|
MizPiz posted:How? Unless you mean "blame him for not helping rebuild the area", my brain seriously can't process how this is possible. 
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Part of me feels that the main source of a lot of my country's issues is that our journalism is the absolute worst trash on Earth. It's basically the most JJ Jameson-style pseudo tabloid trash coupled with activist partisan garbage (mostly on the right-wing side). I honestly feel like I can't trust a single word written or spoken by anyone in a major media outlet because I assume they are trying to get me to A) buy something B) vote for someone or C) get me addicted to an emotion. It's all unconscionable and I'm loving sick of it. Which country?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:One way I could see a political party shift is if the Chamber of Commerce types within the GOPe get sick of the bullshit they are getting in exchange for low taxes and start to defect. We're already seeing it now with companies having trouble getting qualified workers thanks to cuts in education and hostile social policies. All you need to do is read the weekly column by Jonathan Chait and you'll see that the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party is more than happy to absorb all of these people. Heck, they're already in favor of most of the same things, privatization, killing labor rights, etc, etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html If you were ever wondering about Huffpo editorial quality quote:Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled Louisiana in its headline The poll (I assume), in case anyone is as crazy as I am and needs to know quote:Q17 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Lol if you expect a spelling mistake to never get through editing. That happens to even the best places from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Janet Parshall and her husband weirdly admire John Adams and Abagail for some reason. They were definitely devout Christians. "Evangelical" is a term that is notoriously hard to define, and I'm not sure anyone in that time would identify themselves as such. However, I think the best argument that Adams would not fit in with today's evangelical crowd is: John Adams, in a treaty that was unanimously ratified posted:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:I loved how they blamed the recession on Obama when he took office. My favorite version of this is "rich people knew Obama world get elected and lost confidence, causing the recession". Obama is apparently the Roko's Basilisk of economics, reaching backward in time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
A banker in 1873 looks down at the line of depositors outside and throws aside his monocle. Curse you, Obama!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
I really, really want to believe that this is some form of confusion. Anything rather than see that such a sizable number of Republicans have become so deluded that the right wing media could blame President Obama for the Chicago fire and still fool them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I really, really want to believe that this is some form of confusion. Anything rather than see that such a sizable number of Republicans have become so deluded that the right wing media could blame President Obama for the Chicago fire and still fool them. Who is responsible for original sin? Eve - 30% Obama - 69% Don't Know - 1%
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Who is responsible for original sin? Who robs cave fish of their sight? Obama - 99% Don't Know/Declined to Respond - 1%
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I really, really want to believe that this is some form of confusion. Anything rather than see that such a sizable number of Republicans have become so deluded that the right wing media could blame President Obama for the Chicago fire and still fool them. I have to assume its a matter of people answering the question in bad faith. I think a sizable chunk of people will always just pick what they perceive to be be the most anti-Obama answer, even if it doesn't make sense, in an effort to "win" the poll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Why was that even an option on the poll? Just to see how many people would pick it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Why was that even an option on the poll? Just to see how many people would pick it? I used to work for a governmental stats agency, and polling like this would have dozens of questions. This is just probably the cherry picked ones. Edit: OH HAY! http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/fox-yakkers-blame-obama-slow-economic quote:MCDOWELL: And Suzy, she also left out something called the terror attack on on 9-11, making us vulnerable because the Clinton administration did not protect this country. Is that part of it, and what blame does President Obama deserve? Check this poo poo out, still loving that chicken I see Fox. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Why was that even an option on the poll? Just to see how many people would pick it? Most good pollsters will throw in nonsensical answers to try to gauge whether a set of responses is take from someone paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Who is responsible for original sin? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? The Stonercutters - 28% Obama - 67% Don't know - 5%
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:you do not know what you are talking about. obama is the most progressive president since bill clinton. You want to elaborate on that or just say "nuh uh" to someone who's old enough to actually remember Reagan and who cast their first vote for Dukakis in their first year of eligibility? There are a lot of parallels between Obama and Reagan. The biggest difference is that the Overton Window has moved so far to the right that if Reagan were running now, they'd call him a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You want to elaborate on that or just say "nuh uh" to someone who's old enough to actually remember Reagan and who cast their first vote for Dukakis in their first year of eligibility? There are a lot of parallels between Obama and Reagan. The biggest difference is that the Overton Window has moved so far to the right that if Reagan were running now, they'd call him a liberal. I think his presidency parallels Bush 1's more than Reagan's when we talk about foreign and economic policy (minus the much needed tax increases). His social policies are the most progressive since Clinton. Unfortunately every president since Carter has been center right or far right on foreign or economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Wait, "most progressive since Clinton" wasn't a meta-joke? Because, uh...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Wait, "most progressive since Clinton" wasn't a meta-joke? Didn't you get the memo? There were 8 years of chaos between Clinton and Obama. The nation had no president, no leadership, and gained a collective amnesia. All we can remember from those 8 years is the numbers "9/11" and that for some reason they compel us to reduce the middle east to a smoking crater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Reagan's policy towards refugees is only "liberal" in that Liberal Europe is copying him wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Also Reagan's policy on gay marriage, expanding healthcare, AIDS, police brutality, and drug-related offenses leave something to be desired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Wait, "most progressive since Clinton" wasn't a meta-joke? computer parts posted:Reagan's policy towards refugees is only "liberal" in that Liberal Europe is copying him wholesale. Weren't more refugees admitted into the USA under Reagan?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Weren't more refugees admitted into the USA under Reagan? The amnesty deal he did was specifically so he had the legal authority to deport refugees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Xanderkish posted:Also Reagan's policy on gay marriage, expanding healthcare, AIDS, police brutality, and drug-related offenses leave something to be desired. Even on the fiscal side he was only "liberal" in that he didn't get around to removing all social services since he only had eight years, and he was willing to add new taxes to pay for military buildup (as long as they were regressive enough). Which I guess means the only party that would have him today is the Democrats, but only because the Republicans have taken up crazytown purity tests since his day rather than because he'd be left of anyone prominent in the modern Democratic party (he wouldn't.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
I mean Obama isn't the second coming of FDR or anything but I don't know how you could describe as Reagan-esque at this point. I don't see Reagan expanding Medicaid, subsidizing healthcare plans, passing Dodd Frank, supporting gay rights, trying to pass new environmental regulations, pursuing detente with Cuba and Iran, etc etc. He's actually an okay president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Here's a New York Times article about Navy SEALs in the media. It touches on a lot of the recurring themes in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/01/472669895/heres-why-mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-is-so-controversial?sc=17&f=1001
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Party of small government and individual freedoms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:I mean Obama isn't the second coming of FDR or anything but I don't know how you could describe as Reagan-esque at this point. I don't see Reagan expanding Medicaid, subsidizing healthcare plans, passing Dodd Frank, supporting gay rights, trying to pass new environmental regulations, pursuing detente with Cuba and Iran, etc etc. He's actually an okay president. See, that's always what gets me when people describe Obama or Clinton as center-right figures or whatever else; it's like, have you payed attention to their voting records? I get that especially on foreign policy there are issues, but I swear to God sometimes people are totally willing to ignore their actual printed history in favor of some rhetorical heuristic. I was at some club event on my campus a few weeks ago, and this one woman (who described herself as "Socialist Libertarian" or "something-Libertarian" or whatever that was bafflingly contradictory) claimed that Hillary Clinton had done nothing for women. And I get there's a lot of things you can criticize Hillary Clinton on, but how the hell can you criticize Hillary, "Rated 100% by NARAL Pro-Choice America and 96% by NAACP" Clinton as being anti-women?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
"Social-libertarian" or "left-libertarian" or anything like that just means "anarchist". "Anarchist" and "libertarian" have traditionally had the same meaning; the use of the term to describe a right-wing ideology is a relatively recent development (or so I understand).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:"Social-libertarian" or "left-libertarian" or anything like that just means "anarchist". "Anarchist" and "libertarian" have traditionally had the same meaning; the use of the term to describe a right-wing ideology is a relatively recent development (or so I understand). Anarchocapitalists or proprietarians, such as the Kochs, have been around for years - one of them ran for President as a Libertarian in 1980. It is only in the past decade or so that they have completely dominated the brand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Kanine posted:http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/01/472669895/heres-why-mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-is-so-controversial?sc=17&f=1001 I know it's been said countless times, but there really is nothing more infuriating than news stories that contain the "Supporters say [blatant lies and bullshit], while opponents say [objectively true statements backed up by actual research]" or vice versa with no analysis. Calling out politicians for lying is kind of what news media are supposed to do. And yes, I know it's NPR, who are notoriously afraid of stepping on Republican toes for fear of losing funding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:"Social-libertarian" or "left-libertarian" or anything like that just means "anarchist". "Anarchist" and "libertarian" have traditionally had the same meaning; the use of the term to describe a right-wing ideology is a relatively recent development (or so I understand). To pretend that anarchism has ever been exclusively left wing is foolish. To pretend that anarchism has been a good idea, even more foolish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:you do not know what you are talking about. obama is the most progressive president since bill clinton. It is amazing how willing people are on SA to ignore Clinton's three strikes laws and other crime laws, and deregulation and free trade implementations- because they're white collar whites...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:I mean Obama isn't the second coming of FDR or anything but I don't know how you could describe as Reagan-esque at this point. I don't see Reagan expanding Medicaid, subsidizing healthcare plans, passing Dodd Frank, supporting gay rights, trying to pass new environmental regulations, pursuing detente with Cuba and Iran, etc etc. He's actually an okay president. I would argue that it's not a fair comparison given the differences in the times they served, particularly a twenty-four hour media and a Congress that hates him on a fundamental level. I doubt FDR could have done much better than Obama today. I think LBJ might be a better comparison, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:It is amazing how willing people are on SA to ignore Clinton's three strikes laws and other crime laws, and deregulation and free trade implementations- because they're white collar whites... Poor black people at the time were very supportive of those laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:It is amazing how willing people are on SA to ignore Clinton's three strikes laws and other crime laws, and deregulation and free trade implementations- because they're white collar whites... I'm not entirely sure there's a coherent "left" position on free trade, other than maybe the foreign policy element of "don't coerce developing countries into dropping all protectionist measures". ...Which I guess given reciprocity on all that, is more coherent than it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:To pretend that anarchism has ever been exclusively left wing is foolish. To pretend that anarchism has been a good idea, even more foolish. Is this like a finish-the-quote game? Fishmech, probably posted:To pretend that anyone else is ever as smart and good as me is the greatest foolishness of all
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Mister Macys posted:It is amazing how willing people are on SA to ignore Clinton's three strikes laws and other crime laws, and deregulation and free trade implementations- because they're white collar whites... He was a democrat. Same reason people love DWS. Wait she doesn't like marijuana legalization so she is a bad guy right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 18:13
|
|