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!

«‹›3441 »

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

Doctor Butts posted:

How did they backtrack? I don't recall this.

They dropped some support for the Family Research Council after limited backlash. For the most part, it wasn't very public

quote:

In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights." According to the TCRA, Chick-fil-A officials stated in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation", although there had never been any accusations of discrimination against the company, only against the company and its foundations' contributions.

The WinShape Foundation also announced they'd be taking a closer look at who they donate, in reality the controversy actually spikes Chic Fil A's profits, but for all the Conservative Gloating, Chic Fil A didn't toe the line like Conservatives thought they would.

They are still no doubt donating to hate groups, but are being a little more careful about it.

quote:

In March 2014, new tax filings from 2012 showed that Chick-fil-A had stopped funding all but one organization which had been previously criticized. The company created a new foundation, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, to fund outside groups. WinShape Foundation's 2012 tax filings showed funding only for its own programs, a Berry College scholarship fund and Lars WinShape, a home for needy children in Brazil

# ? Mar 30, 2015 20:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 16:43

Tercio: Jan 30, 2003

Quote: "...more popular than you would think. There are a lot of Hitler cakes out there..."

https://vimeo.com/123655878

# ? Mar 30, 2015 21:31

Rhesus Pieces: Jun 27, 2005

Tercio posted:

Quote: "...more popular than you would think. There are a lot of Hitler cakes out there..."

https://vimeo.com/123655878

They really think gays are ordering wedding cakes purely out of spite, don't they?

Projection is a hell of a thing.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 21:39

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Yes that Jack Hunter in the American Conservative posted:

Why Conservatives Ignored the Ferguson Report
Far too many right-wingers believe whole categories of human beings are "bad people" who deserve violence and injustice.
By Jack Hunter � March 30, 2015

R. Gino Santa Maria / Shutterstock.com

In the wake of the Department of Justice�s Ferguson report, The Atlantic�s Conor Friedersdorf asked, �Where�s the Conservative Outcry on Ferguson Police Abuses?�

National Review�s Jason Lee Steorts and Red State�s Leon Wolf actually did write columns blasting the Ferguson police department and city government, detailing just how unjust and abusive Ferguson�s government has been, something Friedersdorf acknowledged and appreciated.

But despite those columns, Friedersdorf still has a point. Where is the popular outcry from conservatives over this gross display of big government? Why hasn�t this subject become a right-wing staple, similar to Obamacare or Benghazi? Why hasn�t it dominated talk radio? Why hasn�t it been all over Fox News in ways that are sympathetic to the citizens of Ferguson?

Wolf suggests, �Conservatives� have become highly resistant to assimilating information that strongly suggests that the Ferguson PD�as with many other municipal police departments in the country�truly is out of control, in that it recklessly violates the constitutional rights of the citizens of Ferguson and does so in a manner that has a clearly disproportionate impact on minorities.� Wolf is correct. But again� why the blanket one-sidedness from the right even when presented with solid evidence of abuse?

Because many have already made up their minds. The citizens of Ferguson are bad people.

During the Ferguson riots in August, Mad Men actor and St. Louis native Jon Hamm said, �That�s my neighborhood, and I know there�s a lot more good people in those neighborhoods than there are bad people.� Judging by their rhetoric and reaction (or lack thereof) to the DOJ report, it�s not hard to conclude that many conservatives believe the opposite of Hamm�s statement�that although there are some good people in Ferguson most of them are probably bad.

Conservatives certainly agreed that black entrepreneurs whose businesses were destroyed during the riots were good people. They agreed that the black citizens who used their 2nd Amendment rights to protect private property from looting were good as well. But far more often than these positive narratives, we saw right-wing media portray the black citizens of Ferguson as �thugs,� �animals,� �savages,� and worse.

At that gut, emotional level, there was an underlying sense among many conservatives that whatever injustice the people of Ferguson may have suffered, they probably deserved it. Some might attribute this to racism, intentional or not, and I agree, but it also something more than that. It�s about how we as human beings, particularly partisans, have a tendency to lump people together and indict the whole lot.

Conservative attitudes toward the people of Ferguson are not entirely dissimilar to how liberals reacted to the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups. For most conservatives, it was clear that the IRS abused its power. A judge eventually ruled in favor of the IRS, but Tea Party groups still feel like they were abused. And they were.

Still, many on the left didn�t mind that abuse (or pretended there was no abuse, similar to how conservatives perceive Ferguson police behavior). Why? Because the Tea Party are bad people who probably deserved it. Conservatives love to cite black crime to dismiss injustices like those in Ferguson. Liberals have noted that the Tea Party gets out of line too, so naturally they�re just asking for trouble.

This sort of collective guilt-think is not dissimilar to how some right-wing hawks
view the Arab world. Neoconservative Washington Free Beacon founder Michael Goldfarb explained the recent popularity of �ber-hawk Tom Cotton by saying, �At the end of the day, the Republican base is for bombing bad people.�

But does the U.S. just bomb �bad people?� Do police only abuse bad people? Does the IRS only target the wicked? Or do individual liberties, rights, and lives still matter to people of good conscience?

What if many of the �bad people� people the U.S. has killed with bombs or drone strikes have actually been innocent? Many conservatives don�t want to believe this and often exhibit an attitude that Muslims probably deserve what they get. All Muslims.

Tom Cotton himself displayed this attitude that when he said that �we should be proud for the way we treated these savages at Guantanamo Bay,� and that �every last one of them can rot in Hell.� But many and perhaps a majority of Gitmo detainees may have been innocent and the Bush administration even knew this.

Still, they are all bad people.

Cotton defends his position by posing the question, �How many detainees in Guantanamo Bay are engaging in terrorism or anti-American excitement?�

I bet some have engaged in �anti-American excitement.� Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai said to President Obama in October that U.S. �drone attacks� in her country �are fueling terrorism.� �Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people,� she said.

That resentment is probably anti-American. Some might even get excited about that resentment, in ways that Cotton cites as justification for holding people�even if they aren�t directly involved in terrorism�in Gitmo for years without trial.

Tea Partiers have certainly engaged in anti-government �excitement,� and any good liberal knows they are bad people. Many in Ferguson have no doubt engaged in anti-police �excitement.� The Ferguson DOJ report certainly gives the people of that city many reasons to despise their local government and the police. In the 1950s and �60s, some constantly criticized civil rights protesters as �agitators� who were engaged in anti-American �excitement.� You see, rabble rousing is what bad people do.

When you collectively indict a group of people as bad, some will justify any extremes to punish them. Look at how some black Americans who distrust the police have even justified murdering cops. Police lives matter.

So does black life in the United States. Wolf wrote at Red State, �Anyone who can read the actual report itself and be comfortable with the fact that citizens of an American city live under such a regime is frankly not someone who is ideologically aligned with me in any meaningful way.�

Wolf is correct that anyone who actually read it and dismissed it doesn�t deserve to be called a small-government conservative, but this isn�t at all about ideology. It�s emotion. It�s anger. It�s rage. It is what passes for much of our political discourse today.

And for too many conservatives, bitter feelings are directed far more at black people in Ferguson than the police and local government, any evidence to the contrary be damned.

The venomous anti-Tea Party liberal is really not much different from the conservative who seethes at images of black protesters on his television screen. They know who the bad people are and don�t intend to show them any mercy. There is no moral complexity they feel compelled to consider.

There�s a reason why conservatives will harp incessantly on the fact that �Hands Up, Don�t Shoot� didn�t actually happen but will completely ignore the abusive environment as evidenced in the Ferguson report that made it so easy for African Americans to believe it did happen.

George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree�but for generations the symbolic fable was worth it for the lesson.

For many conservatives, there are no lessons to be learned from the Ferguson report, except that bad people sometimes get what they deserve.

Jack Hunter is the editor of Rare.us and the former new media director for Sen. Rand Paul.

So the former media editor for Rand Paul has seemed to have had a Damascus moment when it comes to race relations, he may be approaching Ferguson from a libertarian perspective but his genuine distaste for the level of hatred the right is showing for the people there is a welcome change from what I see on much of the right.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 21:40

The Rokstar: Aug 19, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

Crowsbeak posted:

So the former media editor for Rand Paul has seemed to have had a Damascus moment when it comes to race relations, he may be approaching Ferguson from a libertarian perspective but his genuine distaste for the level of hatred the right is showing for the people there is a welcome change from what I see on much of the right.

Agreed, but I also want to be That Guy and call out his squabble over the IRS thing as apples to oranges. There's a world of difference between targeting groups that are explicitly anti-tax for higher tax scrutiny and writing off the wholesale abuse of an entire class of people because of their race/status/poverty/whatever.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 22:20

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

Crowsbeak posted:

So the former media editor for Rand Paul has seemed to have had a Damascus moment when it comes to race relations, he may be approaching Ferguson from a libertarian perspective but his genuine distaste for the level of hatred the right is showing for the people there is a welcome change from what I see on much of the right.

He has a bunch of views i dont agree with.(tea party, evil liberals. goverment=corruption) but at least he is on the right track. i think we will see a change after 2016, for better or worse. at the very least the social right is dying.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 22:28

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:

The venomous anti-Tea Party liberal is really not much different from the conservative who seethes at images of black protesters on his television screen. They know who the bad people are and don�t intend to show them any mercy. There is no moral complexity they feel compelled to consider.

While I'm sure there are liberals who write off tea-partiers wholesale, they aren't being "triggered" by the color of the persons skin. Neither is a good thing to do, one is very very much worse. Cliven Bundy "protested" for much much more trivial reasons and protested in much more questionable ways and he had near universal support from conservatives. At the very least I didn't see many of them immediately declaring Bundy the bad guy just because he was against the cops.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 22:33

The Rokstar: Aug 19, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

Yeah, I mean that whole article just smacks of "blind hate like racism is bad BUT THE LIBERALS DO IT TOO!!!" so... I dunno.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 22:34

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

I guess the truth is in the middle.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 22:43

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

Thanks Ben Shapiro for publishing this classy cartoon

# ? Mar 30, 2015 23:10

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

The Rokstar posted:

Yeah, I mean that whole article just smacks of "blind hate like racism is bad BUT THE LIBERALS DO IT TOO!!!" so... I dunno.

Baby Steps, if you want I could just poswt stuff from WND.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 30, 2015

# ? Mar 30, 2015 23:11

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

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

Yeah, isn't "the truth is in the middle" a dramatic step forward if its coming from the right? It may not be perfect but its drat near a miracle on its own and if a conservative said that to me I'd buy him a beer to try and reinforce that thinking.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 23:17

Dr. VooDoo: May 4, 2006

The Rokstar posted:

Agreed, but I also want to be That Guy and call out his squabble over the IRS thing as apples to oranges. There's a world of difference between targeting groups that are explicitly anti-tax for higher tax scrutiny and writing off the wholesale abuse of an entire class of people because of their race/status/poverty/whatever.

Well not only that but the "IRS targets conservative groups" thing turned out to be a big lie because once reports were released it turned out that leftist groups were in fact targeted more in the same time period

# ? Mar 30, 2015 23:24

Ralepozozaxe: Sep 6, 2010; A Veritable Smorgasbord!

STAC Goat posted:

Yeah, isn't "the truth is in the middle" a dramatic step forward if its coming from the right? It may not be perfect but its drat near a miracle on its own and if a conservative said that to me I'd buy him a beer to try and reinforce that thinking.

The truth is in the middle always helps whoever is wrong or on the bad side of an argument, so conservative's love it. It's why we have so many news article's starting with questions, they don't want to be held accountable for having an opinion.

# ? Mar 30, 2015 23:31

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

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Thanks Ben Shapiro for publishing this classy cartoon

Based on this cartoon, Obama has us on a level flight and on course, and locked out the terrorists that want to crash the plane.....AGC?

# ? Mar 30, 2015 23:31

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

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

Ralepozozaxe posted:

The truth is in the middle always helps whoever is wrong or on the bad side of an argument, so conservative's love it. It's why we have so many news article's starting with questions, they don't want to be held accountable for having an opinion.

I don't know. We're clearly hanging out with/listening to different conservatives because the ones I'm aware of are all "We're always right and you're always wrong." The Ferguson stuff was a pretty huge case of it because a lot of people I know/saw crowed about the DOJ report "proving them right" about "hands up, don't shoot" and Michael Brown and totally ignored that other report. Just hearing one acknowledge it as bad and the general conservative silence about it as bad was kind of shocking to me.

But if you're talking about people who "don't want to be accountable for having an opinion" then we're definitely thinking of different people.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:12

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Thanks Ben Shapiro for publishing this classy cartoon

This definitely elevates Republican humor, as I chuckled.

The reality is the man knocking is a belligerent drunkard, with a H&K Rifle.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:21

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

John Nolte from Breitbart

quote:

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REQUIRES WAR WITH BULLYING, IGNORANT MEDIA

A Muslim caterer refuses to cater a pork festival.

A Jewish caterer refuses to cater a cheeseburger eating contest.

Believing it contradicts the teachings of Jesus, a gay Christian (think Andrew Sullivan) who runs a public relations firm refuses to take on a client who wants to promote traditional marriage.

An American Indian publisher refuses to publish a book about the dangers of peyote.

A Christian baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.

Indiana�s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is broader in who it protects but virtually similar to the RFRA that passed the United States Senate 97-0 in 1993 before being signed into law by President Clinton, is about ensuring that a persona�s religious beliefs and conscience are treated as rights in situations like those listed above.

Nevertheless, Indiana�s RFRA does not guarantee or allow or sanction discrimination. The law does not take a side in any of the hypothetical�s listed above. Because the law properly recognizes religious beliefs as a right (See: Amendment, First), it sets up a dynamic of competing rights where in a dispute the government is still the ultimate arbiter.

According to people smarter than me, it all then comes down to the burden placed on the Religious versus the furthering of the state�s interest (e.g. non-discrimination). Here�s some clarity from legal scholar Daniel O. Conkle, a same sex marriage advocate:

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the �compelling interest� test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

[bThe outright lies the media, and companies like Apple and Angie�s List are spreading come from ignorance of the law, anti-Christian bigotry, or a mixture of both.[/b]

Apple CEO Tim Cook outright lied in the Washington Post when he wrote that the Indiana law �would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.� Angie�s List canceled a $40 million expansion plan with the harrumph, �Angie�s List is open to all and discriminates against none.�

Obviously both Apple and Anglie�s List are being disingenuous about opposing discrimination. Both want to see the Faithful discriminated against. Both want to see the Faithful forced by the government to violate their religious conscience.

The media of course have followed right along. For propaganda purposes, the only scenario the media have imagined is one intentionally meant to invoke the horrors of Jim Crow: a gay couple being refused service in a restaurant. Forget that this never happens � even though it would be legal in much of the country (states where gays have not received status as a protected class), Indiana�s RFRA is a blanket law meant to give legal standing to the Faithful of all religions, including ancient American Indian traditions.

What this all comes down to is the simple question of government coercion and competing rights. In a country with a First Amendment, in a country that was literally founded on the idea of religious freedom, are we going to force the owner of a Muslim deli to choose between bankruptcy and his faith because he won�t cook a pork chop? In pursuit of equality, should a gay Christian public printer be burdened with the same choice if the Moral Majority comes calling?

Asking a Christian to take part in or officiate (you can bet this is next) a same sex wedding, even through their business, is like asking a Muslim to eat a pork rind.

Christians see marriage as a sacrament. A same sex marriage therefore is the sacremantalization of a sin. The government forcing the Faithful to participate in sin goes well beyond serving someone a meal. There�s nothing sinful about eating. Jesus ate with and spent time with sinners.

Jesus never participated in or enabled anyone�s sinfulness.

Using misinformation and lies, all fueled by their own hatred and ignorance, the media is using a perfectly reasonable Indiana law to launch a hysterical bullying campaign against the Faithful, specifically Christians.

The Left and media are outright gleeful at thought of either forcing Christians out of the public square or forcing Christians to violate our religious conscience.

The bigots at work in this debate are not the Christians.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:23

Vriess: Apr 30, 2013; Select the items of interest in the scene.

Returned ~~with Honor~~.

Archonex posted:

So apparently a ton of media outlets are reporting that two men dressed in drag just tried to crash the gate at Fort Meade. There are reports of someone on the base possibly having been injured, and one of the people in the car is almost certainly dead.

What are the odds this ends up in the conservative media circuit as a rant or justification to gently caress with people who are trans?

They were drug dealers who got off an an exit too early (probably heading on 100) and wound up in the front gate of the fuckin' NSA with an assload of Cocaine and no badges to get through while being dressed up in disguise (they were neither trans* nor transvestites; they were probably heading to Columbia to deal).

The Security Guards see they have no badge, and search their vehicle as is their right to do on Federal Grounds before moving them around. They freak the gently caress out and try to ran their way out. The Guards have shotties and UMP45s. It didn't end well, but they were hosed already because the guards had found the cocaine.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:24

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

The Rokstar posted:

Yeah, I mean that whole article just smacks of "blind hate like racism is bad BUT THE LIBERALS DO IT TOO!!!" so... I dunno.

Nah the tone is more "even though liberals do it it's wrong.". He's using the liberals comparison to get the right to listen for more than two seconds instead of declaring it RINO trash.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:25

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

Any comment from Noted Fan of Apple Products Rush Limbaugh on Apple CEO's recent vocal opposition to the recent Indiana legislation?

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:33

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

Tercio posted:

Is Indiana's RFRA genuinely unique or new in its wording?

I've been linked this article: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/

...but it's frustratingly vague. And it's also The Federalist, so you know.

Absolutely.

These were in the GBS thread. First, from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/30/answering-five-questions-about-indianas-new-discrimination-law/

quote:

1. Is this the same law as the federal RFRA and versions in other states?

The answer is no, for a couple of reasons. First, there�s the intent. When the federal RFRA was passed in 1993, no one was talking about gay marriage, and it wasn�t about how private individuals deal with each other. The law was spurred most directly by a case called Employment Division v. Smith, which concerned whether two Native American workers could get unemployment insurance after they had been fired from their jobs for taking peyote in a religious ritual. It was that kind of private religious conduct that the debate revolved around at the time.

But more importantly, the Indiana law is different from other laws in its specific provisions. It not only explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs �as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.� [emphasis added] The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals.

Weirdly, Governor Pence thinks he can just deny that the law he signed does anything of the sort, despite this clear language. �In fact, it doesn�t even apply to disputes between private individuals, unless government action is involved,� he said yesterday on ABC�s This Week. That�s completely false.

And second, from an actual practicing Indiana lawyer.
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

quote:

Does IRFRA resemble its federal counterpart?

The short answer here is no.

I have seen the point made that federal democrats in 1993 passed a similar bill into law. This is in reference to 42 U.S.C. � 2000bb, which was indeed passed during the Clinton administration. This sound-byte is apparently made to imply that the left cannot complain because they created the blueprint.

Indeed, as Gov. Pence provided in his statement yesterday: �Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act�limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.� See Gov. Mike Pence signs �religious freedom� bill in private.

The flaw in this implication is that it is misleading for several reasons. The federal act was deemed inapplicable to state actions. Consequently, several states have copied the federal act or have adopted similar legislation. A fair collection of all religious freedom statutes and court decisions can be found here. (Hats off to Liberty Counsel for making the effort to compile this list and publish it.) Upon my quick scan, Indiana�s version of the bill most resembles a similar law passed in Texas in 1999 but even that bill contains significant limitations that Indiana�s does not.

What is clear is that Indiana has not copied the federal legislation or those passed by other states, but has instead added more expansive language as seen below. The IRFRA adds several clauses which rightly give pause to the endless possibilities of using religion and religious freedom as a sword and a shield.

It's hilarious to me that mouthbreathers are going all "it's the same as Clinton's federal law, you dumb libs should just settle down," yet this guy points out that the closest law is in motherfucking Texas, and even that law is somehow still more progressive.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:36

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/foster-friess-daily-caller-tucker-carlson

Foster Friess posted:

There is way too much nastiness and negativity in the world without sensationalizing it.

Says the guy bankrolling the Daily Caller.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 00:46

MrUnderbridge: Jun 25, 2011

The Rokstar posted:

Agreed, but I also want to be That Guy and call out his squabble over the IRS thing as apples to oranges. There's a world of difference between targeting groups that are explicitly anti-tax for higher tax scrutiny and writing off the wholesale abuse of an entire class of people because of their race/status/poverty/whatever.

Jebus - this again.

Despite what the RWM has convinced everyone, there were actually more progressive groups targeted for closer scrutiny than conservative.

The "Big Lie" has worked...

E: f, b

MrUnderbridge fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Mar 31, 2015

# ? Mar 31, 2015 01:18

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Sir Tonk posted:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/foster-friess-daily-caller-tucker-carlson

Says the guy bankrolling the Daily Caller.

I do love how the money men of the Right really are just a delusional as the rank and file.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 01:25

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

Crowsbeak posted:

I do love how the money men of the Right really are just a delusional as the rank and file.

Once you make a deal with the devil, you shouldn't be surprised when he calls the shots in your megachurch.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 01:29

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; 親子丼をほしい。

Zwabu posted:

Any comment from Noted Fan of Apple Products Rush Limbaugh on Apple CEO's recent vocal opposition to the recent Indiana legislation?

Not the real CEO of Apple. There was only one, and his name was stebe.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 02:21

The Rokstar: Aug 19, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

MrUnderbridge posted:

Jebus - this again.

Despite what the RWM has convinced everyone, there were actually more progressive groups targeted for closer scrutiny than conservative.

The "Big Lie" has worked...

E: f, b

Haha, I didn't even realize that story was bullshit to begin with.

The Big Lie has worked, indeed.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 02:52

Tercio: Jan 30, 2003

Hazo posted:

Absolutely.

These were in the GBS thread. First, from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/30/answering-five-questions-about-indianas-new-discrimination-law/

And second, from an actual practicing Indiana lawyer.
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/
It's hilarious to me that mouthbreathers are going all "it's the same as Clinton's federal law, you dumb libs should just settle down," yet this guy points out that the closest law is in motherfucking Texas, and even that law is somehow still more progressive.

Ok these links, especially the second, clarify things greatly. Thank you!

# ? Mar 31, 2015 03:09

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

The results from the Bob Jones University rape scandal.

Its both unsurprising and vomit inducing.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/3/30/bob-jones-university-sexual-abuse.html

# ? Mar 31, 2015 03:12

Rev. Bleech_: Oct 19, 2004; ~OKAY, WE'LL DRINK TO OUR LEGS!~

Archonex posted:

What are the odds this ends up in the conservative media circuit as a rant or justification to gently caress with people who are trans?

flood the comments section of anyone who does so with photos of J Edgar Hoover.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 03:54

Chimera-gui: Mar 20, 2014

Frankly I'm glad Indiana lawmakers are being taken to task for this because the First Amendment does not and should not apply to businesses for one simple reason: contrary to what their lobbyists want you to believe, businesses are not people. They serve the people, period.

If an atheist-run business tried to pull this crap by turning Christians away, you can be sure that these numbskulls would be foaming at the mouth and trying to deny said atheist-run business the right they're trying to give Christian-run businesses.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 03:57

Salvor_Hardin: Sep 13, 2005; I want to go protest.; Nap Ghost

MrUnderbridge posted:

Jebus - this again.

Despite what the RWM has convinced everyone, there were actually more progressive groups targeted for closer scrutiny than conservative.

The "Big Lie" has worked...

E: f, b

Got a cite? I remember that the issue was overblown but I seemed to recall while more conservative groups were given increased scrutiny, none lost their status and in fact, a few liberal groups did.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 04:01

Takoluka: Jun 26, 2009; Don't look at me!

CommieGIR posted:

The results from the Bob Jones University rape scandal.

Its both unsurprising and vomit inducing.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/3/30/bob-jones-university-sexual-abuse.html

Burn that place to the ground, and take the garbage behind this decision with it.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 04:41

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

CommieGIR posted:

The results from the Bob Jones University rape scandal.

Its both unsurprising and vomit inducing.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/3/30/bob-jones-university-sexual-abuse.html

quote:

Sarah, a recent graduate and abuse victim, who also asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, said her Bob Jones counselor told her: "You know that the nightmares are your own fault, because you're choosing to replay pornographic thoughts in your mind."

The counselor got his (I'm presuming it's a man) degree at BJU, didn't he?

# ? Mar 31, 2015 05:02

Hazo: Dec 30, 2004; SCIENCE

American Taliban.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 05:09

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Hazo posted:

American Taliban.

Okay, Step 1 and Step 2 seem fine, Step 3 is iffy, but I can see where they're coming from (you may be hurting, but at least your immortal soul is fine or something?). Steps 4 and 5 are pure :wtf:

however.

Edit: I mean, Step 2 is to blame the older person, and Steps 4 and 5 directly contradict that. What on earth was the person who wrote this thinking?

# ? Mar 31, 2015 05:15

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Dirk the Average posted:

Okay, Step 1 and Step 2 seem fine, Step 3 is iffy, but I can see where they're coming from (you may be hurting, but at least your immortal soul is fine or something?). Steps 4 and 5 are pure however.

Filtering out the weird language, I think Step 3 is basically understandable: your body has been hurt, but dwelling on guilt and pain, or blaming people (themselves or others) isn't how you heal and is likely to send you further into depression and anger. The idea is to accept that your body has been wounded and hurt but you shouldn't let it destroy you mentally or emotionally.

4 and 5 go completely off the rails and whoever came up with them should be ashamed, though.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 05:23

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

John Nolte from Breitbart

Man these people can't come up with a single plausible scenario that isn't an excuse to discriminate against gays. Caterers don't just cook whatever you want them to, they have menus you need to choose from. Public relations firms can take any client they wish. Nobody is ever going to be forced to write a book on a topic they don't want to write about (what the gently caress?).

It's also endlessly amusing how conservative Christians seem to believe that pork is Muslim kryptonite.

# ? Mar 31, 2015 05:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 16:43

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Dirk the Average posted:

Okay, Step 1 and Step 2 seem fine, Step 3 is iffy, but I can see where they're coming from (you may be hurting, but at least your immortal soul is fine or something?). Steps 4 and 5 are pure however.

Edit: I mean, Step 2 is to blame the older person, and Steps 4 and 5 directly contradict that. What on earth was the person who wrote this thinking?

Obedience and submission to authoritarian bearded man in the sky is more important than anything else. Both the rapist and the rapee are at fault for breaking God's Law

# ? Mar 31, 2015 05:59

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

«‹›3441 »