Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

astrollinthepork posted:

What was Rush like during the Bush years?

The same, only he went after Bush critics instead of Obama. He said the usual sexist/racist things. His low point was probably when he called troops who were critical of the Iraq invasion "phony troops". When he got called out he cowered and claimed he only meant one specific soldier who spoke out.

There's a video of him losing his poo poo on his radio show the day after the '08 election. If you can find it, watch it because it's beautiful.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

MisterBadIdea posted:

I could not stand Olbermann, though, not even from the very beginning, with his "Mr. President, this war is not about your golf game" special comment. President Bush giving up golf while people were dying in Iraq demonstrated an understanding of diplomacy and messaging and I wish Bush had capable of that sensitivity more often -- I thought it was a bullshit criticism from Olbermann, the first of many.

Didn't Bush start golfing again like a few months later? So much for that brave stance.

Yeah Olbermann was a bit of a blowhard but he was literally the first mainstream commentator who had the guts to say anything critical of Bush post-Iraq. Before that no one in the mainstream press would have dared do such a thing. He broke the ice and made it easier for others to be hired who actually asked hard questions about Bush's horrible policies and for that alone he should be respected.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Glitterbomber posted:

Yea Olbermann's a great example of how a total piece of poo poo can sometimes wind up doing good things by accident.

So his decision to criticize Bush when nobody else had the guts to and his lobbying efforts to get Maddow hired were accidents. All righty then.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Myrdhale posted:

I can't believe it's Geraldo of all people that's standing up for Obama.

Actually back in the 70's (well before he joined FOX news and had the talk show) Rivera was a lefty journalist, a counter-culture, hippy-sympathizing TV personality. Maybe his long-buried liberal conscience has been getting to him lately.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

swampland posted:

Glen Beck is either scum who doesn't believe that poo poo or scum who really does and knows how abhorrent it makes him seem and knows that tip toeing around it is necessary. That "I'm just wondering..." bullshit makes me madder than explicit racism because for some reason people accept it as serious discourse instead of writing it off as the racist poo poo it actually is. If you have a polarizing position either state it and bear the consequences or gently caress off.

He lives in a world where the most biased description of him you'll find in the mainstream media is "conservative commentator". There is absolutely no pressure on him to explain himself, other than liberal bloggers, and that single extremely weak Catie Couric interview.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

llama_arse posted:

Some clown put on :foxnews: while I was in the gym today. I was wearing headphones so I couldn't hear the audio, which made what I saw a bit surreal. On Cavuto, he showed Obama at a press conference with a quote from the president in text below saying "the middle class can't afford a tax hike right now." Then they interviewed two small business owners, with the text below saying "middle class Americans respond to President's tax hike plan" or something. How completely sucked into the hivemind does one have to be to not see such a bald-faced lie?

It's all part of the "millionaires = small businesses" narrative the right has been trying to push for, like, forever.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Kneel Before Zog posted:

Maybe they just fool the progressives they are liberal during the evening hours when people get off work and try to keep the ratings higher during the slow hours by catering to conservative households.
My guess is there are conservative GE shareholders who agreed to let MSNBC hire progressive hosts ONLY if a conservative block were put on in the morning.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Blastedhellscape posted:

Remember that on election night Chris Mathews said that the hurricane was a great thing because it made Obama look good. That's the mentality,

That's a comical broadbrush you're using there. It was late, Matthews was punchy, he made a very emotional apology the next day, and (as far as I know) no other MSNBC host has ever expressed that kind of sentiment.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Conservatives operate within a self-created bubble where denial is their only means of coping in the face of an actual reality that doesn't mesh with their own. This is why they're losing elections. They're so caught up in their own ideological wants that they're blind to the wants of their constituents. And by refusing to confront them with their own deluded bullshit, the mainstream press keeps the dysfunction alive with their "fair and balanced" obsession which dictates that both sides are, by default, equally extreme/hypocritical/dishonest, which in turn validates the Republicans' worldview and keeps the sick cycle alive.

Rupert Murdock is now positioning to buy out the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, and the FCC is going to let him:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13051-obamas-fcc-set-to-give-rupert-murdoch-a-media-monopoly

Nice, huh?

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Also, Murdoch has a more effective lobbying operation than AT&T did. I mean, this is Obama's FCC.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

lil mortimer posted:

I don't get what's so bad about Morning Joe. It doesn't seem particularly in-your-face about the fact Joe Scarborough was once a Republican politician. The show has a really moderate tone, in all honesty.
It's not as bad as FOX but it's full of that insufferable, smug, contemptuous beltway centrist attitude that is the whole problem with the newsmedia as a whole. Every now and then he'll be critical of Republicans, but only when they say or do something extreme or crazy - aside from that he pretty much falls in line with the GOP talking points of the day.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

SedanChair posted:

It's interesting that you mention the Dixie Chicks because their controversial statement was before the War in Iraq and they were universally condemned and became a synonym for "traitor." Olbermann never caught that kind of flak because by the time he was doing it, Bush-bashing was a popular sport.

I'm curious what other TV hosts were "Bush-bashing" (being critical of Bush) at that time. I don't recall a single one, maybe you can refresh my memory?

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Patter Song posted:

The thing is, the two of you are talking about different time periods. You're absolutely right that Olbermann was pretty much alone in regularly speaking against the Iraq War in 2003, but he's totally right that by 2007 Bush was universally reviled and a bunch of people jumped on the "Bush sucks" bandwagon to boost ratings.

But if Olbermann was doing it well before 2007 he wasn't "jumping on the bandwagon" by 2007. He broke the ice (circa 2005) as far as criticizing Bush and the conservative media complex, making it possible for other progressive voices to be heard on cable.

When people go out of their way to try and characterize Olbermann as a left wing version of Limbaugh or O'Reilly it's a red flag. Yeah he's a bit pompous but he's not equivalent to anyone on the far right.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001


They are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/politics/17radio.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

KomradeX posted:

Everything just seemed so bleak back then. I remember really coming of political age during those years and especially after the shadiness behind the 2004 election it was real easy to believe that Republican party victory forever poo poo they were spewing.

I can clearly remember the post-9/11 era when 98% of the public was blindly devoted to Bush as he started making noises about invading Iraq. When he forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq without letting them do their job (determining whether there were WMD) and the admin was like "we can't wait for the inspectors because MUSHROOM CLOUD!" it was the most obvious huge, gigantic red flag ever that we were being completely bamboozled, and literally no one in the mainstream media questioned it. It really was a dark period.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001


Maybe I'm missing something, but are they agreeing, seriously agreeing, that taxes should be raised only on rich liberals? And like, how would that work?

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

I seriously think she has a psychological problem that makes her unable to discern how far is too far when making a joke. I think a lot of conservatives have this problem. There is no dividing line between their sense of humor and their bigotry. It all just kind of runs together.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Sure she comes from a vile place, but she has to function in the real world, so she justifies it by fancying herself a "right wing Mark Twain" or whatever.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Sydney Bottocks posted:

Did Coulter ever compare herself to Twain?
I just used that as an example. When you watch her speak you can see she's very amused by herself and gets a kick out of being outrageous. She seems to see herself as a political humorist with a strong point of view, in the vein of Twain, Maher, Carlin etc (that's how she comes across to me, anyway). She sees herself that way, but in actuality she's more of a bigot trying to make her terrible ideas more appealing through "edgy" humor.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

They don't like it because Tarantino is a white man that can say n* and "get away with it".

Well, it's either that or Drudge is genuinely offended by racism :newlol: .

It's not just white people. They hate that black people can say it too. It's not fair!

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Zeroisanumber posted:

Supposedly they say it a lot in "Django Unchained", as if that means a loving thing.

It means that liberal Hollywood types are the "real" racists.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

So is Steven Crowder supposed to be a "wackier" James O'Keefe or something?

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001


The guy is just on autopilot.

Lord forgive him, for he knows not what the gently caress he's blathering about.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

He's probably trying to say the godless public school system creates murderous monsters.

If only we had more deeply religious people in our society, with more guns to keep them protected.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Apparently conservatives envy Israeli citizens living in constant fear of terroristic violence. I guess because it keeps them "sharp" and always prepared. If only Americans were that tightly wound and ready to shoot, it would be so much safer.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

So we've seen the rate at which Republicans have descended into craziness over the last few years. What's it going to be like in another 4-6 years? Are they going to become even more extreme, or will they hit a wall of some sort?

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

based gaddis posted:

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2364503&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post


I was feeling more or less desensitized to people taking horrifying political stances on the shooting but, uh, yeah

You know, he could have just said "an armed guard". I guess he felt the public needed to be reminded what an angel George Zimmerman is.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

GWBBQ posted:

I was flipping through channels and stopped to listen to Bill O'Reilly talking about a US Marine being held in a Mexican prison on gun charges even though the gun was legal and that officials are trying to extort his family. I know that law enforcement in some parts of Mexico are corrupt to the point that not having enough to bribe the officer is an arrestable offense, but trying to find more info on it, everything that comes up in search results is Fox News, Fox Nation, Breitbart, Heritage Foundation, etc. This seems like the best general topic D&D thread to post about it in, I'm wondering if anyone has been following the story and knows more than I do can fill me in.

Here's a non-rightwing source:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/11/3720826/lawmakers-assail-mexico-obama.html

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Kiwi Bigtree posted:

I genuinely wonder if there is an end point to the counter-narratives that come out of these situations.

Like, if a gunman using legally purchased and modified weaponry opened fire in a traditionally conservative area with men between 25-35 who have a history of high school sports and are all currently carrying concealed firearms, what would they blame it on then?

If only they had been legally allowed to carry fully automatic machine guns or better yet, rocket launchers.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Rencall posted:

I've been out of the US for a long time, and everywhere else in the world (at least Thailand and West Europe) people think of the Democrats as "Yeah, real America! Hollywood! Cowboys! Obama!" and Republicans as sleazebags and there isn't really much debate about this. I just don't know why these same sentiments are missing in the states.
I think Dems and many in the beltway continue to buy into the idea that "both sides can work together" because well, gosh darn it, that's the way it should be.

People in DC just haven't faced up to the fact that the GOP has been taken over by crazies and there's no bargaining with them. It's still assumed they can be reasoned with. As long as that possibility exists, the thinking goes, we shouldn't go overboard and write them off, because that would be too aggressive, too uncivil.

Too many of the people running things are operating on outdated assumptions and are avoiding the reality of current politics.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Iron Crowned posted:

Oh, I really need to wander into D&D more often.

It seems as though a good 90% of the people I work with listen to and believe all the right wing media. All day long I get to listen to them talk about whatever talking points were on FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, and Alex Jones. The scary thing is they all believe it.

On Tuesday they all decided that they had to go buy guns before Obama could talk them away. Come Wednesday they were all talking about the guns they bought (or at least applied for thanks to the waiting period), all handguns, you know nothing that would be banned under an assault weapons ban. Yesterday they decided that they needed to go to the gun store for lunch.

I also had someone attempt to goad me into commenting on the state of the modern government by talking about how the Mayans fell because taxes were too high. Same guy was talking rather excitedly about how thanks to the Planned Parenthood abortion factory, that the percentage of black people in the US would be down to the single digit (prefaced by "I'm not a racist, but...)

This is all a giant change for me. The guy I used to work with was a registered Republican. Last time I talked to him was about two weeks before the election and even he had enough sense to know that Romney was a lovely candidate that he wouldn't be voting for. We used to listen to Coast 2 Coast together and laugh about the craziness of Alex Jones (after one Alex Jones rant about "Black Ops Physics" we picked that phrase up as our dogwhistle that someone was nuts, same with "puppy dogs, rainbows, and unicorns" when one was being a giant hippie).

Back to the current situation, there used to be a guy who was pretty reasonable, but he got a new job and was out of there with minimal words, and I can't say as I can blame him. They would literally gang up on him all day long about being a liberal. As for me, I can't quit until after I've been there a year, so I just keep my head down and stay out of it. We're supposed to get a new building in February, so I'm hoping I can just sit in a corner somewhere away from them.

I've heard endless stories like this about people having to work next to crazy nutfuckers all day. Yet only the right has permission to bitch about being shunned and persecuted by society. Go figure.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Peggy Noonan posted:

What everyone forgets about the case of Robert Bork in his confirmation hearings is that regular people watched him, listened to the workings of his fabulous and exotic mind, saw the intensity, the hunger for intellectual engagement, caught the whiff of brandy and cigars and angels dancing, noticed the unusual hair, the ambivalent whiskers, and thought, "Who's this weirdo?"
So was that in defense or criticism of him? Because it's Noonan I can't tell.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

boom boom boom posted:

Oh god, I want Piers Morgan off the air, but not like this.

I just watched a cool interview he did with Willie Nelson where they discussed pot and Morgan seemed completely cool about it. He is a bit smug but he seems to be a pretty decent human being. There's a Morgan hate-dogpile thread in GBS and I have to say the celebrities being posted who are trashing him are bigger douchebags than Morgan will ever be (Jeremy Clarkson, Adam Corolla). That plus the rightwing idiots hating on him gives me a newfound sympathy for the guy.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Yes we really should give gun industry shills who accuse gun control advocates of polticizing tragedy while blaming the killings on video games and unarmed teachers a fair and honest break.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

I think it was OK in a public relations sense to shout the guy down. Most people watching had the same emotions Morgan did, and I doubt anyone who was left sitting on the fence about the issue was more outraged by Morgan shouting him down than the guy spouting offensive bullshit.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Republicans posted:

In situations like that I think it's better to pretend you're giving him the benefit of the doubt and politely inform him about the racial implications of his choice of lawn decoration as if he really was innocently ignorant of it. They want to you to call them racist so I say don't give them what they want.

But they want you to call them racist so they can turn it around on you, so that next time you'll be afraid of calling them racist. You're playing right into their hands.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Judging by the number of boner pill and catheter ads I see on MSNBC every day, they seem to be going after the older demographic.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

I love how his little sychophant sidekicks giggle nervously at nearly everything he says. It kinda completes the whole picture.

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Spacedad posted:

Naturally they're using the word "right" incorrectly on purpose in that instance. It's, as GOP themselves put it, 'marketing.'

Who fights for worker's rights? Unions.

Who do the so-called 'right to work' laws hurt? Unions. (And workers.)

It should be called "Stripping away workers rights" but then there's that lovely 'marketing' the GOP loves so much of course...

I've always been amazed they were able to get away with calling it that because it's so nonsensical and comically misleading. But then again they started calling it the "Democrat" party (as opposed to "Democratic") a few years ago, and even though many tried to point out that it was a disparaging term, today I hear Democrats calling it the "Democrat party".

Sometimes I just wanna give up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

beatlegs
Mar 11, 2001

Kiwi Bigtree posted:

What is it with all these old metalheads going hard right in old age?

Look at their fan base. Without them they'd be nothing.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply