|
I think the best part of that missive is how it defends Romney and claims he ran an excellent campaign. Never mind that Romney routinely explored the Uncanny Valley (when he wasn't telling a bunch of rich folks that 47% of the country could just go gently caress themselves). And let's just gloss over the numerous campaign mistakes that were revealed not only after the election, but in some cases before Election Night. Little stuff, like outsourcing everything from polling to IT operations to people who would say whatever Romney and his people wanted to hear, in order to keep them fat money checks coming. Or how the campaign was grossly inefficient in managing money in general, except at the end when they cut those credit cards off like that and tried to have news companies foot the bill for big-money dinners that their reporters didn't even get to eat. You know, minor stuff like that. Nobody with half an ounce of sense thought Romney ran anything even remotely resembling a good campaign, and if the man wanted to run the country with the same level of efficiency... 
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
This feels a little awkward to ask considering this thread was started by none other thane Vilerat, but what the hell is the right's obsession with Benghazi? What do they think the incident proves?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:This feels a little awkward to ask considering this thread was started by none other thane Vilerat, but what the hell is the right's obsession with Benghazi? What do they think the incident proves? They're obsessed with anything they think they can "pin on" Obama, because unlike say, Bill Clinton, Obama has remained stubbornly scandal-free throughout his presidency. Since he has no personal failings (that we can see) they can latch onto, they like to take anything they can make into a superficially believable conspiracy theory and spin it into orbit. Unfortunately for them, none of their manufactured controversies ever seems to stick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:This feels a little awkward to ask considering this thread was started by none other thane Vilerat, but what the hell is the right's obsession with Benghazi? What do they think the incident proves? To add to what's already been said, it's allowed republicans to release their repressed rage at the fact that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated under Obama's orders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:To add to what's already been said, it's allowed republicans to release their repressed rage at the fact that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated under Obama's orders. HUSSEIN Obama didn't kill Osama, the SEALs did...GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Another message from my Uncle:quote:"So AL Gore founded and created Direct TV...this is a cable channel that he tried to startup in order to compete with the linkes of FoxNews, CNN, ect. Well Direct TV was up for sale. First off Glenn Beck wanted to bid on it and Al Gore said that Glenn Beck didn't share the same views and values of Direct TV so they weren't going to sell to him. Instead who did they sell too? (it's actually Current TV  )Is Al Jazeera really considered to be a poor news source by American conservatives? If I remember correctly, they've won a shitton of awards for openness and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:The most hilarious "source" I hear for this is 1984, which many people believe is a piece of anti-leftist, conservative literature. George loving Orwell posted:The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
PBJ posted:Another message from my Uncle: Al Jazeera=Scary sounding Arabic name, plus the network is run by real Arabs (and therefore probable terrorists). Most conservatives I know don't know anything about the channel besides this. Also, AJ tends to not kiss Israel's rear end as much as other international cable news channels, which makes them a threat and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
Conservatives conflate socialism with stalinist totalitarianism (Which Orwell was not a fan of). They assume all socialist policies will eventually turn into a communist dictator state so we need to cut it off at the pass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
I never thought I'd see one of these as I'm in the UK and as far as I know all my friends are pretty sane. Then I got this on facebook. Planning to reply asking if the Australian PM's an Aborigine as she doesn't look like she's one. Any better suggestions? Some guy I know on facebook posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Who the gently caress speaks Spanish in Australia? Are there even Hispanics located in that general region of planet Earth? Also, "The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
PBJ posted:Who the gently caress speaks Spanish in Australia? Are there even Hispanics located in that general region of planet Earth? Interestingly, Spanish was the official language of the Phillipines for hundreds of years (never underestimate European colonialism!). But it's dwindled into complete disuse in the past century on favor or English (never underestimate
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
Mr Darcy posted:I never thought I'd see one of these as I'm in the UK and as far as I know all my friends are pretty sane. Well it didn't happen so you can start with that http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Al Jazeera=Scary sounding Arabic name, plus the network is run by real Arabs (and therefore probable terrorists). Most conservatives I know don't know anything about the channel besides this. Also, AJ tends to not kiss Israel's rear end as much as other international cable news channels, which makes them a threat and stuff. The main thing is that people think AJ showed videos of beheadings. They didn't, but some websites that did were misattributed as to having Al Jazeera as a source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:I recall there were similar theories about the passengers on the 9/11 planes. But there are people out there who need to believe that poo poo. They need to believe the government is out to get them and destroy the world. I guess that need can be more powerful that the reality of grieving families. I was watching a TV special once about debunking 9/11 conspiracies and when they were talking about the "fake cell calls" theory one of the commentators got visibly pissed off about how callous the conspiracy theorists were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Starting to see this going around... http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515 quote:Senator Dianne Feinstein, You don't have a right to know what guns I own. Here's me with a picture of said guns. .Edward Penischin fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
We talked about this in the Freep thread once, and this was my favorite quote: quote:Glad you know the book. 1984 is a conservative classic, in my view. Orwell did more for conservatism through truth telling than most of us can dream of. As for Barry, I agree. He is too Big Brother-y for me too. ProperGanderPusher posted:Al Jazeera=Scary sounding Arabic name, plus the network is run by real Arabs (and therefore probable terrorists). Most conservatives I know don't know anything about the channel besides this. Also, AJ tends to not kiss Israel's rear end as much as other international cable news channels, which makes them a threat and stuff. The right wingers I know that hate it simply think that either Al Jazeera is run by Al Qaeda or is just friendly to them. Some have rather more intricate conspiracy theories but the lowest effort people simply think it's a terrorist front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
.Edward Penischin posted:Starting to see this going around... I got this with a different photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
.Edward Penischin posted:Starting to see this going around... A) Has Dianne Feinstein said any of those things? B) Remember when the government took everyones land and cars? Me neither.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:B) Remember when the government took everyones land and cars? That is not technically true 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Mr Darcy posted:I never thought I'd see one of these as I'm in the UK and as far as I know all my friends are pretty sane. Interesting. I mean, this is obviously stdh.txt, but there's a viral video going around of her telling off an MP for being a misogynist. If she is as open to criticize the system, why can't others who are victims are institutional prejudice? (Hint: It is because she is white). Article and vidja link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australian-women
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
.Edward Penischin posted:Starting to see this going around... Dear government official, I refuse to follow the law also here's a bunch of guns aimed at you, for I am a hero.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
.Edward Penischin posted:Starting to see this going around... Can I just add I have never wanted to punch someone so hard in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
 Arm all teachers with hammers I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
 Stupid liberal children! Don't you know men are dying for your right to complain?  Is this going to be an new trend, with people saying "When in Rome"?  Well you can start the one on the right rapidly and it has a longer reach, meaning it can do a lot more fire lighting. The one on the left is still easily concealable. But it's a retarded point regardless.  I'm not understanding this one. The bush tax cuts were extended for incomes up to $450,000, meaning the "job creator" classes. But all incomes above that are seeing tax increases, which I assume includes "Hollywood liberals". Should lovely political screed images like these go in the pictures thread? I've got a pretty steady source of lovely opinions from Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Wang_Tang posted:
I think it's a reference to some tax deductions that are used by movie studios that were going to expire but got extended, they weren't deductions on actors' income; but I'm guessing that's where it's coming from. And I think it's fine to post those here, emails aren't as common anymore, so this has sort of become a catch-all thread for anything that people forward around, whether email or Facebook or whatever. P.S. - Yes, this means that they were tax breaks for literal job creators. But Hollywood Jobs aren't real jobs because Alec Baldwin disagrees with my political views!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Deuce posted:I got this with a different photo. The original CNN link had 6 pics to choose from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:
"Obama's eviction notice"? Isn't that just the 22nd Amendment?  Without getting into gun politics, can you use a gun for anything other than shooting live things? I mean, isn't "don't point it at something you aren't prepared to kill" like, Rule Zero of Gun Safety?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I mean, isn't "don't point it at something you aren't prepared to kill" like, Rule Zero of Gun Safety? Don't infringe on my freedoms with your rules. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:That is not technically true Fair. But you know, oppressed minorities ect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
TinTower posted:"Obama's eviction notice"? Isn't that just the 22nd Amendment? Yeah, actually. Target shooting, signalling, line launching, non-lethal animal control/capture, construction - anything that requires you to drive a projectile in a given arc can be done with a firearm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
TinTower posted:"Obama's eviction notice"? Isn't that just the 22nd Amendment? Some people just like to shoot at gun ranges. But yeah, the difference is a hammer is a tool designed for a purpose which can also be used to kill; guns are a tool designed for killing which can also be used for sport (which often involves killing or practicing killing). Also, I strongly suspect more than 450 people were murdered with guns in 2011. edit: Reread the image - it specifically says "killed by rifles", which I can believe since I doubt they're used often. I suspect handguns and maybe shotguns are used for murder a lot more often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Some people just like to shoot at gun ranges. But yeah, the difference is a hammer is a tool designed for a purpose which can also be used to kill; guns are a tool designed for killing which can also be used for sport (which often involves killing or practicing killing). It was requested to not delve into the politics. Your biased tone isn't helping. A tool is a tool. Sarion posted:Also, I strongly suspect more than 450 people were murdered with guns in 2011. Revelant data table, it scrolls right. Find more at this source. It took me two minutes to find this table. You have no excuse, besides your previously demonstrated habit of thinking sloppily, when it comes to disproving a number with information so readily available. If you're too lazy to click the link, in 2011 shotguns and rifles were used in only 679 homicides, out of a total of 12,664. Hands, fists and feet were used in 726. Handguns were used in 6,220. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It was requested to not delve into the politics. Your biased tone isn't helping. A tool is a tool. Interesting stats from your link: Total firearm, felony murders: 1271 Total nonfelony firearm murders: 3684. 1948 of those are from arguments. We get all these people screaming that we need guns to protect ourselves from "bad guys with guns", but were more likely to be killed in an argument then in a robbery or burglary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
.Edward Penischin posted:Interesting stats from your link: I think it's fair to say that people will still kill each other without guns, but guns make it much, much easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Edit: Apparently I can't read. Please disregard this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It was requested to not delve into the politics. Your biased tone isn't helping. A tool is a tool. A tool is a tool, a weapon is a weapon. The distinction does, in fact, matter. And, as I said in my edit, that number seemed low at first because my initial reading of it was that it was suggesting that guns had only killed 400ish people which is absurd. But on subsequent rereading, I noticed that the specifically used "rifle", which seemed reasonable because I suspected that other classifications of guns were more commonly used. And your link confirms that suspicion; so, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yeah, actually. Target shooting, signalling, line launching, non-lethal animal control/capture, construction - anything that requires you to drive a projectile in a given arc can be done with a firearm. This horseshit again. When we discuss "guns" we are not referring to flare guns, nail guns, dart guns, BB guns, etc. We're talking about firearms that shoot bullets. Please stop this semantic nonsense every time someone says that a gun's main use is to fire bullets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Sarion posted:A tool is a tool, a weapon is a weapon. The distinction does, in fact, matter. A weapon is a tool, but not all tools are weapons. A weapon comes by its usage - a hammer is a tool until it gets used by someone to bash in a skull, at which point it is a weapon. Hence, murder 'weapon' and not the 'murder tool'. A firearm is a tool, until it is used to hurt something, at which point it is a weapon. My hunting rifle is a weapon, as I use it to hurt deer. My target pistol is a tool, I use it to punch holes in paper at a distance. Sarion posted:And, as I said in my edit, that number seemed low at first because my initial reading of it was that it was suggesting that guns had only killed 400ish people which is absurd. But on subsequent rereading, I noticed that the specifically used "rifle", which seemed reasonable because I suspected that other classifications of guns were more commonly used. And your link confirms that suspicion; so, thank you. I was really grousing because the statistics are so readily available and nobody seems to link to them ever. I do a lot of data analysis in my work so numbers always make me feel better. Between the FBI and the CDC you can get great numbers on all sorts of social issues. WampaLord posted:This horseshit again. When we discuss "guns" we are not referring to flare guns, nail guns, dart guns, BB guns, etc. We're talking about firearms that shoot bullets. Please stop this semantic nonsense every time someone says that a gun's main use is to fire bullets. I'll stop when others stop saying stupid bullshit like 'all guns are ever designed, made, and used for is murder!' In a world where Olympic grade target pistols exist, this is horseshit. In a country with 300+ million firearms in it and only 12K+ firearm homicides, this is horseshit. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Hey - can we stop the gun conversation? There was an entire thread for it... most of us have already gone in these circles over and over. That thread was closed for a reason. You're not going to solve it here or illuminate some corner of the debate people haven't already seen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 20:10
|
|
