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!

«‹›3443 »

Flaggy: Jul 6, 2007; Grandpa Cthulu needs his napping chair; Grimey Drawer

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Steven Crowder: Why Sarah Palin would have been a better president than Obama

"Good Stock" so the Palin's are cattle?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 16:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 08:28

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Flaggy posted:

"Good Stock" so the Palin's are cattle?

Nope, they're just afflicted with prions.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 16:45

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

We have audio evidence that the family is a mess. I'm still sad that the camera phone video of that incident that HAS to exist hasn't shown up anywhere.

I'm not sure how you compare the Palins to the Obamas and can't tell which one is the successful family with well adjusted kids and which are a bunch of grifters. I mean I know how but...

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Mar 27, 2015

# ? Mar 27, 2015 16:48

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Steven Crowder: Why Sarah Palin would have been a better president than Obama

politics_subforum.txt

# ? Mar 27, 2015 17:41

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!

Imagine having to serve an audience that's still clamoring for Sarah Palin list articles in 2015. Did his column get picked up by some hospice news letter I'm not aware of?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 18:02

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Radish posted:

We have audio evidence that the family is a mess. I'm still sad that the camera phone video of that incident that HAS to exist hasn't shown up anywhere.

I'm not sure how you compare the Palins to the Obamas and can't tell which one is the successful family with well adjusted kids and which are a bunch of grifters. I mean I know how but...

Seriously, how anyone can claim the 'Drunk Bar Brawl' Palin's are the superior American family is an astounding leap of logic :psyduck:

# ? Mar 27, 2015 18:50

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

CommieGIR posted:

Seriously, how anyone can claim the 'Drunk Bar Brawl' Palin's are the superior American family is an astounding leap of logic

Have you got a paper bag?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 18:53

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

Radish posted:

We have audio evidence that the family is a mess. I'm still sad that the camera phone video of that incident that HAS to exist hasn't shown up anywhere.

I'm not sure how you compare the Palins to the Obamas and can't tell which one is the successful family with well adjusted kids and which are a bunch of grifters. I mean I know how but...

I know someone who was at that party and he said the type of people there weren't the type to be whipping out cell phones and taking video (read: white, Republican, olds).

# ? Mar 27, 2015 18:56

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Radish posted:

We have audio evidence that the family is a mess. I'm still sad that the camera phone video of that incident that HAS to exist hasn't shown up anywhere.

I'm not sure how you compare the Palins to the Obamas and can't tell which one is the successful family with well adjusted kids and which are a bunch of grifters. I mean I know how but...

I don't know what's being referred to here. Like most normal people I stopped paying attention to that trainwreck of a hick family around the time Zack Parsons stopped writing Johnston Checks In articles so I didn't even know Bristol got married or popped out a second/third kid or whatever.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 19:00

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

Goddamn liberals! I'll show you how to be a right proper sexist!!!!

quote:

RUSH: The Clinton campaign has issued a list of words and terms to the Drive-By Media in the form of a threatening e-mail to a New York Times infobabe telling them, "These are the words you cannot use to describe Mrs. Clinton." One word that's not on the list is "cankles." I guess everybody in the media is free to use the word "cankles." But their list of words... (interruption) Well, it's not on the list. I thought it would be on the list. (interruption) What, is that sexist? (interruption) I thought that it would be, but it's not on the list. You can say it. You can say "cankles."

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to take you back, as we swerve now into the words that the Clinton campaign is warning Drive-By journalists not to use when covering Mrs. Clinton. Before getting to that list, I want to remind you of something. I want to remind you of something that I said way back on August 12th, 2013. I've actually said this many times on the program. We just threw a dart up on the wall and picked a random date. I've said this a number of times, but this instance happens to be from August 12th of 2013.

BEGIN ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH ARCHIVE: The Democrats have learned something here profound. You've got the first black president; he's immune from criticism. You cannot criticize the guy. Any criticism is racism. We have a president of the United States who cannot be criticized. His policies cannot be criticized. Not credibly. Anybody who tries is diminished and dismissed as a racist or a bigot, and so Obama can get away with anything he wants. I think the Democrats have seen this.

So imagine the first female president. The same thing. Any criticism, sexist. Any criticism, unjust. Any criticism, unwarranted. Any criticism, not real. Any criticism, not substantive. It's all based in anti-woman. It's all based on a Republican War on Women. It's not based on anything substantive. The Democrats' modus operandi is to eliminate opposition, and this is one of the ways they do it.

And then after Hillary they'll move for the first Hispanic president, and the same thing will repeat. No criticism of "the first." After that they'll need to get the first gay president, and no criticism allowed there. Then after that the first transgendered president. After that, the first... I don't know. From Mars? Whatever, but it's gonna be a protracted policy, I think, that they're gonna keep trying to implement.

END ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH: And the fact that I was right about that is being borne out with Mrs. Clinton and her campaign and these list of words, this list of words that reporters are not to use because the words are said to be sexist, and sexism will not be permitted. This is making my point. The Hillary campaign, before it's even officially a campaign, is getting in gear and attempting to implement the same guiding procedures that have protected Obama all these years. You'll see what I'm talking about when I get to the list.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I have to point something out, folks. This Rule of Firsts that the Democrats have successfully implemented with Obama, never works for Republicans. It only works for Democrats. The Rule of Firsts, the rule of no criticism of firsts did not apply, for example, to the first black female. That was Condoleezza Rice. And it was open season. The fact that she was the first black female secretary of state did not make her immune to criticism. Because she was Republican. In fact, she was Sarah Palined.

They even did cartoon strips portraying her as an Aunt Jemima with the cartoon illustrations emphasizing the so-called African-American characteristics and appearance, and they even portrayed her as getting the job (and accused her of getting the job) by performing, shall we say, various type of sex acts at the high officials in the Republican Party. All that was fair game. They could go after Condoleezza Rice all they wanted and did. And how about the first black male secretary of state?

That would be Colonel Colin Powell. People went after him, even though he was the first black male secretary of state. The Rule of Firsts did not apply to him. Nor did it apply to the first Hispanic attorney general. George W. Bush broke the racial barrier on a number of positions, and it didn't matter. Every one of his appointees was destroyed, or at least they tried. But with Barack Obama, any criticism is disallowed. Any and all criticism was chalked up to racism. And it worked.

The Republican establishment and many in the media just don't want to go anywhere near being called a racist, and so they just shut up. Bow Hillary is attempting to implement it for herself on the theory that she's going to be the first female president from The Daily Caller. It's a confusing article, by the way, but here it is in a nutshell. The New York Times' Amy Chozick on Wednesday posted on Twitter yesterday that a Hillary group had e-mailed her with a list of words that she was not to use when describing Hillary.

Now, this group is called the HRC Super Volunteers. Hillary Rodham Clinton Super Volunteers. They've been around since 2007, and they were active at the beginning of Hillary's 2008 campaign. Their e-mail to the New York Times infobabe ended with a warning, quote, "You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening, and protesting coded sexism," close quote. Now, The Daily Caller got hold of the tweet and listed the words, and here they are.

Here are the words that the Hillary Clinton campaign sent out to the New York Times reporter Amy Chozick is telling her she can't use. "Polarizing." You may not use the word "polarizing" to describe Mrs. Clinton. You cannot use the word "calculating" to describe Mrs. Clinton. You cannot use the word "disingenuous" when describing Mrs. Clinton. You cannot use the word "insincere" when describing her. All of these words are said to be coded sexism.

Polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere. These are coded sexist words, and the Clinton campaign is gonna be calling the media out on them. And we're not through. "Ambitious." Ambitious! You cannot refer to Mrs. Clinton as ambitious. That is coded sexism. Women are supposed to be like Ann Romney: Lazy and eating bonbons all day, or whatever you do with bonbons. You do eat bonbons, don't you? What are bonbons anyway? I keep hearing about them. (interruption) That's what I thought.

They're little chocolaty things in there, like petit fours or petit fours or whatever the heck those things are. You sit around sipping cocktails and eating your bonbon. That's what women are thought to be in elite circles, but no. You're not to use the word "inevitable." "Inevitable" is also said to be sexist. "Entitled." "Entitled" is a word not permitted. Again, these words were sent to a reporterette for the New York Times warning her not to use these words in describing Mrs. Clinton because this group is gonna be sitting out there watching, reading, and listening.

"Overconfident" is also a term not to be used in association with Mrs. Clinton. "Secretive," also, like as in these latest news stories about e-mails and servers. "Secretive." That's said to be sexist. "Will do anything to win." Mrs. Clinton cannot be so described as willing to do anything to win, because that is sexist. "Represents the past." Can't use the term or this group that's monitoring will be on you. "Out of touch." You can't describe Mrs. Clinton as "out of touch."

And, according to the New York Times reporter, Amy Chozick, the e-mail from the HRC Super Volunteers went on to warn again, "You are on notice that we will be watching. We will be reading, listening, and protesting coded sexism." Well, how about the other terms? You know, Obama said of Mrs. Clinton, "You're nice enough, Hillary." Hillary's nice enough. I mean, isn't that kind of sexist? And how about "cankles"? I would think "cankles" would be in the top five of these word lists that you can't use.

"Wrinkles"? That could be another one in there. "Screechy." "Shrill." "Hysterical." "Sniper fire." I mean, there's any number of words I would think that would also be on that list. How about "bossy"? They forgot that. Certainly they don't intend for people to describe Mrs. Clinton as "bossy."
How about...? There's another one. How about the B-word that rhymes with "witch." It isn't that banned? (interruption) You didn't say it. You don't have to go... (interruption)

They're shaking their heads in there like, "Man, Rush gets so close to the line every day." I didn't get close to the line. I would b-i-itch. Why isn't that word on the list? So we've got "cankles," "nice enough," "bossy," "wrinkles," "screechy," "shrill," "hysterical," "wrinkly," and "needs to iron her face." None of that stuff's on the list that you can't say. Anyway... (laughing) But make no mistake. I mean, this is funny and it's lighthearted in a way, but this group is serious.

They are threatening this reporter the New York Times, and I would have to bet you that the reporter at the New York Times will obey. I'll bet you that this Amy Chozick is going to be beaten. Well, she's a fellow female, and I'm sure she's going to take this as educational. I mean, this is one of the goddesses of modern-era feminism. That would be Mrs. Clinton. She's an arbiter. She knows what's proper and what is not proper. And Mrs. Clinton is not only asking for this, demanding for this herself, but also to protect the sisterhood so as to maintain the dignity and respect of the collective group.
...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/26/clinton_camp_warns_us_not_to_use_certain_sexist_words

quote:

RUSH: This is Texas Tribune website. TexasTribune.org. Again, Ted Cruz being interviewed by a reporter there named Jay Root, and during a conversation about climate change, question came up. "You don't believe in global warming, Senator Cruz. Are you out of step with most young voters on this?"

CRUZ: If you look at global warming alarmists, they don't like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years. Now, that's a real problem for the global warming alarmists, 'cause all of the computer models on which this whole issue was based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain't happening.

RUSH: Now, that's right on the money. That is so right on the money, that I bet you the young people being talked about here won't believe it. Do you realize...? This has been a cause of mine for 25 years. Actually longer than that. It's been a cause of mine since all the way back when I was in Sacramento and I was watching the Sunday show with Brinkley on it and I first heard about this with some scientist named Oppenheimer telling us we only had 20 years. We couldn't prove that global warming was happening yet.
...
There has never been any evidence.

All there has been is theory.

Every shred of global warming/climate change hysteria is rooted in computer model predictions of 50 years and a hundred years out. Computer model predictions. Do you realize we can't even now, with computer models, predict the exact track of a hurricane that we know exists? Yet we're relying on computer models? Climate models and are the result of what? Man-made input, data that is input by man. You know: Garbage in, garbage out. What you get is what you get.

Who knows what kind of data has been put in here, but it can't be real. But forget that. Forget that. Just let's not complicate it. There is no evidence of global warming, man-made. There is no evidence of it. All it is is theory. The greenhouse effect. That's why they use the barbecue pit example. People were able to envision all of that exhaust, those fumes and emissions from all those barbecue pits. You can't really see it, but it comes out as smog.

"It's coming up out of everybody's barbecue pit, millions of 'em at the same time! Oh, my God, yeah, that could really affect us!" And it was easy to persuade people. But it was all bogus. You can boil it down to the basic: There is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming, and all these predictions, from 25/30 years ago predicted that by now, we'd be so far into this that it would be irreversible, and the evidence would be conclusive. There isn't any evidence yet, and it's about 30-plus years!

Because there isn't any science.

It's nothing more than computer models.

They are the sole source of every prediction about global warming. So Cruz is pointing this out. He gets a question, "You know, you are not on the same page as young people about this," and you heard his answer. He was factually, totally, 100% right about it. The great fear I have is, that doesn't count for much with a large segment of the population. The facts don't really matter to a lot of people. In the latest Gallup poll -- and, by the way, that's not new.

Gallup has been doing this poll since 1989, and it basically hasn't change. Global warming has never been near the top of people's great concerns. In the Gallup poll, it's always been near the bottom. In this latest one, it's at the bottom of things people are worried about. It is at the bottom of the list that people think is a real thing to be worried about. So facts? Yeah, I think we've been success. But it's taken 25 years to beat this stuff.

Twenty-five years of every day, practically, because that's how frequently the proponents are out pushing it. It's a great illustration. To stop this stuff, you have to fight it every day and you never totally beat it 'cause they never go away. Now, here's the next one. After that answer, the same guy, Jay Root, at the Texas Tribune website, asks, "But what if there is something to it, Mr. Cruz? What if there is something? What if there is global warming? Why not do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint? Why not have some humility about it?"

CRUZ: I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling, and it said, "The science is clear! It is overwhelmingly! We are in a major cooling period, and it's gonna cause enormous problems worldwide," and the solution for all the advocates in the seventies of global cooling was massive government control of the energy sector, of our economy, and aspects of our lives. Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory. So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming.

RUSH: And he wasn't through. He continued.

CRUZ: The global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate. What do they do? They scream you're a denier; they brand you a heretic. Today the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-earthers. You know, it used to be it is accepted scientific wisdom the earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

RUSH: The most interesting part of this, to me, is this question. "But -- but what if there is something to it, even though there's no evidence? What if there is something to it? Why -- why not do everything we can anyway and have some humility about it? Why -- why -- why be so drat sure of yourself?" That's what it really comes down to. "How can you be possibly be so sure of yourself? Why can't you allow...? Why can't you be humble about this and maybe you're wrong? Maybe you're wrong! Maybe some other people have a point. Why can't you...?" 'Cause they're wrong, they're full of it, just like you are, buddy, and here are the reasons why.

Now, I love hearing this kind of stuff. I really do.

I hope it's effective.
...
I don't even think science has room for predictions, not when the predictions become science. I mean, science cannot be a consensus -- because science isn't up for a vote -- and science can't be predictions. I mean, you can make predictions based on what you think the science is telling us.

But you can't say that the prediction is scientific.

It's something else.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/26/cruz_demolishes_climate_change_alarmists

# ? Mar 27, 2015 19:02

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!

quote:

His policies cannot be criticized. Not credibly.

You never know until you try, Rush

# ? Mar 27, 2015 19:11

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

quote:

CRUZ: I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling

a) haha no you didn't

b) I can't believe they're still spouting the BUT NEWSWEEK ICE AGE ARTICLE meme

edit: I mean it's already super dumb for him to bring out that tired and stupid argument but the way he tries to casually drop it in by saying "oh yeah I was just y'know reading 40-year-old periodicals for funsies" is really pandering and pathetic

Hazo fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 27, 2015

# ? Mar 27, 2015 20:07

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

quote:

Fox News is getting the recognition it deserves from liberal Hollywood after its characteristically balanced, restrained reporting on the unrest in Ferguson, Mo.

Although Fox almost always rushes to judgment, Jon Stewart offered his congratulations to the �whale of a network� anyway. He might have compared Fox News to an actual 18-year-old for its massive ego and tendency to �spend 24 hours a day jerking yourself off,� but in the end, he conceded that Fox's anchors were right: they got something right and they should be praised for it.

Good thing Star Wars creator George Lucas isn't doing all that much lately. Jon Stewart got him to speak for all of Hollywood by promising that he wouldn't make another movie unless it was full of patriotism in a galaxy far, far way. It was Stewart and Lucas' way of showing Fox their appreciation�but of course, they did it as only The Daily Show could.

http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/george-lucas-fox-news-liberal-hollywood/?fb=dd

# ? Mar 27, 2015 20:14

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

Steven' Cuntstain' Crowder posted:

3. She cut spending and decreased Alaska�s federal earmark requests. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has added $7.5 to our our national debt. Irresponsible and unpatriotic much?

Okay I'm not quite dumb enough to argue with Crowder but first, I know what he meant, but oh no seven fiddy, and second, isn't Alaska the state with the highest per-person earmarks in the Union? And isn't much of that actually necessary, due to the state's uniquely inhospitable nature that means people really do need a lot of funding for infrastructure and so forth in order to live there?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 21:03

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

SatansOnion posted:

If Steven Crowder had the ability to correctly assess a threat and react accordingly, he'd have ducked.

He also also tried to congratulate a couple by saying "Their babies will be of good stock" like the gooniest loving dingus imaginable. I want to make sure that part gets appreciated properly.

Did he set them up with an Ariernachweis?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 21:11

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

Mister Adequate posted:

Okay I'm not quite dumb enough to argue with Crowder but first, I know what he meant, but oh no seven fiddy, and second, isn't Alaska the state with the highest per-person earmarks in the Union? And isn't much of that actually necessary, due to the state's uniquely inhospitable nature that means people really do need a lot of funding for infrastructure and so forth in order to live there?

Also unless I'm wrong while the debt has gone up, the deficit has gone down. So Obama didn't magically make all of our expenses disappear, but the amount we've been losing has gone down on his watch.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 21:28

site: Apr 6, 2007; Trans pride, Worldwide
Bitch

Mister Adequate posted:

Okay I'm not quite dumb enough to argue with Crowder but first, I know what he meant, but oh no seven fiddy, and second, isn't Alaska the state with the highest per-person earmarks in the Union? And isn't much of that actually necessary, due to the state's uniquely inhospitable nature that means people really do need a lot of funding for infrastructure and so forth in order to live there?

I'm not sure about the per-person but it sounds right and yes. Although its arguable we shouldn't have to pay poo poo tons of money for them to live in the conditions they had already lived in for centuries...Besides global warming effects. I think we should just extend the same benefits to everybody lol.

We have a $2bil budget deficit this year and almost $1bil of that is Republican pushed road projects to go nowhere, $500mil is going to an f35 refueling station lmao

site fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 27, 2015

# ? Mar 27, 2015 21:42

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Tender Bender posted:

Also unless I'm wrong while the debt has gone up, the deficit has gone down. So Obama didn't magically make all of our expenses disappear, but the amount we've been losing has gone down on his watch.

Would also like to get confirmation on this, since that'd be a great item to pull out whenever somebody starts moaning about Obummer's massive spending

Looks like Pence signed that ~~legalized discrimination~~ RELIGIOUS FREEDOM bill, and the Indiana Senate Republicans are jerking each other off while trying to convince everyone else that it's all about fighting evil government oppression against poor Christians and, come on guys, it's totally not about being able to deny services to gay people since because none of them have complained about it enough it obviously never happens. They linked to a letter of support from some high-profile religious law professors ("some" of whom, they proudly note, support equal rights) and I found this tidbit interesting:

quote:

The possibility of dying for your faith because of government intransigence came to
pass in a real case from Kansas. Mary Stinemetz needed a liver transplant. And because
she was a Jehovah�s Witness, the surgery had to be done without blood transfusions. A
bloodless liver transplant was available in Omaha, and it was cheaper than the liver
transplant with blood transfusions that was available in Kansas. But Kansas Medicaid had
a rule, a rule that it claimed was neutral and generally applicable: No out-of-state medical
treatment except for medical necessity. And religious obligations did not create a medical
necessity.
Kansas had not yet enacted its state RFRA, so the case had to be argued under the
state and federal constitutions. And Kansas argued that its courts should adopt the federal
constitutional rule, that of Employment Division v. Smith, and reject Mrs. Stinemetz�s
claim. The Kansas Court of Appeals eventually interpreted the state constitution to
incorporate the RFRA standard, and it held that Mrs. Stinemetz was entitled to an out-of-state transplant.
Stinemetz v. Kansas Health Policy Authority, 252 P.3d 141 (Kan. Ct. App.2011).
But by the time the litigation ended, her health had deteriorated to the point that she
was no longer medically eligible for a transplant; she died in 2012.
If a state RFRA had been in effect, so that the legal standard were clear from the beginning, she would have
had a much better chance to live.

Here, they're not arguing against labyrinthine health care laws and a broken medical system that relies on private insurance instead of prompt care for anyone in need. And the woman refusing care based on her religion isn't the one who was "intransigent." No, it's clearly the fault of the government-- if they'd just let them be a little bit more religiously free, the lady might have survived.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 22:02

Cognac McCarthy: Oct 5, 2008; It's a man's game, but boys will play

Hazo posted:

Would also like to get confirmation on this, since that'd be a great item to pull out whenever somebody starts moaning about Obummer's massive spending

Pretty good basic, up to date rundown of the deficit:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/deficit.htm

quote:

For Fiscal Year 2016 (October 1, 2015 - September 30, 2016) the U.S. Federal budget deficit is projected at $474 billion. That's because U.S. government spending, budgeted at $3.999 trillion, is higher than projected U.S. government revenue, only $3.525 trillion. This is the lowest deficit since the recession, and about a third of the record budget deficit of $1.4 trillion set in FY 2009.

It has indeed gone down quite a bit from 2008 but it's still higher than when Bush was in office, because of the many ways in which Bush hosed over the economy and didn't actually pay for his wars.

There's also the national debt, which is another matter. I don't have a similarly good source on hand ~~but the debt certainly hasn't gone down under Obama, but I believe it has been increasing at a lower rate than in the past, which is at least a start.~~ Actually don't listen to me on this, someone should look it up to be 100% sure, since I could be very wrong.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:01

Centripetal Horse: Nov 22, 2009; Fuck money, get GBS

This could have bought you a half a tank of gas, lmfao -
Love, gromdul

There's something I've been meaning to bring up. Before doing so, I will note that it is entirely possible that this is my imagination. Has anyone else noticed that Fox and AM radio outlets tend to refer to the president as "Mr. Obama" rather than "President Obama"? It's not like news outlets didn't refer to previous presidents as "Mr.," but I feel like I'm hearing about a 6:1 "Mr. Obama":"President Obama" ratio, even when the story is about something that falls entirely within his role as president. It's probably nothing, but ever since I first noticed it, I can't seem to un-notice it.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:17

STAC Goat: Mar 12, 2008; Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

I've been watching a little of The Five this week because Bob Beckell is MIA and Juan Williams is in his seat. Now I don't like Williams but he's at least a halfway intelligent person who takes himself seriously. And that has completely screwed up The Five's flow. I've seen him make "the liberal argument" with actual facts instead of just silly hyperbole, I've seen him stand up to the ridiculous attacks they throw at him and even call them out for using "strawmen", and today I saw him cut off Greg Gutfeld and ruin one of his vulgar, terrible jokes by seeing the setup coming from a mile away. Then Gutfeld spent the next couple of segments sulking and it was great.

Its just been kind of funny to watch because Williams isn't some kind of genius or hard core liberal or hostile guest but he's got a little intelligent and is making a good faith argument which has The Five completely unprepared to deal with him. They have no idea what to do when their liberal punching bag punches back and they just wilt in their chairs, literally.

Sadly I think I heard them say Marco Rubio will have the chair on Monday so that may be it for the Juan Williams experiment.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:23

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

STAC Goat posted:

I've been watching a little of The Five this week because Bob Beckell is MIA and Juan Williams is in his seat. Now I don't like Williams but he's at least a halfway intelligent person who takes himself seriously. And that has completely screwed up The Five's flow. I've seen him make "the liberal argument" with actual facts instead of just silly hyperbole, I've seen him stand up to the ridiculous attacks they throw at him and even call them out for using "strawmen", and today I saw him cut off Greg Gutfeld and ruin one of his vulgar, terrible jokes by seeing the setup coming from a mile away. Then Gutfeld spent the next couple of segments sulking and it was great.

Its just been kind of funny to watch because Williams isn't some kind of genius or hard core liberal or hostile guest but he's got a little intelligent and is making a good faith argument which has The Five completely unprepared to deal with him. They have no idea what to do when their liberal punching bag punches back and they just wilt in their chairs, literally.

Sadly I think I heard them say Marco Rubio will have the chair on Monday so that may be it for the Juan Williams experiment.

Fox News really needs to step it up on the naming of these shows. The Five should, of course, be Fox Force Five. Then some of the other shows should have names like the shows from "Network" like Vox Populi and the one with the psychic.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:30

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

STAC Goat posted:

Sadly I think I heard them say Marco Rubio will have the chair on Monday so that may be it for the Juan Williams experiment.

Liberals who appear on Fox and don't do their impression of a punching bag don't get invited back and stop getting retainers and appearance fees.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:30

Cognac McCarthy: Oct 5, 2008; It's a man's game, but boys will play

Centripetal Horse posted:

There's something I've been meaning to bring up. Before doing so, I will note that it is entirely possible that this is my imagination. Has anyone else noticed that Fox and AM radio outlets tend to refer to the president as "Mr. Obama" rather than "President Obama"? It's not like news outlets didn't refer to previous presidents as "Mr.," but I feel like I'm hearing about a 6:1 "Mr. Obama":"President Obama" ratio, even when the story is about something that falls entirely within his role as president. It's probably nothing, but ever since I first noticed it, I can't seem to un-notice it.

I wouldn't read too much into this - I believe News Hour, which is pretty great, in-depth news, also refers to the president with "Mr." Or at least they did when Lehrer was anchor in the Bush years, when I used to watch the show.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:34

STAC Goat: Mar 12, 2008; Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

FMguru posted:

Liberals who appear on Fox and don't do their impression of a punching bag don't get invited back and stop getting retainers and appearance fees.

I really think some Fox producer was asleep at the wheel here. Williams is all over Fox News but usually when I see him he's sitting across from some blowhard bully like O'Reilly or someone who at least has some brains like Kelly. Putting him with the group of morons and clowns on the Five was just some production fuckup. He was barely saying or doing anything but none of them have been in an honest debate in years so they had no idea what to do.

It was kind of fun to watch, though, in a really nerdy "I watch too much cable news" kind of way.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:40

Modern Day Hercules: Apr 26, 2008

Centripetal Horse posted:

There's something I've been meaning to bring up. Before doing so, I will note that it is entirely possible that this is my imagination. Has anyone else noticed that Fox and AM radio outlets tend to refer to the president as "Mr. Obama" rather than "President Obama"? It's not like news outlets didn't refer to previous presidents as "Mr.," but I feel like I'm hearing about a 6:1 "Mr. Obama":"President Obama" ratio, even when the story is about something that falls entirely within his role as president. It's probably nothing, but ever since I first noticed it, I can't seem to un-notice it.

It kind of bothers me, but I don't think it's something that's done on purpose to snub Obama. I don't remember Bush ever being called Mr. Bush, but then again I can't really recall many times where anybody went out of their way to say President Bush either. It was mostly just "Bush". At least Obama is getting a Mr.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:41

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Centripetal Horse posted:

There's something I've been meaning to bring up. Before doing so, I will note that it is entirely possible that this is my imagination. Has anyone else noticed that Fox and AM radio outlets tend to refer to the president as "Mr. Obama" rather than "President Obama"? It's not like news outlets didn't refer to previous presidents as "Mr.," but I feel like I'm hearing about a 6:1 "Mr. Obama":"President Obama" ratio, even when the story is about something that falls entirely within his role as president. It's probably nothing, but ever since I first noticed it, I can't seem to un-notice it.

IIRC, proper style is to refer to the president's title once at the beginning of a piece and then use the more familiar Mr. (or potentially Mrs. or Ms.) for the remainder. So this isn't a case of disrespect.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:45

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!

I'm pretty impressed Juan Williams has hung in at Fox as long as he has considering how he ended up there.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:46

InequalityGodzilla: May 31, 2012

STAC Goat posted:

I've been watching a little of The Five this week because Bob Beckell is MIA and Juan Williams is in his seat. Now I don't like Williams but he's at least a halfway intelligent person who takes himself seriously. And that has completely screwed up The Five's flow. I've seen him make "the liberal argument" with actual facts instead of just silly hyperbole, I've seen him stand up to the ridiculous attacks they throw at him and even call them out for using "strawmen", and today I saw him cut off Greg Gutfeld and ruin one of his vulgar, terrible jokes by seeing the setup coming from a mile away. Then Gutfeld spent the next couple of segments sulking and it was great.

Its just been kind of funny to watch because Williams isn't some kind of genius or hard core liberal or hostile guest but he's got a little intelligent and is making a good faith argument which has The Five completely unprepared to deal with him. They have no idea what to do when their liberal punching bag punches back and they just wilt in their chairs, literally.

Sadly I think I heard them say Marco Rubio will have the chair on Monday so that may be it for the Juan Williams experiment.

Are there any online recordings of The Five? This sounds moderately entertaining.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 23:56

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

InequalityGodzilla posted:

Are there any online recordings of The Five? This sounds moderately entertaining.

Seconded.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 00:07

Glass Hand: Apr 24, 2006; Just one more finger, Trent.

Modern Day Hercules posted:

It kind of bothers me, but I don't think it's something that's done on purpose to snub Obama. I don't remember Bush ever being called Mr. Bush, but then again I can't really recall many times where anybody went out of their way to say President Bush either. It was mostly just "Bush". At least Obama is getting a Mr.

Standard protocol at NPR is to call the president "President" the first time in a piece and "Mr" thereafter, as PeterWeller said. AP style is to omit the "Mr" entirely, and refer to the president by his last name alone after the first "President" reference. Both those protocols were in place throughout the Bush years, as far as I'm aware.

Naturally, of course, the only properly formal style is that used by Washington, "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties."

# ? Mar 28, 2015 00:21

THE BOMBINATRIX: Jul 26, 2002; by Lowtax

Intel&Sebastian posted:

I'm pretty impressed Juan Williams has hung in at Fox as long as he has considering how he ended up there.

Money will make people do all sorts of things.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 00:55

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

Well that explains why the conservatives I know on Twitter have been remarking about how they're done being Juan'd. I mean it doesn't really explain it but at least I know who Juan is now.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 01:20

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Cognac McCarthy posted:

Pretty good basic, up to date rundown of the deficit:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/deficit.htm

Much appreciated.

Glass Hand posted:

Standard protocol at NPR is to call the president "President" the first time in a piece and "Mr" thereafter, as PeterWeller said. AP style is to omit the "Mr" entirely, and refer to the president by his last name alone after the first "President" reference. Both those protocols were in place throughout the Bush years, as far as I'm aware.

Naturally, of course, the only properly formal style is that used by Washington, "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties."

That's actually really interesting. My late maternal grandmother, who was astonishingly proper and progressive in spite of her southern upbringing, would refer to him in e-mails and phone calls to me ("Hazo, I just read about a new way in which you could reduce your graduate school debt...") as "Mr. Obama" and I always thought it was a little odd. She was also a professional editor and worked for the AP and NPR earlier in her career, so now this makes way more sense.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 01:54

Centripetal Horse: Nov 22, 2009; Fuck money, get GBS

This could have bought you a half a tank of gas, lmfao -
Love, gromdul

Cognac McCarthy posted:

I wouldn't read too much into this - I believe News Hour, which is pretty great, in-depth news, also refers to the president with "Mr." Or at least they did when Lehrer was anchor in the Bush years, when I used to watch the show.

Modern Day Hercules posted:

It kind of bothers me, but I don't think it's something that's done on purpose to snub Obama. I don't remember Bush ever being called Mr. Bush, but then again I can't really recall many times where anybody went out of their way to say President Bush either. It was mostly just "Bush". At least Obama is getting a Mr.

PeterWeller posted:

IIRC, proper style is to refer to the president's title once at the beginning of a piece and then use the more familiar Mr. (or potentially Mrs. or Ms.) for the remainder. So this isn't a case of disrespect.

Yeah, it's likely style issue. It's possible that they are leading with "president," and I'm just hearing what I expect to hear: disrespect and name-calling.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 02:21

Mr Hands Colon: May 7, 2009; requiescant in pace.

So then why does Fox News always refer to her as Governor Palin?

# ? Mar 28, 2015 03:24

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Mr Hands Colon posted:

So then why does Fox News always refer to her as Governor Palin?

Because 'God' would offend some of their base?

# ? Mar 28, 2015 03:25

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

I was flipping though the dial while driving around today and I had heard Bob Golic (former Browns player, saved by the bell actor) bitch about people being against the Indiana "religious freedom law". He and his producer were then really angry at the people in Colorado, Oregon, etc for suing claiming that they were "whiners", and "Why would they want to go to a place that wouldn't accept them anyways? You know they would pee in your cake or show displeasure about it'

I then listened to the local evangelical "Moody Bible Institute" station for a bit to hear a women named Janet Parshall say a few points about the Christian Right from their perspective. She (first off) insisted that a lot of these people who are involved with suing these businesses are just doing it to ensure laws are passed. "Well you see in a lot of these businesses they have the Christian fish symbol, a cross or a bible verse. SO THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO WHEN THEY SHOW UP". She then went on this whole spiel about how humanity is "Christ's bridegroom", and that the whole act of gay marriage was "AGAINST GOD'S LAW, THEREFORE IT'S SUPERCEDES GOD'S LAW, THEREFORE IT'S WRONG".

I'm just at a lose as to why people view discriminating against someone is "A-okay", just seems like something that was out of the 1950's or something. It makes zero sense to me.

e: To add, Parshall also insiuated that it was "SATAN" who was behind all of this, and he's trying to destroy god, etc, etc.

It's just getting to the point where I almost feel like an atheist listening to people like her.

FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Mar 28, 2015

# ? Mar 28, 2015 03:27

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Mr Hands Colon posted:

So then why does Fox News always refer to her as Governor Palin?

It's standard etiquette that you refer to someone as the highest rank they ever earned in politics/the military. So just like you'd refer to a retired General as General Soandso, former governors are Governor unless they become like a Senator or President/Vice-President.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 03:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 08:28

notthegoatseguy: Sep 6, 2005

Mr Hands Colon posted:

So then why does Fox News always refer to her as Governor Palin?

The same reason why people say President Bush, President Carter, etc...

# ? Mar 28, 2015 04:43

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

«‹›3443 »