|
Fried Chicken posted:For those who aren't aware, wheez the roux is parroting Greenwald et al's latest line of bullshit, attacking Warren for simultaneously being anti-Israel and being anti-Palestine. Which multi-billionaires are backing Glenn Greenwald? George Soros?
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Which multi-billionaires are backing Glenn Greenwald? George Soros? Pierre Omidyar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
It's amazing how such a simple one-sided issue, providing cheaper healthcare to a wider variety of people, can make so many people so loving angry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's amazing how such a simple one-sided issue, providing cheaper healthcare to a wider variety of people, can make so many people so loving angry. The "got mine" part requires that other people not have anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The "got mine" part requires that other people not have anything. And, many are very, very serious about the "gently caress you!" part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
So if 'subsidies to State exchange users' can be so narrowly defined, does that mean the 'Statist' is one who wants a system with stronger State's rights? In that case I'm definitely opposed to Statists because we need a stronger central government and more consolidated regional states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
McDowell posted:So if 'subsidies to State exchange users' can be so narrowly defined, does that mean the 'Statist' is one who wants a system with stronger State's rights? In that case I'm definitely opposed to Statists because we need a stronger central government and more consolidated regional states. It means only Louis XIV is eligible for subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Nobody do this. drat this thread moved fast all of a sudden. I did start that derail yesterday, which is far from the most awful I've seen but still a derail. I didn't want to ignore Nintendo Kid's response but I'm gonna post it over in the Experimental D&D Chat thread where I should have put it in the first place. I apologize for the derail and my tardy response, and I humbly apologize to Nintendo Kid for calling him an idiot, that wasn't right of me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Detroit retirees voted to cut their pensions by about 5%, plus they stop matching inflation.  http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/22/detroit-retireespensioncutsok.html Supreme court didn't hear appeal on Argentine debt, so we're still trying to extort them. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/argentina-debt-courtdecisiondefaultfinance.html And Philly schools are on track to be run into the ground by privatization within a few years. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/education-schoolsbudgetcutsphiladelphiacorbett.html Also we convicted one wall street dick but I won't hold my breath on many more joining him. got any sevens fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Surely that's an image macro criticizing the Republican's never ending attempts at throwing out meaningless buzzwords to distract from the actual political discourse? Hah
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
A Richmond, VA paper posted up this Bob McDonnell Trial Activity Book on their site, with a "Help the Feds Make Their Case" wordsearch and a "Find the Anatabloc" I Spy game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
By the way, in case you didn't notice the URL in the bottom right of that image, it was produced by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). Meanwhile, Bob Barr, the man who impeached Bill Clinton, Libertarian candidate for President in 2008, and legal defender of Baby Doc Duvalier, was defeated in his Congressional comeback bid tonight, by a candidate running to his right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Sulphuric Sundae posted:A Richmond, VA paper posted up this Bob McDonnell Trial Activity Book on their site, with a "Help the Feds Make Their Case" wordsearch and a "Find the Anatabloc" I Spy game. Style weekly rules, and it's EVERYWHERE down here. Free too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Meh. I'm much more focused on domestic issues, where I think Warren would be fantastic and add a lot to the conversation. Because Israel is becoming an apartheid state (some would argue it is already there) they are a problematic ally, I agree. Also, American support has turned Israel into a violent client-state in the ME, which is also not that great. Those are all bad. But, Jews have been a long-time ally of the left-wing both in America and abroad. Israel has become a major wedge-issue, especially among older Jewish voters (who still remember Israel's precarious beginnings) and serves to drive the Jewish electorate rightwards. Even just limiting it to Senators, and not Representatives, you have Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Al Franken, Bernard Sanders. Wautenburg was also around when he was around. All with better positives than Lieberman, and little to none of the negatives. Lieberman is single-handedly responsible for denying Medicare to people over 55, and supported McCain for president. This is your guy???
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Personal anecdote time! I'm sorry, but we're only interested in what you think or feel will happen. Actual data collection is boring and way more time consuming than just asking people with no expertise in either medical billing or economics the truthiness of the matter. So, do you think your company will drop all benefits for employees and ride the pony of increased productivity, or do you feel like the IRS is going to send agents out to make the sweetest of love to your wife while reciting Obama speeches and staring you dead in the eye the whole time? Also, do you consider Obama to be the worst disaster to ever befall the United States, or just a run of the mill test from God to determine your Jobiness?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Republicans must be incompetent to not be able to get anything to stick to obvious criminal and known black, Barack Obama
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Bush should challenge Obama to a shoe dodge off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Republicans must be incompetent to not be able to get anything to stick to obvious criminal and known black, Barack Obama
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the point of dodgeball was to dodge the balls directed at you. Am I mistaken?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Meanwhile, Bob Barr, the man who impeached Bill Clinton, Libertarian candidate for President in 2008, and legal defender of Baby Doc Duvalier, was defeated in his Congressional comeback bid tonight Well, yeah. The guy's a whack jo--- quote:by a candidate running to his right 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Well, yeah. The guy's a whack jo--- Things Bob Barr is good for: - Laughing at your libertarian friends who talk about "voting on principle"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I have a question for the thread: why is "leftist" a term that is accepted and used regularly in modern discourse, but no one ever talks about "rightists"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
So let's say that the SC rules 5-4 to gut the subsidies for fedrul exchanges. Does that mean people are still coerced into buying insurance, but can't have the tax credit to help them out? It's a pretty diabolical way to dismantle it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:So let's say that the SC rules 5-4 to gut the subsidies for fedrul exchanges. Does that mean people are still coerced into buying insurance, but can't have the tax credit to help them out? It's a pretty diabolical way to dismantle it. IANAL and such, but I think I remember reading that if no federal subsidies are available people are excused from paying the penalty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Chard posted:I have a question for the thread: why is "leftist" a term that is accepted and used regularly in modern discourse, but no one ever talks about "rightists"? Because saying "rightist" makes you a leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because saying "rightist" makes you a leftist. Trite! Good show. Seriously why is one term accepted and the other is completely absent from the vocabulary?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:IANAL and such, but I think I remember reading that if no federal subsidies are available people are excused from paying the penalty. But that's still millions of folks who essentially lose their insurance. If that happens I hope at least that anger can be directed at the state capitols that have been fighting Obamacare from the get-go. Chard posted:Trite! Good show. Seriously why is one term accepted and the other is completely absent from the vocabulary? Because Republicans are really good at that poo poo cf. "Death Tax".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Chard posted:I have a question for the thread: why is "leftist" a term that is accepted and used regularly in modern discourse, but no one ever talks about "rightists"? Because the left sucks at the long game, part of which is influencing the terms of public discourse through language. Jackson Taus posted:But that's still millions of folks who essentially lose their insurance. If that happens I hope at least that anger can be directed at the state capitols that have been fighting Obamacare from the get-go. Anything that is bad about the healthcare system is going to be directly attributed to the failures of Obamacare thanks to the right, while the left doesn't even tell the people signing up for Kynect that they're getting Obamacare because they were afraid of people refusing the insurance out of spite so no one is advertising its successes. A perfect microcosm of the above. Dr.Zeppelin fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Chard posted:I have a question for the thread: why is "leftist" a term that is accepted and used regularly in modern discourse, but no one ever talks about "rightists"? Because rightists doesn't come off the tongue as smoothly as the much more accurate term, fascists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Chard posted:Trite! Good show. Seriously why is one term accepted and the other is completely absent from the vocabulary? Because it's redolent of Maoism I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:But that's still millions of folks who essentially lose their insurance. If that happens I hope at least that anger can be directed at the state capitols that have been fighting Obamacare from the get-go. Right. But this is better than the situation where people are obligated to pay a penalty and also receive no subsidies. In that case the entire law would certainly be repealed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ Akin cannot shut the gently caress up.quote:Todd Akin continues to expand on his critical contributions to the discourse of rape and abortion rights while he promotes his book. While reiterating that he was not wrong to say, as he did in 2012, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” he’s adding a new twist: On MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, Akin told Chuck Todd that a “number of people” on his staff were “conceived by rape.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Keep digging that hole Todd you'll find gold someday. Hopefully in the form of golden showers you gently caress stain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Because the left sucks at the long game, part of which is influencing the terms of public discourse through language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:So was "rightist" a thing before Frank Luntz? I literally do not think I have ever heard it used in modern discourse. What am I missing here? And what's so bad about the term "leftist", exactly? 'Rightist' isn't a thing because no one on the left tried to make it a thing. You can replace it with any arbitrary word. Hell, Newt Gingrich had an entire phrasebook of terms designed to be used as a rhetorical cudgel. If anyone on the left does that they're doing a horrible job of it. Closest things I can think of are 'regressive' and 'forced-birth' and even those pretty much don't make it very far outside the blogs. There's nothing inherently bad about the term 'leftist' unless you successfully create a negative association with 'the left' which hoo boy did they do a good job of that one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Leftist is a thing because people on the left identify as being "the Left" whereas people on the right are basically "everyone who's not the Left" so they commonly identify with being separate subgroups (ie, Evangelicals, Capitalists, fascists, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Leftist is a thing because people on the left identify as being "the Left" whereas people on the right are basically "everyone who's not the Left" so they commonly identify with being separate subgroups (ie, Evangelicals, Capitalists, fascists, etc). Though 'conservative' has become enough of a brand name to get most of the disparate right-wing groups to self-identify with it. Thanks to a couple of decades of rhetorical armor, it's not going to be thought of as a pejorative term for a long time. Obviously there are group dynamics in play in terms of how each group views the world and approaches society, but I can't imagine a left-wing Frank Luntz getting conservatives to run from that label to the extent to which the Democrats started punching hippies in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Keep digging that hole Todd you'll find gold someday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:Even just limiting it to Senators, and not Representatives, you have Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Al Franken, Bernard Sanders. Wautenburg was also around when he was around. All with better positives than Lieberman, and little to none of the negatives. I agree, all those people are better than Lieberman. So what? My point is not that Lieberman is perfect (I thought I made that clear but let me stress that point: Lieberman is a piece of human garbage). My point is that, despite being a piece of garbage, Lieberman agreed with me or at least was positioned to advanced issues I care about. You named some fantastic people, but you also named 5 people. I'd love the flexibility of saying "gently caress everybody who isn't me" but I'm willing to tolerate some heterodoxy. As for Lieberman's hardcore swing to the right, did you read what I wrote? You have an ardent defender of labor rights loving with Medicare and supporting McCain. Why? Because his insane foreign policy influenced his domestic policy. To the point where he was 100% willing to throw away all of his domestic platform to support the foreign platform he cares more about. All I'm saying is, "Hey, Joe, I'll take your pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-gay, pro-women stance. If I have to kill some Palestinians, well, I'd rather not but I'll look the other way." Would I prefer an anti-revisionist Communist? ABSOLUTELY! But that ain't happening. So, if I have to accept that I'm drinking the blood of children, I want some tangible good to come from it. I can love the New Deal while recognizing that racism is an inseparable part of it. I hate that racism. I hate the compromises that FDR had to make with the South. Despite that I love the New Deal. Joe ain't no new New Deal. But if you can only name 5 Senators that are better than him, well, I'm willing to compromise pretty heavily until I have at least a caucus of 15.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 07:22
|
|