascribe to your poo poo-rear end beliefs. How can this possibly go wrong? Also we don't believe in hiring Jews or Gays or Blacks because our specific interpretation of the bible says we don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I was watching a documentary on youtube last night on the rise of evangelicals within the political sphere. Where is the doc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
moths posted:It's suddenly fiscally advantageous for your poo poo-rear end company to ascribe to your poo poo-rear end beliefs. How can this possibly go wrong? Also we don't believe in hiring Jews or Gays or Blacks because our specific interpretation of the bible says we don't have to. To be fair, I doubt it is fiscally advantageous to buy health care coverage for the company that doesn't cover birth control. Birth control is way cheaper than the alternative and insurance companies aren't stupid. This wasn't ever really about the money
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
RadicalR posted:Oh boy, I can see where this is going. moths posted:It's suddenly fiscally advantageous for your poo poo-rear end company to ascribe to your poo poo-rear end beliefs. How can this possibly go wrong? Also we don't believe in hiring Jews or Gays or Blacks because our specific interpretation of the bible says we don't have to. From what I've read, the ruling only applies to birth control. Blood transfusions, operations, and vaccines can still be covered. The only thing that has been exempted is female birth control medication which, as many women have argued, has measurable health effects in areas other than not getting pregnant (such as controlling menstrual pain, etc.) but that doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with hiring, or deciding which customers to serve. And it has nothing to do with any other medication that could presumably be covered. Just birth control medication for women. But as with all legal rulings, one can only imagine that further exemption-seekers will come before the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Well that's the problem. It doesn't address those issues but it gives companies that want to claim them a big ol' roadmap on how to argue for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Where is the doc? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcRqMxzig1g It's a bit out of order (couldn't find a playlist), but here's the Robertson part. note: The guy who posted this is right wing, but the documentary is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
The most frustrating thing about this SCOTUS session is how many narrow rulings they've made. People go to state courts to get specific problems addressed, they go to the SCOTUS when there's a basic question that cuts to the heart of constitutionality. It's pretty obvious the conservative judges are justifying rulings after the fact and don't feel like (or more likely can't) explain exactly why it's okay for Hobby Lobby to clutch pearls at a BC pill but how it probably isn't okay for any other religious institution to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Leofish posted:From what I've read, the ruling only applies to birth control. Blood transfusions, operations, and vaccines can still be covered. The problem is that the reason these aren't included is just because the majority decision says they're not, while absolutely nothing about the rationale of the decision gives any reason why it wouldn't be applicable to these topics other than "because we said so". There's been a similar recent decision by SCOTUS that took this path: Windsor. Look how that decision was accepted by the lower courts, and you have a pretty good roadmap for what to expect from the next few years of religious exemption lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Did Paul Ryan ever explain how reconciled his love for Rand's economic theory with her atheism? Did Rush Limbaugh ever explain his hatred of drug users and the ACLU when he was caught doing the former and the latter came to his defense? Did Hannity ever explain why he said that waterboarding wasn't torture, that he would undergo it to prove it and then chickened out? Did Palin and McCain explain why they wanted Bergdahl freed and then turned on him after Obama did it? These people never explain poo poo. They don't have to because no one calls them on it. They're on record for Christ's sake and you'd think their own quotes would be enough to sink them. Yeah, the Rage Against the Machine love reminds me of how Reagan lovers embraced Springsteen and Mellencamp in the 80's, totally missing the point. I just think Ryan thinks it's good work out music (and it probably is) and that's the extent of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:The most frustrating thing about this SCOTUS session is how many narrow rulings they've made. People go to state courts to get specific problems addressed, they go to the SCOTUS when there's a basic question that cuts to the heart of constitutionality. It's pretty obvious the conservative judges are justifying rulings after the fact and don't feel like (or more likely can't) explain exactly why it's okay for Hobby Lobby to clutch pearls at a BC pill but how it probably isn't okay for any other religious institution to do so. No, the Supreme Court doesn't and shouldn't generally make broad rulings. Whether or not a blood transfusion mandate or whatever violates RFRA hasn't been asked or argued by the litigants. There's no reason to decide it. thefncrow posted:The problem is that the reason these aren't included is just because the majority decision says they're not, while absolutely nothing about the rationale of the decision gives any reason why it wouldn't be applicable to these topics other than "because we said so". Maybe if you didn't read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
It's got a point, but it's pointing in the wrong direction. "Here we go again with the republican house stonewalling the president forcing him to act without them."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Love the imagery on the left, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:No, the Supreme Court doesn't and shouldn't generally make broad rulings. Whether or not a blood transfusion mandate or whatever violates RFRA hasn't been asked or argued by the litigants. There's no reason to decide it. That's a decent point generally speaking, but still, as a general rule, when a judge says "oh this decision doesn't apply to any of these other obvious and direct parallel instances", it's a pretty big warning flag that the decision is a bad one. Good decisions don't need those kinds of disavowals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Eric, son of Eric weighs in...quote:It was a tough choice today. Celebrate Hobby Lobby by going to Chick-Fil-A or making my wife make me a sandwich. #CFAFTW
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Steven Crowder decided to go off on a tweetathon re: Birth Control or as he calls it Abortion Care     
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HeHMzYKLJI&t=37s Soooooooooooooooo goddamn satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Steven Crowder decided to go off on a tweetathon re: Birth Control or as he calls it Abortion Care Funny, My mom needed it so that she could be careful she had me at the right time. loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
If today's latest installment of scotusghazi has you down, just pop over to the National Review's Facebook page for some knee-slappers courtesy of their new Dees-esque photoshop pal: Gotta admit this one is pretty fresh, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Steven Crowder decided to go off on a tweetathon re: Birth Control or as he calls it Abortion Care Uh oh, looks like the New HUAC has taken notice, and Crowder could very well be deported for being a communist subversive. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
What I find funny about the people like Crowder who are happy about the Hobby Lobby decision is that now it's likely that birth control might be subsidized by the government, so now THEY get to pay for it via taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Biff Rockgroin posted:What I find funny about the people like Crowder who are happy about the Hobby Lobby decision is that now it's likely that birth control might be subsidized by the government, so now THEY get to pay for it via taxes. Yeah, but their team won, therefore good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:07
|
|