|
BiggerBoat posted:EDIT: gently caress. I'm about to derail my own thread but my wife was applying for a job in the healthcare industry but abandoned persuing it with one company because "they don't 'accept Obamacare'" What does that mean? Isn't Obamacare just basically people having subsidized regular old health insurance through a private comany? It's not some separate thing it it? I Googled it but got nothing. Where I work in Calfiornia we didn't have a contract with any of the exchange plans initially, which means that we wouldn't accept those insurance plans for payment. One plan wanted to pay 8% under Medicare which was absolutely a no-go. I think eventually one or two had a contract with rates we'd agree to, or one agreed to a contract we already had with another rate plan of theirs; not sure since I don't work on that side of things. In any case it was in a sense true that for a time we didn't "accept Obamacare," but it wasn't because we were refusing to negotiate with exchange plans, instead it was because the exchange plans would not offer us an acceptable rate.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Hazo posted:Whoo boy. Did anyone else just catch that bit of rear end in a top hat interviewer and garbage piss human Sean Hannity? Honestly you'd have to be a goddamn idiot to agree to appear on Hannity or Levin as a liberal, it's extremely clear and obvious that they they have no intention of giving liberal callers fair talking time or really any talking time at all. I mean listen to this, who in their right mind would agree to an interview under these conditions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLfcROlrSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odeUwW-LhUM MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
yeah the economy doesn't 'feel' recovered for a lot of rush's middle aged and older audience because they as a group took a hit in the recession and most of them have had to take at best extended pay cuts and at worst lost work for a while and have taken other, inferior jobs at lower pay which is kind of funny given that this is exactly what a lot of right wing rhetoric leads to, increased competition and a lot of fifty year old folks who got comfortable in shrinking careers don't have the lifestyle they are used to now that their jobs have been shipped off or filled by younger people accepting lower pay. everyone says they're all in favor of the free market but when you're the one who can't compete...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Reflections85 posted:The unemployment rate in the US is actually really good. We are around 5% which is roughly what NAIRU is supposed to be anyway. I doubt the unemployment rate will actually matter, because the perception of unemployment seems much more important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Hazo posted:Should also note that whatever nasally-voiced hack was filling in for Rush while he's definitely not on vacation doing coke and underage prostitutes addressed this during my lunch break, saying the unemployment is low but it doesn't matter since what the right has decided is REALLY important is something else, I can't remember the wording but it was something like "not currently employed." Something about how it includes people who've given up looking because they're too lazy to put themselves through trade school to become welders. there are a bunch of different unemployment metrics. there's one for people who don't have jobs, one for people who don't have jobs and aren't currently looking for jobs, and one for people who have jobs but are working part time when they would rather be working full time. recently the right wing talking point has been to point at these higher alternative measures to demonstrate that real unemployment is much higher than the government wants to admit. they kind of have a point, but they're being dishonest about their motivations and solutions still all three measures described are, currently not great, but still pretty ok and showing signs of economic recovery. i suspect that it doesn't 'feel' right because most of those jobs are going to younger people as boomers are starting to get pushed out of the labor market
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Honestly you'd have to be a goddamn idiot to agree to appear on Hannity or Levin as a liberal, it's extremely clear and obvious that they they have no intention of giving liberal callers fair talking time or really any talking time at all. Which is why I don't understand why these people appear on their shows and don't just call them out on their pure bullshit and walk off. They're not going to give you the time to talk and already are making GBS threads on you on the air, might as well state your case and just leave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:If they really believed their talk they would be protesting fertility clinics and private OB/GYNs who perform them, but they're not. It's about as disingenuous a movement as there is right now I wish this had come up here sooner so I could have remembered to ask this one very Catholic relative about her stance on this over Thanksgiving (no, not at the dinner table, and not as some "gotcha".) She is really sweet, and has mostly very liberal views, but because of her views on abortion, Republicans often get her vote. She had a heavy period once and blessed the clot just in case it was a miscarriage. She doesn't protest outside PP, but she has participated in sit-ins where she and others from her church pray for the unborn. I wonder if she ever thought of organizing the same thing at an IVF clinic. Maybe she's just never thought about it before or is ignorant of what it takes to do IVF. Anyway, besides the obvious women and poor bashing, a lot of people are beguiled by the pro-life movement because of their immature understanding of what a soul is and if it really even exists, in combination with a poor understanding of biology too. Like what, there was this cloudier, ethereal, soul-version of me just hanging around with some sort of agency to be born? Protest posters that claim thanks for their mother's not aborting them should also be thankful that their dad ejaculated at exactly the right time, angle and velocity such that the very individual sperm and egg fused to create your wonderful self. It's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Anyway, besides the obvious women and poor bashing, a lot of people are beguiled by the pro-life movement because of their immature understanding of what a soul is and if it really even exists, in combination with a poor understanding of biology too. Like what, there was this cloudier, ethereal, soul-version of me just hanging around with some sort of agency to be born? Protest posters that claim thanks for their mother's not aborting them should also be thankful that their dad ejaculated at exactly the right time, angle and velocity such that the very individual sperm and egg fused to create your wonderful self. It's ridiculous. a significant part of anti-abortion activism is just that dead babies fundamentally get at people's emotions in an extreme way. it can be hard to think critically or detached about the issue given how hardwired humans are to protect and nuture babies. video game people freak out about gamergate and video game culture under threat, now imagine that outrage centered around something actually encoded in human emotions like the parent-child bond. it can be legitimately difficult for people to get past that step of 'this process murders a baby' because even if that's not rationally what happens it still has that emotional punch for people, even pro-choice activists acknowledge that getting an abortion done loving sucks if you have a functioning sense of empathy and guilt because on a human level it does feel like killing a child boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
The Onion posted a relevant and depressing article: "Frustrated Gunman Can’t Believe How Far He Has To Drive To Find Nearest Planned Parenthood Clinic"quote:"God, the nearest one isn’t even in this state. It’s actually faster for me to drive across the border to Santa Fe, and even then it’s still a four-hour trip. That barely leaves me enough time to buy ammo."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I'd suggest not worrying too much about Hannity. You may be the only person watching who cares that he's not an honest broker. He's running a show for people too dumb and angry for O'Reilly, too conscious for Beck and too lazy for Infowars. You're imagining someone inadvertantly becoming misinformed or maladjusted by him when its incredibly unlikely anyone is coming to him for any other reasons. He's allowed to exist as a gutter for all the freep types who declare other fox hosts RINO's but still need a pretty man in a tv studio to say something before its assumed true. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
I kind of realized how little Hannity actually matters when the night the Freddie Gray indictments were announced he had a "Baltimore police officer" doing an anonymous interview with hidden voice and face who declared that Gray was high on cocaine, attacked the cops, had a gun, and that the prosecutor was secret lesbian lovers with the mayor's aid or something. And then the next morning I expected to see articles and see news talking about the utterly insane accusations made on Hannity's show and it turns out no one gave a single poo poo what Hannity had to say. Like, if Bill O'Reilly had done that someone would have noticed and taken offense, even if we're just talking Maddow or Hayes or the Young Turks. But no one cared when Hannity did it. He still makes my blood boil when I catch a bit of him, though. But I change the channel and remind myself he's a joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
At risk of slight derail, I have question for those in the thread who are a lot more acquainted with the right wing than I am. When there is complaint about "the liberal media bias," what exactly is the target of their aim? Is it more for the news media or is it more at entertainment media? I know, in the purest possible terms, that there really can't be such a thing as the liberal media bias because most of the owners of large broadcast media are significantly more likely to be right-wing themselves. In Canada, it's an honest wonder where the so-called liberal media could even possibly be, because the majority of the media chains are either Conservative-owned or just not interested in politics at all. (There is only one major liberal-aligned newspaper.) Nonetheless, constant wincing about "the liberal media bias" continues despite, probably because it somehow feels true regardless. The hypothesis I'm wrangling is that political division might be more geographically based rather than ideologically based. Broadcast media is highly centralized -- in the United States, media only exists as an industry in only a few places: New York, DC, California, etc. The places which media operate may be in a different ideological paradigm relative to all the non-media places which the national media broadcast to regardless. In Canada, our media is centred in Toronto, and a lot of "conservative backlash" (western alienation) we've had comes from the prairie provinces which feel the national media is forcing them to identify with a city that is very distant and far away, which simply wouldn't match their own experience of life. I get the feeling there might be something to this than conjecture, but I have no real idea how to test this as a hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Morroque posted:When there is complaint about "the liberal media bias," what exactly is the target of their aim? Is it more for the news media or is it more at entertainment media? It's both. 'Liberal Media' can go back to the late 80's at least when cable news started up and reporters did their jobs regarding Iran-Contra. It applies to entertainment for having sex/violence/etc. and thus being responsible for bad things in society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Morroque posted:At risk of slight derail, I have question for those in the thread who are a lot more acquainted with the right wing than I am. When there is complaint about "the liberal media bias," what exactly is the target of their aim? Is it more for the news media or is it more at entertainment media? In my opinion, the first time the smear against media bias went national was during the McCain-Palin, 2008 election cycle. FOX and radio talking heads had always leveled the accusation of bias against anybody who wasn't them or FOX. Palin with her "lame stream media" and "real America" politics made it a mainstay of GOP politics. The smear basically applies to any media source that doesn't agree with the person leveling the accusation. Recently, when FOX went after Trump, the smear was even leveled at FOX. It's really not regional in the U.S., because it can be thrown out by any GOP or Tea Party politician that doesn't agree with the news source. The description of regional bias in news in Canada applies to the U.S. also. You can find small broadcasters throughout the midwest and the plains states that offer up their own local flavor of politics. edit: i also agree with McDowell above
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Liberal media = media that doesn't agree with me 100%, or does agree with me but not aggressively enough CNBC, for example, is liberal media by today's standards
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Liberal media = media that doesn't agree with me 100%, or does agree with me but not aggressively enough Yeah, its just "whoever's been telling you something different than what I told you is the evil lying liberal media." That's why the conservative media turns on each other so often and labels each other "liberal media." Because there's no actual set of guidelines or standards or principles. Its just them trying to assure their audience that if they hear something contradictory or upsetting from anyone other than them than its all bullshit. Just watch Fox News/listen to Rush/read Infowars. They'll tell you everything important and if anyone else has something different or conflicts its just lies. No need to examine the issue when we're hear to tell you exactly how it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
McDowell posted:It's both. I would say the term liberal media is any kind of journalism that seeks to inform or investigate, does not use conjecture as reporting, and challenges those that give information when suspicion is present. Essentially being a good journalist. Traditional journalism may be boring but it got the point across to the viewer. Fox News was big on substituting 'What the reporter thinks' for 'What actually happened' as journalism and it caught on unfortunately. The media of today has been watered down greatly from what my father would consider the heyday of real journalism during the Cronkite era. Not only do you have TV news agencies trying to compete with itself and radio, it has to compete with every single person that has an opinion who can self publish. This leads to a lot of sloppy journalism and supposition to keep viewers watching and ratings up without actually following through with any actual journalism unless you're say Fox who doesn't care if the news is reported just that your opinion is given air time. When RWN talks about liberal media bias they're talking about the actual news, not entertainment news. They'd probably complain about the increasing popularity of the Kardishans as the decadence of Western civilization when they're doing the same thing of enthusiast/entertainment press.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
"Liberal media" like most conservative boogiemen doesn't even need to exist in any form. They are in a constant need to be an oppressed underclass and since they aren't they imagine their enemies and perpetuate these fantasies until even people that don't agree with them believe they are real through sheer cultural pervasiveness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
It is infuriating that pretty much all media buys into the whole Lankford list of "wasteful spending." Which is always an out of context absurd description of science funding. The latest one is "the federal government is spending almost three million dollars on a weight loss program for truckers!!!" Of course, then you read the grant: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8836575&icde=25541060 And it turns out that not only truckers are more likely to be obese than the average population, but that those problems lead to issues like sleep apnea, which are related to auto accidents: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547666/ Meanwhile, as everyone falls over themselves to publish the Lankford list and act outraged, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine each get over 120 million dollars a year without having ever found a single effective treatment, due to the bipartisan support senator Harkin built.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It is infuriating that pretty much all media buys into the whole Lankford list of "wasteful spending." Which is always an out of context absurd description of science funding. The latest one is "the federal government is spending almost three million dollars on a weight loss program for truckers!!!" The only thing I really miss about pharmacy work (aside from a great boss) is having such a great opportunity to educate people away from snake oil. The reaction you'd get from explaining to someone how homeopathics are created was always great. Then if they still weren't sure just grab a bottle of homeopathic pain reliever and ask if it works, why does it recommend you take more if the headache is severe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, its just "whoever's been telling you something different than what I told you is the evil lying liberal media." That's why the conservative media turns on each other so often and labels each other "liberal media." Because there's no actual set of guidelines or standards or principles. Its just them trying to assure their audience that if they hear something contradictory or upsetting from anyone other than them than its all bullshit. Just watch Fox News/listen to Rush/read Infowars. They'll tell you everything important and if anyone else has something different or conflicts its just lies. No need to examine the issue when we're hear to tell you exactly how it is. If you talk derisively to your listeners about the "liberal media," you're unsubtly letting them know that you're not part of it, and you're both much to smart to be taken in by it. So they shouldn't make mistakes like going elsewhere to learn more or think critically. You're their friend, and you would never let them down, unlike those bad guys in the liberal media, whom you should never listen to or examine. Never mind that, as Morroque mentioned, most media is conservative because of their rich millionaire owners and incessant desire to appear "unfair" (i.e. give more time time to non-crazy opinions).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Liberal media = media that doesn't agree with me 100%, or does agree with me but not aggressively enough Pretty much. Right now there's a lot of Liberal Media who are covering up the fact that the Planned Parenthood shootings were actually just the result of a bank robber hiding out in a planned parenthood. A few unsubstantiated sources claimed this and every single media outlet either ignored this, or directly showed it was false, but that's just because they're Liberally Biased.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:a vegetarian who occassionaly ate a raw deer with his bare hands A Twilight vampire?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
radical meme posted:In my opinion, the first time the smear against media bias went national was during the McCain-Palin, 2008 election cycle. FOX and radio talking heads had always leveled the accusation of bias against anybody who wasn't them or FOX. Palin with her "lame stream media" and "real America" politics made it a mainstay of GOP politics. The smear basically applies to any media source that doesn't agree with the person leveling the accusation. Recently, when FOX went after Trump, the smear was even leveled at FOX. It's really not regional in the U.S., because it can be thrown out by any GOP or Tea Party politician that doesn't agree with the news source. 2008? Hah! That poo poo started with Nixon. It was a deliberate strategy to undermine people's confidence so that they wouldn't believe reporting about the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:2008? Hah! That poo poo started with Nixon. It was a deliberate strategy to undermine people's confidence so that they wouldn't believe reporting about the Republicans. There was a great part in Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail when he snuck into a astroturfed youth group that was supposed to storm the stage and chew out the liberal media after Nixon was nominated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Here's a good run-down, for those who wonder how the "liberal media" myth got started: http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/05/09/media-matters-by-jamison-foser/143449
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
2008 was just the year they stopped doing it in a remotely smart way. Note, this applies to nearly everything the GOP has ever done before 2008.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me where sites like the Drudge Report and Breitbart get their material? I assume they don't have reporters in the field like legitimate news organizations, and all their information is second-hand. Do they just pull poo poo out of their asses at this point making snap judgments via editorials as information leaks in from other sources like social media and FoxNews?
TheArmorOfContempt fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Can someone explain to me where sites like the Drudge Report and Breitbart get their material? I assume they don't have they don't have reporters in the field like legitimate news organizations, and all their information is second-hand. Do they just pull poo poo out of their asses at this point making snap judgments via editorials as information leaks in from other sources like social media and FoxNews? I think Drudge does have some legit reporting going on, and also a lot of politicians know he has a large readership so they use him to leak things from the fringe of the media circles. "Hey, Matt, I'm thinking about proposing blah, you can print it," and then watch how his readership reacts to see if it would go over well. Not sure about Breitbart, except I think he hosts scummy "ambush journalists" like James O'Keefe. Edit: To be clear, this is the impression I've gotten third-hand. I may be completely wrong about all of this. Jurgan fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Can someone explain to me where sites like the Drudge Report and Breitbart get their material? I assume they don't have they don't have reporters in the field like legitimate news organizations, and all their information is second-hand. Do they just pull poo poo out of their asses at this point making snap judgments via editorials as information leaks in from other sources like social media and FoxNews? Drudge has always been an aggregator as far as I know. Just a curated list of links to other sources that jive with his narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Can someone explain to me where sites like the Drudge Report and Breitbart get their material? Uroboros posted:they just pull poo poo out of their asses Or often some random lunatic blogger's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I took a moment to imagine how I'd feel if i truly believed that the country I lived in, the society i belonged to, literally butchered babies and sold their body parts for profit. If I really believed that. I don't think I'd be able to enjoy life. I don't think I'd be able to sit around and drink beer and watch Duck Dynasty after work and party down on the weekends, enjoy football games. I don't think I'd be able to set the horrifying reality aside until the subject randomly came up. i think i'd suffer from a constant sense of dread and horror, that the country i identify with, my country, butchered babies. These people don't act this way. They participate fully in the culture, they work, pay taxes, watch movies & TV shows (made by evil liberals), shop at Costco etc. They don't really believe it. I think they use it as a way to justify their hatred for certain groups of people. Conservatism isn't about principles anymore - it's a means through which bigots and fundamentalists can "legitimize" their extremism. So maybe this Dear guy is the one of the few "honest" conservatives out there. i think the rest are cowards who don't actually believe in the cause, much less walk the walk. The pp shooter apparently told his neighbors to get a metal roof so the GUBBMINT couldn't listen in on them. Another described him as "not very cognitive." He's no lone honest man. He's a delusional dumbass who too the conservative hype machine laterally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He's a delusional dumbass who too the conservative hype machine laterally. This typo is amazing and surprisingly still correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
He looks like he's making a farting sound with his mouth. Which is basically the equivalent of what he's saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Here's another example of "free speech" being trampled on campus, according to FIRE: http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/11/a-more-literal-trigger-warning/418077/ So apparently the student government voting against using their own funding to promote a gun give-away poker tournament is a grave violation of individual rights. Apparently, free speech and individual rights here would mean compelling the student government to give money to that tournament. Free speech rights also do not seem to apply to the student government (which, again, just vote against funding the event, which could still take place), and one wonders what makes some denials of funding newsworthy trampling of individual rights and which ones are just because it happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:Just ask Rush, the economy doesn't "feel" recovered, no matter what your numbers say To be honest, it really doesn't feel recovered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Here's another example of "free speech" being trampled on campus, according to FIRE: Now let's talk about right-to-work laws, and how no one should be forced to support a union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Star Man posted:To be honest, it really doesn't feel recovered. It might really depend on where you live? Here in Portland construction is going bananas and there's tons of new business coming in. The job market is a million times more robust than when I moved here in 2009. There's still a lot of problems but the economy sure feels a hell of a lot better around this area at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:It might really depend on where you live? Here in Portland construction is going bananas and there's tons of new business coming in. The job market is a million times more robust than when I moved here in 2009. There's still a lot of problems but the economy sure feels a hell of a lot better around this area at least. I live in Denver and the cost of living is getting more and more insane. Even though I rent a room in a house on the absolute fringe of the metro area, I'm lucky enough to have never had my rent go up. I work for the city as a golf course groundskeeper and it's the best job I've had in the two years I've lived here, but it still does not pay worth a poo poo. There's a tech boom in Denver, but even when I finish my undergrad next year, it's a humanities degree, so it's not like I have a fleeting chance here anyway. The irony is that I moved here from Wyoming because the only jobs that start anyone at a decent wage are oil and coal jobs, which I am in no way cut out for. Otherwise, all you can hope for is that you can make your way up at a Walmart or Safeway or luck out and land a job with the state. But as soon as I finish my undergrad, I actually want to go back to Wyoming or a place like it as long as I don't have to spend four digits to live in the top half of a closet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:35
|
|