Mel Mudkiper posted:

The Koran doesn't mention camels for much the same reason

Beef Hardcheese posted:

I'm only a little familiar with this aspect of U.S. politics, but a lot of Protestants were very anti-Catholic until around the 50s, right? There were arguments that a Catholic couldn't be President because they would owe allegiance to the Pope above the Constitution (in a way that directly parallels all the "a Muslim can't be President" stuff you hear now). That obviously changed at some point, but it is amusing to see thins start to swing back that way.

Is there any evidence that these feelings are shared by any of the base, or is it just more fear mongering?

FuzzySkinner posted:

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2015/09/obama-cj-pearson-twitter-blocked/

The kid loving lied. He stole the "Blocked' picture from like four other accounts in a game of telephone. decade plus.

Jenny Angel posted:

I mean there's a certain insecure mindset that sees any behavior that deviates from the default as part and parcel with "I'm better than you", and then you have license to react just as combatively as if someone was actually talking down to you. Like, because the stereotype exists of the smug elitist vegan who drives a hybrid and won't ever shut up about how saintly that makes them, there's no daylight between that and someone who quietly drives a hybrid or orders a vegetarian option at a restaurant.

I'm doing the default thing, the only reason someone would do a non-default thing is to try to make me look stupid, so it's only fair for me to lash out at you.

mr. mephistopheles posted:

There is also a pretty strong class element to it. Things like vegetarianism and driving a hybrid car in America require a level of economic comfort to where you have time/money to worry about those things that a lot of people consider frivolous.

Yeah it's possible to be poor and vegan or care about the environment but it's largely confined to upper middle class white people, so while I do think they take some issue with the concepts themselves, I think their anger stems more from the type of person who these ideas are generally associated with and propagated by and that disdain definitely isn't a one way street.

A lot of it is exaggerated or projected but the idea that white yuppie liberals are lovely and condescending to poor white people isn't imaginary.

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Good lord these people are dense.

Pharmaskittle posted:

Limbaugh being a shitlord aside, I do get irrationally annoyed at individually bottled water for daily consumption (as opposed to natural disaster planning and just carrying a reusable bottle day to day).

Hazo posted:

edit: "In the Civil War America sacrificed 2.2% of its population to preserve the union and fight against the injustice of slavery. The left simply does not understand this" hahahahahahahahaha jesus

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Yessssssssssss

Ben Shapiro



http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...n-gay-marriage/

mr. mephistopheles posted:

Lol Levin was trying to flex earlier by saying "muz-o-lini" because he thinks that's the Italian pronunciation.

Keeshhound posted:

I get the feeling that people like Levin don't really understand the scale of deaths in war. Like, they'll talk about how many lives were nobly sacrificed in the pursuit of some higher cause, but they don't seem to realize that when you actually look at the scale of the human cost of these conflicts, the only thing these sacrifices could really be a worthy exchange for would be to summon a literal Elder God.

beatlegs posted:

Why isn't he politicizing MY issues?? This just proves that he politicizes things!

Dr. Faustus posted:

Kid learns fast.

Thanks for the info, I was going to ask what happened to the Twitter account because apparently Twitter policy is to not talk about this stuff. He was so outraged at being called a liar, I'm glad to see he's a complete tool.
I hope he learns some humility from this. I'd like to go on Twitter and say something but I imagine he's too busy blocking people to read much of anything today.

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Im on my phone and taking a poo poo at work apologies.

And shame on CJ for inpunging a national treasure like PFTCommenter.

mr. mephistopheles posted:

There is also a pretty strong class element to it. Things like vegetarianism and driving a hybrid car in America require a level of economic comfort to where you have time/money to worry about those things that a lot of people consider frivolous.

Yeah it's possible to be poor and vegan or care about the environment but it's largely confined to upper middle class white people, so while I do think they take some issue with the concepts themselves, I think their anger stems more from the type of person who these ideas are generally associated with and propagated by and that disdain definitely isn't a one way street.

A lot of it is exaggerated or projected but the idea that white yuppie liberals are lovely and condescending to poor white people isn't imaginary.

Killer robot posted:

I saw an article a while back that pointed out how hybrids sold best when they were clearly and visibly hybrid-only models, rather than hybrid variants of models that also were available with conventional engines. Mostly nothing to do with performance, but a big part was conspicuous consumption: people that buy hybrids often want specifically to be seen driving a hybrid. Which I guess is fine: early adopters after status symbols bankroll a lot of technological advancements. But it always gets eyerolls from people who can't afford status symbols or don't want that particular one.

Sir Tonk posted:

quote:

So let's do Ted Cruz today.

By most accounts, Ted Cruz is not only the most conservative politician in the federal government, but possibly the most conservative ever elected to major office. When it comes to domestic and social issues, I haven't found many major areas of disagreement with him, nor have I noticed him significantly flip flopping. He seems like a man who knows what he believes and why he believes it. Importantly, he can also communicate and explain it effectively and with force.

On abortion, Cruz is staunch and consistent on fighting for the unborn. He has, as far as I'm aware, a 100 percent pro-life voting record. Beyond that, he's been at the forefront of fighting to defund Planned Parenthood. A few days ago, he wrote a really compelling article for Politico explaining how GOP leadership could -- but won't -- force Obama's hand on defunding. He's said he'd direct his Justice Department to investigate Planned Parenthood on his first day in office.

On the family, Cruz has stood firm against redefining marriage. He's been publicly harangued for this stance on many occasions and has always impressed me with his answers.

On Constitutional liberties, Cruz has a long history of Second Amendment advocacy, going back to his days as a lawyer in the 90's. He's a fierce First Amendment advocate and a vocal critic of the Obama Administration's attacks on religious liberty. He's strong on some of the less popular amendments in neo-con circles, like the Fourth. He opposes the TSA on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

On the economy, Cruz has advocated abolishing the IRS, which is an idea so beautiful and right that it brings tears to my eyes just thinking about. He's been consistent in opposition to the Nanny State and exorbitant spending. He wants to audit the Federal Reserve.

On education, Cruz has fought against Common Core and has pledged to shut down the Department of Education. He thinks education should be handled locally.

On foreign policy I find areas of disagreement. He's more interventionist than I am, but at least he opposed arming the Syrian terrorist/rebels. Personally, I don't think we need to be getting involved in the Russia/Ukraine situation. Cruz thinks we should. We're on different pages there.

On immigration, he wants to build a fence and enforce our immigration laws. He opposes sanctuary cities and welfare for illegals. His stance on deportation is a little more hazy. He says he's against amnesty, but also hasn't said he'd go rounding up every illegal immigrant and ship them back across the border. He was asked on Fox whether he agrees with Trump that we ought to deport naturalized citizens. He dodged the question, which is ridiculous. Obviously we shouldn't be shipping CITIZENS to Mexico. Even if you disagree with birth right citizenship, you can't rationally support retroactively rescinding it. Cruz should have stood up and been clear about that. A really absurd moment from him.

On a more personal level, nobody in the race -- absolutely nobody -- can claim to be more anti-Establishment than Ted Cruz. Yes, Cruz is a politician and a lawyer, but he is absolutely hated by Republican leadership. The man stood on the floor of the Senate not long ago, called Mitch McConnell a liar, and accused Republicans of doing nothing to stop Planned Parenthood funding while orchestrating useless show votes. Ted Cruz fights the Establishment even though he has something to lose. It takes nothing for Trump to blast the Establishment in a CNN interview or at a political rally. But when Cruz goes up against them, he has skin in the game. He's attacking his colleagues and his bosses. I'm impressed by that, and if anti-Establishment is what you want, there isn't anyone who fits the bill better than him.

Although he hasn't been a Senator for long (which is a plus to most people) he is a constitutional scholar who knows the law like the back of his hand, and he's worked as an adviser on domestic policy.

He's knowledgeable, principled, skilled, and has demonstrated leadership.

I'd say the biggest negative about him is that his style turns people off. He has a habit of speaking in speeches rather than normal people language. He comes off as artificial, even though his record is anything but artificial. This is a concern and certainly a negative, but to me not enough of a concern to support someone else. I think the most important factors to consider are (in order): 1) Character and integrity 2) Consistent fidelity to constitutional principles 3) The ability to lead 4) Relevant experience

Things like speaking style and "approachability" come somewhere after these 4 things. But Cruz, as far as I can tell, checks all 4 boxes.

However, I'll keep open eyes and a critical mind. The moment he gives me reason to question him on any of the 4 things I mentioned above, I might rethink my position. As of now though, I'm voting for Ted Cruz.

One other note on the negative side that just came to mind: he hasn't gone after Trump at all. In fact, he's aligned himself with Trump quite a bit, which disappoints me. That's probably the reason why he embarrassed himself by not clearly stating he wouldn't deport naturalized citizens. He's afraid of upsetting Trump voters, who will be necessary to win the nomination. That's his game -- to court Trump voters for the day when The Donald finally implodes and drops out of the race. It's a smart political strategy, but it's frustrating to watch.

Still, with these negatives in mind, I still think he has a greater net positive than the other candidates at the moment. That's where I stand on Cruz.

quote:

Women of the men's rights movement (AKA Honey Badgers, or, at their most organized, the Honey Badger Brigade) don't do so much picketing in the streets as much as they post on Reddit (/r/MensRights), tweet (#DontMancriminate), upload podcasts (Honey Badger Radio), and generally raise hell. Sample posts, headlines, and tweets by Honey Badgers include: "You weren't raped. You're a whore. Join the club"; "Going Mental: She Might Be a Crazy Bitch If … Red Flags!"; "The #feminist draft is fully operational. If you have a vagina or mangina youre [sic] forced to obey. #WomenAgainstFeminism."

quote:

RUSH: ... Now, we had our caller here, God bless him, this is not a criticism of the caller; this is an observation. He was trying to tell me, "You didn't hear right, Rush. The pope had plenty of conservative things in there." Now, I'm probably going to get in a little trouble here, I'm used to that, but I don't need anybody analyzing this for me. I know exactly what this pope is saying, and I know what he thinks. There isn't a whole lot of gray area for me here. And if you hear me asking somebody, "What did he mean by that?" I'm trying to get people to start thinking.

Let's continue the exercise here. My only point here is that I don't go looking for phantom statements from people I support. I don't imagine phantom statements because I support them. If they do things that I don't like or don't agree with, my support can go. I mean, my support's not wedded to anybody at all times ever, depending. So I do not do this. I don't imagine the people I support saying what I want them to say and then try to explain it, "No, no, you didn't hear. What he said was, I heard him --". So my point is I don't have any doubt what the pope said in any facet of his speech today. I know what he did. I know what he said. And if you have any doubts, just look at the reaction at the White House. Pure and simple. Or anywhere in the Democrat Party.

Aside from abortion and the way they look at that is, he had to throw us a bone somewhere. That's the way they justify it. They're not gonna throw him overboard because he took 'em to task on abortion. They'll rationalize it some other way. But they're not gonna pay any attention to it. Anyway, here we go. Where'd we stop? We only got two of these things in, in the first hour. Anyway, here's the third bite, this is the pope, Golden Rule, refugees -- oh, I remember why the second sound bite launched me on this whole notion of why these people think this place is so special, how it got this way, and just assuming it always will be. Anyway, here's the next bite.

POPE FRANCIS: Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War. This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life. ... We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

RUSH: ... Does anybody have any doubt what he said there? Do you have any doubt, Mr. Snerdley? Are you confused at all? Wendy, how about you? Are you confused at all? No. Even while she's reading Us Weekly. What about you, Brian, you confused at all? Nobody's confused what he meant by it. Just keep your borders open. Treat 'em like you'd want to be treated. Right. Like full citizens of your country, you treat 'em the way you would want to be treated. Don't treat 'em the way you will be treated if you go to their country. You will not be allowed in and you will be kicked out. (laughing) The Democrats in the audience knew what he was saying. That's when they start, "Right on!" And he stopped them, you know, he didn't want the applause.
...
Folks, you don't need me to analyze this for you. And you know full well that the only thing that's gonna happen if I do is I'm gonna get in trouble. So you know what's being said here. You don't need me to translate. And he continued on that same theme. Well, kind of moved now into a very, very Clintonesque thing. He wove a nice web from capitalism and praising business and pivoted to climate change.

POPE FRANCIS: Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good. This common good also includes the earth ... the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.

RUSH: Any doubt there about what was being said? How about "business is a noble vocation." I'm gonna get there, but first, is business a vocation? What is business? If it's not a vocation, what is it? It's a state of being. It's not a vocation. ... What other sources of prosperity are there? This is a key question in the arguments between left and right, folks. Government. If you're on the left the government is the source of prosperity. drat right. If you're on the left, you would. Government's the primary source of prosperity for you, if you're on the left. And if you believe that business exists to kill you, if you believe that business exists to poison you, then government is a source of prosperity for you. And it's especially good, business is, if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of the service to the common good.
...
Anyway, this website, Now the End Begins. Yeah, NowtheEndBegins.com. The pope never once invoked God. Never once. Did not open or close in prayer. And the website also mentions something else that we all heard. It registered when I heard it a number of times, but I didn't think to make a note of it. The pope repeatedly said he wanted to enter into dialogue with the American people.

I'm kind of putting the brakes on here, folks, is what I'm doing. And this website also points out that about 15 minutes in when the pope began to be somewhat critical of wealth and business and so forth, the site points out that the pope neglected to mention the wealth and riches of the Vatican itself. Which is true. Which is true.

Anyway, here's Donata in Frederick, Maryland, as we get back to the phones. Great to have you. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you, sir. I have to totally and emphatically disagree with your last caller about the pope. If he really wanted to, first of all, have dialogue with the American people, he wouldn't say the mass in Spanish. That's a slap in the face to every American Catholic I know. I've been a Catholic for 52 years, and as far as I'm concerned, if you won't say he's a leftist, I'm perfectly willing to do so. This is an abomination of my morality and my religion, being basically sideswiped. If he wanted to put abortion on the ticket to bring here and talk about, he could have easily done that with what's going on in this country. If he wanted to bring morality or any of the church doctrine, we would have been happy to hear it, but he wants to talk about climate change, a science which he can't even say has been proven.

RUSH: Let me ask you a question about that, though, Donata. When the pope started his comments about the family, did you think that he was, without directly saying it, criticizing gay marriage.

CALLER: No. Not at all. In fact, I don't think he criticizes gay marriage at all. Not that I'm saying he should. I'm saying I don't think he does. I'm saying that's his take on it, from what I've read. And everything that I've read, which I've tried to educate myself, I've tried to give this pope at least the benefit of the doubt, as I do any other pope that's been -- you have to admit, John Paul II has been most of my life, and I find it very difficult there would be another pope any greater than him, but, you know, I just don't see where he's putting family first when he seems to talk about the Catholics having too many children.

RUSH: Yeah, well, but I meant specifically today, with the remarks that he made today. If you can hang on through the break.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I checked the e-mail during the break. "Rush, why are you spending so much time analyzing the pope?" You know, that's a fair question, and there's a definite reason for it, and it something that you've heard me say over and over again. It's about informing and educating and explaining.

It comes under this giant umbrella of belief I have that the more people that understand and are made able to spot liberalism, and then the more people are able to associate liberalism with the problems in their lives, the political problems, the economic problems, the more people can be conditioned and educated to understand that liberalism is the problem, coupled with the ability to spot it, would be the fastest way to eradicate it. It would be really helpful if we had a Republican Party engaged in this.

If you go back to Ronaldus Magnus, Ronaldus Magnus constantly used the word "liberal," and he constantly told people who they were, and he was constantly explaining what they did, how they thought, and what they did looked like. After we won the Congress in 1994, we stopped doing that, and we haven't done it except on talk radio since. And it's crucial. We're gonna need more than winning elections; we're gonna need to change the way people think, and they're not gonna change what they think if there's no counter to the way liberalism is presented in the pop culture.

My quest here has been to teach people what liberalism is and how to identify it and how to spot it, and, furthermore, how to understand that liberalism is probably the root of most of the problems they face in life, including raising their kids, including educating their kids, practically every walk of life, because everything today's political. Here's another reason why. We have as the president of the United States one of the most radical leftists that's even ever run for office. Certainly the most radical, extreme leftist ever to be president. But if people are not told that, they're not going to believe it.

Nobody wants to believe such things about the president. Nobody wants to believe such things about other powerful figures like popes and other revered leaders. If you look at what Obama has done, capitalizing on the squishiness of the GOP, in the last seven years Barack Obama has successfully recruited or corrupted or hijacked, however you want to describe it, John Roberts of the Supreme Court; John Boehner, Speaker of the House; Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate; and some might even say the pope.

Well, you're saying "Well so what, Rush? None of that's a surprise." Right. But for people who don't follow politics and they see people like the pope sidling up to and having fun with and supporting Obama, and see a Supreme Court justice going out of his way to be supportive of Obama and then the two Republican leaders, do you realize how impossible it will be to portray Obama as he is, an extreme radical? You realize how difficult that is to explain to people when all these other people seem to have been recruited by him and are helping him?

Now, in the case of Roberts, Boehner, and Mitchell, the explanation for it, we know that they're not simpatico on issues -- and God help us if they are -- it's more that they're afraid to oppose him. Pope's another matter. Interchangeable. But for the domestic people here, not just these three, but they're the big three, John Roberts, Boehner, and McConnell, if the Republican leadership and the so-called conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court don't appear to have any problem with Obama, do you realize how difficult it is to tell the truth about the guy?

That's one of the reasons I cringe every time I see no evidence of push-back by the Republican Party on Obama policies. Just makes it harder to accomplish one of the things I have set out to do, and that is educate people about liberalism.

Anyway, back to Donata. Donata, I know that you're reacting to what the pope has said previous, and I don't have his words right in front of me here, but he today launched into a defense of the family, how important it was, how crucial the family is. He did not mention gay marriage or any of that. But he was talking about it in the traditional sense, and so I just wanted to ask you, because you are a Catholic and you're having some difficulties with his papacy, if you thought that his comments today in that joint speech were a disguised criticism of gay marriage?

CALLER: I absolutely think it could be. That's very possible. I tend to think of him as a wolf in shepherd's clothing.

RUSH: Uh-oh.

CALLER: This is just my view. And I know a lot of conservative Catholics who feel the same. I just happen to have a big enough mouth to say it. I don't know what he was talking about, to be perfectly honest with you, and I would never assume to put words in his mouth. I'm only going by the words I know have come out of his mouth and understand those.

RUSH: Well, there have been plenty of those before this speech.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Not disputing you on that.

CALLER: Thousand percent correct there.

RUSH: Okay. Well, look, I'm glad you held on. I appreciate it. I just want to run it by you and make sure you understood what the question was because we were in a hurried state at the end of your call.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Well, I have to mention one more thing here, folks. I just have to mention I just saw a link at the Drudge Report, click on it here. US News & World Report. Somehow I missed this. I wasn't able to listen to the entire word-for-word speech, joint session of Congress. Apparently the pope echoed President Obama, something he said in a National Prayer Breakfast speech back in January almost word-for-word, that there are extremists in every religion. ... Okay, it's from the Washington Post: "The Pope Name-Dropped a Radical Catholic Activist, and Bernie Sanders Couldn’t Be Happier."

Blah, blah, blah. Okay. Oh. Okay, here we go. "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the lone Democratic presidential hopeful -- and the only Jewish contender -- in the House chamber for Pope Francis's speech. When he left, he was beaming, as the pope had cited an American Catholic whom Sanders had plenty of praise for. 'The name Dorothy Day has not been used in the United States Congress terribly often,' said Sanders in a short interview. 'She was a valiant fighter for workers, was very strong in her belief for social justice, and I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history. This would be one of the very, very few times that somebody as radical as Dorothy Day was mentioned.'"

Some are suggesting she needs to be canonized. Anyway, Bernie Sanders was just ecstatic over this. Apparently Dorothy Day "was a vital and controversial figure on the American left. She had a thick FBI file, compiled by agents tracking her support for democratic socialism and opposition to foreign wars. 'We need to change the system,' Day wrote in 1956. 'We need to overthrow, not the government, as the authorities are always accusing the Communists "of conspiring to teach [us] to do," but this rotten, decadent, putrid industrial capitalist system which breeds such suffering in the whited sepulcher of New York.'"

So he cites for praise a noted radical anti-capitalist. "And he's not Politico, Rush, you're just misjudging this. You shouldn't worry about the pope on that regard." Dorothy Day, as it turns out, "advocated the Catholic economic theory of distributism. In the 1930s, Day worked closely with fellow activist Peter Maurin to establish the Catholic Worker Movement, a pacifist movement that continues to combine direct aid for the poor and homeless with nonviolent direct action on their behalf. She co-founded a newspaper, the Catholic Worker, in 1931, and served as its editor from 1933 until her death in 1980."

They want to canonize this babe. They want to canonize her, and she's noted for her anti-capitalist statements, ripping apart the capitalist structure of the United States. And here comes Pope Francis mentioning her for praise in his speech today, and Bernie Sanders about had an orgasm in there, he was so excited about it. Okay. Don't hit me with any more pope stuff. I've had my limit of that, we've been there, we've done that, we've got the word out. It's up to people now whether they want to accept what the reality of this is or not.

Killer robot posted:

I saw an article a while back that pointed out how hybrids sold best when they were clearly and visibly hybrid-only models, rather than hybrid variants of models that also were available with conventional engines. Mostly nothing to do with performance, but a big part was conspicuous consumption: people that buy hybrids often want specifically to be seen driving a hybrid. Which I guess is fine: early adopters after status symbols bankroll a lot of technological advancements. But it always gets eyerolls from people who can't afford status symbols or don't want that particular one.

quote:

Sample posts, headlines, and tweets by Honey Badgers include: "You weren't raped. You're a whore. Join the club"

kik2dagroin posted:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/24/more_on_the_pope_s_speech_to_congress_what_he_said_and_what_he_meant
I sleep well at night knowing if there is a hell Limbaugh will totes be there

Doctor Butts posted:

I think its kind of odd how the complete lack of self-awareness when they clearly don't want someone like the Pope running government or someone who is Muslim to be president. Then why are you so concerned about putting God into politics? You know it could backfire.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Women of the men's rights movement (AKA Honey Badgers, or, at their most organized, the Honey Badger Brigade) don't do so much picketing in the streets as much as they post on Reddit (/r/MensRights), tweet (#DontMancriminate), upload podcasts (Honey Badger Radio), and generally raise hell. Sample posts, headlines, and tweets by Honey Badgers include: "You weren't raped. You're a whore. Join the club"; "Going Mental: She Might Be a Crazy Bitch If … Red Flags!"; "The #feminist draft is fully operational. If you have a vagina or mangina youre [sic] forced to obey. #WomenAgainstFeminism."

Night10194 posted:

I just liked honey badgers because I saw a documentary about one who was really smart and made games about escaping his increasingly elaborate enclosure. What the hell is wrong with these people?

I bet Rush believes that bullshit about the 'eye of the needle' being a gate in Jerusalem that was sort of hard to pass through but no big deal. As long as there have been rich followers of Christ, there's been a healthy trade in trying to find ways to weasel around the fact that Christ commanded charity to the poor.

Spite posted:

And he probably believes that when Jesus said "Give away all your worldly belongs and come with me" he was just joking. A 10 dinar donation is totally cool.

Dr. Killjoy posted:

Have to say, naming yourself after something cute and cuddly to detract from the fact that you are a human poo poo golem may take take off given these Honey Badgers and the Hugo's Sad Puppies.

FuzzySkinner posted:

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2015/09/obama-cj-pearson-twitter-blocked/

The kid loving lied. He stole the "Blocked' picture from like four other accounts in a game of telephone.

Also him bitching about obamacare is hilarious because he's under 26 and in no way, shape or form has to worry about shopping for healthcare for another decade plus.