Sanders is much further out of the Democratic Party than Paul is the Republican Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Printable View
Sanders is much further out of the Democratic Party than Paul is the Republican Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Hmm, I'm not sure of that. They both aren't exactly typical politicians of their parties.
How so? What does Sanders stand for that the establishment Democrat party not pine for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I think it's more that Sanders can get away with his liberal views in Vermont.. but it doesn't play all that well in other parts of America.
Much like the Republican Party has degrees, so does the Democratic Party. Most Republicans have a difficult time seeing that since they think that even the slightest bit of left is the MOST EXTREME LEFT EVAR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Sanders stands well outside of the Democratic establishment on campaign finance, financial regulation, nationalization of industries, the military/war, education, and even healthcare (in spite of his defense of Obama's attempt).
Not really. One thing we constantly hear is that Obamacare is just the first step.. but that the goal is a single payer system that Sanders has supported from the beginning. Sanders is saying what most Democrats wish for, but can't get re-elected by saying they are for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
With actual effort the goal could've been acquired. It wasn't. That's only one of the list though, and I don't exactly look to you for objectivity on Democrats. I've mostly heard "just the first step" from Republicans declaring that the healthcare plan is the end of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
What I want to do is to make sure that we fully repeal Obamacare. This will be one of the largest spending initiatives we will ever see in our country. And also, it will take away choice from the American people. - Michele Bachmann
At this point I don't think people who are against the ACA even know what they are talking about anymore.
Inorite! Everyone knows the ACA will DECREASE the deficit. Obama said it would, therefore it must be true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Considering that nobody read the bill in the first place, I don't think people who are for it even know what they are talking about anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Or ever did.
Things in the comment section of an article about how Michelle Obama thinks people in the US should eat healthier:
Quote:
I think its discriminating that a black person is forcing their ways of eating on me...thats exactly what it would be if this was a white First lady forcing their ways of eating on other races...discriminating
Quote:
This vile devil worshipping Ape is itching to push GMOs down our childrens throats. This isn't about the kids health. This is about government sneaking in our childrens lunch boxes A power grab is what it is.
Quote:
I don't want to eat like a black person. Do I have a choice here?
Quote:
Wiki says her mother was a stay at home mom until she went to High School - guess she just sat on the couch with her kids eating fried chicken and H20 melon
Quote:
Odd that American kids can't get what they want to eat in the school cafeteria, but they can go to the nurse's office and get any kind of condom they want.
Quote:
Democrats believe too much in education. They don't have the brains to absorb it so what does it matter?
I sincerely hope for her sake that this was a satire article.
Completely agree. Soccer is more boring than baseball, somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Soccer... the only sport where a 30 second ESPN segment tells you all you need to know...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
"They ran one way, they ran the other way, for 73 minutes! GOAALLLLLL! They ran one way, they ran the other way... for 17 (maybe 19 or 22) more minutes! Moving on to our next segment"
Better than basketball, where the first 80 percent of the game is meaningless scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwaar
In a condemnatory speech last week against the Obama administration’s new Environmental Protection Agency carbon emission regulations, Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith (R) claimed that man-made climate change is scientifically implausible because Mars and Earth share “exactly” the same temperature.
Smith, the owner of a mining company called Mohawk Energy, argued that despite the fact that the red planet doesn’t have any coal mines, Mars and Earth share a temperature. Therefore, Smith reasoned, coal companies on Earth should be exempt from emission regulations.
During a Natural Resources and Environment Committee meeting Thursday, Smith, the Senate majority whip, said:
"As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."
According to NASA, the average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees Fahrenheit -- 138 degrees above Mars' average of -81 degrees.
It should be against the law to vote on things in Congress to which you would have a conflicting interest in.
But that would require Congress to pass such a law so it continues to be a pipe dream.
I do like where his line of thinking is going though.
"I couldn't possibly be the one that held up that gas station; the average temperature in my home and the average temperature in that gas station are exactly the same. Try and explain that."
I couldn't agree more. Across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm surprised he didn't credit God for life being here and not on Mars....Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
And stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Wow, that guy went all Johnnie Cochran on that committee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14
Todd Akin, hawking his book, doubles down on his rape stupidity.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/todd-akin...-sexual-abuse/
Dear Mr. Akin;
You can't blame the Democrats, the media, etc.. for your stupidity. So stop.
Go away. You're an idiot.
Fully agree... Akin is an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Not that I believe that Joe Scarborough is a conservative, but he claims to be so:
“I’m sorry, what deer hunter needs more than ten bullets in a clip? If you need more than ten in a clip, you need more than ten in a clip for one reason: you think the federal goverment’s coming to take your crops, y’know, to take your cows, or whatever and you want more than ten because you want to kill US soldiers who come to your door. Why don’t we just say you’re a survivalist and that’s just stupid BS.”
IT'S A FUCKING MAGAZINEQuote:
Originally Posted by Joe Scarborough
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5622078.html
You can't blame him, they were brown with weird sounding names!Quote:
Rep. Curt Clawson (R-Fla.) addressed what he believed were two members of the Indian government at a House hearing on Thursday and assured them that, as a U.S. representative, he would support all efforts to facilitate a better relationship between America and "your country" and "your government."
There was only one problem. The officials testifying before the House Asia and Pacific subcommittee weren't Indian officials at all, but two senior members of the U.S. government.
Dammit! What happened to people having good, strong, American names...like...Smith...and...Wesson!Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
To be fair, Americans do have a pretty poor relationship with their government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Why can't people in those situations respond properly, like saying, "Uh.....we're from here, asshole."?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Yeah, missed opportunity there. I wish the video showed that smug look punched right off his face with a crowbar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
"Just as your capital is welcome here to produce good-paying jobs in the U.S., I'd like our capital to be welcome there," he added. "I ask cooperation and commitment and priority from your government in so doing. Can I have that?"
To be fair, why hasn't the failed Obama administration explicitly and publicly responded by saying that it's a commitment and priority to produce good-paying jobs in the US? Their silence is pretty telling.
Rush Limbaugh thinks Robin Williams killed himself because he is a liberal.
Unhappiness is a liberal trait, says the drug addict.
In all fairness, they are/were both drug addicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I didn't realize Robin Williams was a liberal. Was he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
It does answer why his most entertaining roles were Ms. Doubtfire and Armand Goldman though.
BOOM.
I'm no fan of Rush Limbaugh in the slightest but it doesn't look like he said Robin Williams killed himself because he is a liberla.
This is the transcript I found of what he said:
Quote:
LIMBAUGH: So our last caller from Des Plaines, Illinois, wanted to know, “What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?” Well, I believe there is some. But I don’t think that the politics is driving it. I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough.
“He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t.” Now, what is the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they? They’re always angry about something. No matter what they get, they’re always angry.
They are animated in large part by the false promises of America, because the promises of America are not for everyone, as we see each and every day. I mean, right here there’s a story Fox News website. Do you know, it says right here, that the real reasons that Robin Williams killed himself are he was embarrassed at having to take television roles after a sterling movie career.
He had to take movie roles that were beneath him, sequels and so forth, and he finally had to do television just to get a paycheck because he was in so much financial distress. He’d had some divorces that ripped up his net worth, and he had a big ranch in Napa that he couldn’t afford any longer and had to put up for sale, and a house in Tiburon that he couldn’t afford anymore. This is all what’s in the Fox News story.
He had it all, but he had nothing. He made everybody else laugh but was miserable inside. I mean, it fits a certain picture, or a certain image that the left has. Talk about low expectations and general unhappiness and so forth. Right here it says that one the contributing factors to Robin Williams deciding to kill himself was “survivor’s guilt.” It’s in the headline.
I read that and I thought, “Survivor’s guilt? What? What survivor’s guilt? What?” So I read it, and it turns out that three of his closest friends, the story says — Christopher Reeve, John Belushi, and Andy Kaufman… The source, unnamed in the story, said that Robin Williams felt guilty that he was still alive while his three friends had died young and much earlier than he had.
He could never get over the guilt that they died and he didn’t.
Well, that is a constant measurement that is made by political leftists in judging the country. It’s outcome-based education: 2 + 2 = 5. “That’s fine until the student learns it’s 4. We’re not gonna humiliate the student by pointing out that he’s wrong. If he figures it out, cool. We’re gonna take the fast learners and we’re gonna slow them down so that they don’t humiliate the kids that don’t learn as fast as they do. It’s just not fair.”
The problem with this country is all the fucking liberlas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I make it a point to never trust a liberla.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Words to live by, my friend... words to live by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My next contribution to the "Dumb things conservatives say" thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What? I even posted the transcript. Limbaugh even says he read somewhere that there was speculation he killed himself because of survivor's guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Limbaugh did talk about how liberals are never happy though but he didn't say that's why Robin Williams killed himself.
Robin Williams' death, much like everything else that's wrong in the world, is women's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
Only divorcees. Women who respect their traditional family role are okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Serious question - do you really not get it, or are you just trying to troll?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If it is the former, I'm happy to explain it to you.
I guess I'll play along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I don't get it, Keller. Explain it to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Rush is saying Williams had everything and, because he is a leftist, he was still sad and angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush
Please PM me your mailing address and I'll send your tuition invoice.
Thanks and have a great semester in Keller's Remedial Reading Comprehension!
Yeah he did say leftists were never happy but he didn't say Robin Williams killed himself because he was a leftist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
He even goes on to give two theories for why he killed himself that have nothing to do with him being a leftist.
Numerous conservatives have long wished that Rush would retire and shut up. He doesn't speak for many of us, but acts as if he does.
Yep, Keller is *way* off in his 'interpretation' ... Rush was saying he does not understand why RW killed himself, and relayed what he heard as speculation, and blamed the liberal tendency to be "I/You should feel bad for being Successful/Okay" as a contributing factor.
FTFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Keller
ParkBandit and Tgo1 can read. You would think they could understand the words that they are reading, but they cannot. If I had to describe the capability of conservatives to comprehend what they read, I'd say that they ignore the plain meaning of a communication if they don't like that meaning. They're always making up the meaning of what people say and write, they can never comprehend the plain meaning of a person's communication.
So far, you are the only one that has posted that Rush Limbaugh stated that the reason Robin Williams killed himself was because he was a liberal. Granted, I believe that is a good enough reason.. but a person with even a remedial understanding of English can decipher that wasn't what Limbaugh said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Hopefully, you can at least get Packlash to agree with you.. otherwise, I'm not sure where you go from here....
http://www.fancypocket.sg/images/P/559698P.jpg
too soon?
Now I can't tell if you're trolling or just don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
The question he (supposedly) received was “What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?”Quote:
LIMBAUGH: So our last caller from Des Plaines, Illinois, wanted to know, “What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?” Well, I believe there is some. But I don’t think that the politics is driving it. I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough.
“He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t.” Now, what is the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they? They’re always angry about something. No matter what they get, they’re always angry.
Then Limbaugh goes on to say the narrative he has seen was "If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough." He then goes on to say this is typical of leftists because nothing is ever enough for them. As far as I can tell he was talking about the people covering Robin Williams' death; they were focusing on what he had and that he didn't have enough.
Limbaugh then went on to give two theories he heard about why Robin Williams killed himself; neither of which had to do with politics.
Rush bringing politics into the discussion about Robin Williams death shows he is only interested in division at whatever the cost. Its despicable and not surprising. How about we talk about the man, not the twisted justification for attacking your political enemies.Quote:
He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t.” Now, what is the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they? They’re always angry about something. No matter what they get, they’re always angry.
To be fair it was supposedly a question he received from a caller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Although to be doubly fair he probably should have just said let's not discuss politics in regards to his death. It's not like Limbaugh has to reply to every caller.
So, do you believe that Rush Limbaugh stated that the reason he committed suicide was because he was a liberal (or liberla, as tgo now refers them as)? Before you answer, know that Keller is fucking drowning out here and maybe, just maybe you could throw the guy a lifesaver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Because a bunch of conservatives rationalize something really hard doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Keller's point wasn't even about that though, which is the most amusing part.
Keller's point wasn't that Limbaugh thinks Robin Williams killed himself because he was a liberal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I mean...I guess my English could be failing pretty hard but that's sure what it sounds like he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Read what he said in answer to the caller's question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
By "the coverage" do you mean the Fox News story he cited?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Granted I don't watch cable news - but I never once heard about William's potential financial troubles until I read that transcript. NPR never mentioned it. I never read it in any article I've read. So, even if Rush said what you twisted his words to claim he said - he'd be wrong and so would you.
It's pretty amazing how two groups of people can read the exact same transcript and leftists arrive to the wrong conclusion :(
I have no idea if anything Rush said was right or wrong nor did I agree or disagree with anything he said; I'm merely replying to the part about Rush saying Williams killed himself because he was a leftist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Pay careful attention to word use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Please just spell it out for me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Think of it like an optical illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Drowning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Y'all can't read a paragraph and understand a man's very simple point and, because I can, I'm drowning?
You can't read a paragraph and understand the context would be why you're drowning. It's a typical tactic of both sides. Take a portion of something said and throw the rest of the conversation out, and go "omg! Can you believe they said that?!?!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
You're reading the paragraph out of context which, by the way, is how most of these "Can you believe what Rush said?!" things go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
How you're reading this:
Rush: This is why I think Robin Williams killed himself.
He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t. Now, what is the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they? They’re always angry about something. No matter what they get, they’re always angry.
-----
This is what really happened:
Caller: What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?
Rush: I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough.
“He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t.” Now, what is the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they? They’re always angry about something. No matter what they get, they’re always angry.
-----
He is very clearly talking about the coverage surrounding Robin Williams' death.
Again I'm not saying he's right or wrong, simply that Rush did not say Robin Williams killed himself because he was a leftist.
WTF? Here's the original post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
tgo01 said it was about Rush Limbaugh stating that Robin Williams killed himself because he was a liberal. You said that wasn't Keller's point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Precisely.. what was Keller's point then? No riddles or backtracking or anything you normally do to get out of a stupid post. Just answer the question.
It'd spoil it. Check the other posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Either you are reading far too much into it or you have a different transcript where Rush Limbaugh actually stated that Robin Williams killed himself because he was a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Like I previously stated, I don't disagree with you... if I turned to liberalism as my core political belief, I would want to kill myself because I obviously suffered some sort of brain aneurysm where most of my brain is not functioning.
The only possible thing I can think of you're referring to is his original post regarding this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Saying it's ironic that the right leaning "drug addict" is saying unhappiness is a liberal trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I mean, okay, sure. Maybe that's what Keller's main focus was on (doubtful) but even if that's the case he still said Rush said Robin Williams killed himself because he was a liberal. He has even reiterated this at least twice since then.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Not like we didn't see this coming.
Not my fault you can't read. There's even a conservative tinged context clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
For once I'm going to attempt to solve a WB riddle just to prove he's full of malarkey.
Here are all of Keller's posts regarding this up until WB made his initial "that wasn't what Keller said" post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
He very specifically said he thinks Rush said Robin Williams killed himself because he was a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
He very heavily implied this one other time.
He mentioned conservatives twice; once when referring to the title of this thread and again when saying conservatives can't read.
...
Okay I got nothing. Can I at least use my 50/50 lifeline, WB?
Last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I'm still lost though.
If Keller wanted to make this a point about how conservatives make up the meaning of what they read then why did he post this in the "Dumb things conservatives say" and say what Rush said? Why didn't he even quote what Rush said so we conservatives would have a chance to misread what we're reading?
So many holes in your theory, WB. I can't help but feel you're making this up :(
He produced illustrations of it in a thread about conservatives saying dumb things. He didn't have to include anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Translated from Retard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
"I posted something stupid, got called out.. and this was the best I could do"
Keep on herpin' and derpin'.
You still don't even see it. It's fine. We know you're only ever literal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's ok. I'll live in reality where words actually mean something.. you live in your fantasy world where you can pretend to know what you are talking about.. but haven't a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
In other words, WB is backtracking and acknowledging that he is full of hot air from the arse again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Has anyone ever actually performed a cold fart?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Again - Robin Williams had it all, but was unhappy. It is a trait of leftists to be unhappy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I get that you want to pretend because he didn't say "Williams killed himself because he was a liberal" that he didn't communicate that message - but wanting something to be true and it being true are two different things.
There are still spots available in my Remedial Reading Comprehension class if you're interested. I'm always happy to help, for a price.
That's an entertaining interpretation. I imagine it'd be compelling for people caught in what Keller did. Stuff those fingers in your ears hard and talk about butts more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
What I wrote was a little bit of a joke - but based on your inability to comprehend a few short sentences, I see that it's a self-fulfilling statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Happy now?
You honestly didn't expect something different, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
As a Liberal, you should be ashamed for wanting money to help others. Isn't it the typical Liberal doctrine that everyone have the same education, the same opportunities and the same outcomes? How dare you deny people the help they need because they can't afford it. Are you sure you don't have some closet Conservative feelings in there? Go watch a Michael Moore movie in penance to purge those evil thoughts of profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
You guys and your anti-liberal rhetoric are getting pretty goddamn ridiculous already.
But reading something out of context to make what a Republican said seem worse than it really was isn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What he said is exactly part of what I'm talking about. Nearly every single day I hear something about the left and/or liberals ruining America. People are using the term liberal as a catch phrase for anything they want to point at or blame as being something thats wrong. The way liberal is being so loosely defined you can slap it on just about anyone you want to label or catagorize as an enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Sounds familiar...Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
From Wikipedia...
How many of you who are slinging the term liberal around are not one yourself? I'd love to hear it.Quote:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
Your purposely deceitful manipulation of my words shows your inability to square your views with reality. Racism is a real thing. I wish it weren't but it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
It is exactly not out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I guess I need to quote my earlier post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If you have a counter argument to what I said I'd love to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If you have another riddle to share please make it one that is slightly easier to solve this time :(
Because you write stuff in bold does not somehow an argument make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"He had everything but he wasn't happy!" "What is the left's worldview in general?" "They're never happy!"
You're still making Keller's point.
At this point I'm beginning to question if you know what the term "out of context" means. Rush very specifically said that was what the coverage was like for Robin Williams. People were saying "The man had everything but it wasn't enough."Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't know how much more clear I can make that in my post.
I'm not saying Rush is correct; that that's really the narrative of the coverage of his death. I'm merely saying that's what he said.
Intellectual Dishonesty for $200!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Just stop Packlash.. I'm starting to feel badly for you again.
Very specifically? The whole reason we are even having this conversation is because it was not specific enough. Why didn't he specifically say "the media" instead of "the left"? Or "the left leaning media" or "liberal media". He didn't. He just grouped everything up into political rhetoric against his perceived enemies and Robin Williams' death became a literal weapon for his propaganda campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I agree with you that Rush is wrong about how the media is reporting this. My days off are spent with the TV on pretty much all day on NBC and I have seen nothing but heart warming tributes everywhere. Nothing about dissecting his condition or reasons for his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Houston, I think we found the problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I am generally always happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Except when Master Chef is on or if something is unbearable like Taxi Cop or whatever it's called I'll switch over to Comedy Central or BBC America until Daily Show comes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
One thought smoothly flows into another. You only can't see it because this is the rationalization parade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Rush: I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
And Keller said conservatives don't understand what they read.
I demand an apology!
Squiggles, my friend! So nice to see you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
I've been a pretty middle-of-the-road moderate since I started posting on this forum. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Call me a empathetic libertarian.
I hope that helps clear up your concern about me. It's always nice to know my friends are thinking about me. Thanks, as always!
No because that's how the English language works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It takes following along with the conversation to see what Rush is talking about.
At that point in the conversation Rush didn't even mention Robin Williams' suicide. The caller didn't even mention why Robin Williams killed himself.
It takes following along the conversation to see that it's exactly what he's doing. It takes an awful degree of rationalization to NOT see what he's saying. Then again, we know conservatives have trouble with satire, so the basic aspects of reading may elude you. Keller's onto something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Media and Hollywood has affection for Williams. But, there is politics. [this is known in my Remedial Reading Comprehension course as a transition sentence - this will be on the test, so take notes!]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
[Now we're talking about the political nature of Robin William's death, as we've transitioned into a topic OTHER THAN the media and Hollywood's affection for Williams.] The coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn't enough. He had everything, and you would think that would make him happy, but it didn't. It is a leftist quality to be unhappy. [end discussion of the political angle.]
I apologize if what I said hurt your feelings. It's a hard truth that I think you'd better learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Why do you keep leaving out the part where he claims the left are never happy linking Robin Williams' death to unhappiness thus the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
My goodness guys. At this point I can only hope you all are just trolling me but I'll admit this would be one impressive group effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
There was no "transition" here, there was no "linking" his unhappiness with being a liberal to his death.
I know WB hates bolded words when they are used against him but I'm sorry WB, I must.
LIMBAUGH: So our last caller from Des Plaines, Illinois, wanted to know, “What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?” Well, I believe there is some. But I don’t think that the politics is driving it. I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough.
“He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t.” Now, what is the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy, are they? They’re always angry about something. No matter what they get, they’re always angry.
They are animated in large part by the false promises of America, because the promises of America are not for everyone, as we see each and every day. I mean, right here there’s a story Fox News website. Do you know, it says right here, that the real reasons that Robin Williams killed himself are he was embarrassed at having to take television roles after a sterling movie career.
I've bolded the parts where Rush was transitioning to a different topic.
At this point I fell I should go the route Keller went and start charging for my services; I'm working at least 5 times as hard as he did.
http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/up...e_cube_wtf.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
You are going to an awful lot of effort to completely ignore the fact that he linked it all to the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
He linked the coverage of his death to the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
The left was saying look, Robin Williams had all of this but was still unhappy.
Then Rush said "isn't that typical of liberals? Focusing on what the man had and still saying it wasn't enough."
Come on. You are purposefully misreading this at this point. No other explanation.
It's background while I play games and surf teh internets. I very rarely ever passively watch TV on the couch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Let me break this down for you in terms even Squiggles would understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The question is - "What is the politics in the coverage?"
The answer is - "There is politics, but it is not in the coverage of the story. The coverage is based on the media's genuine affection for Williams. But there is politics in the story. The politics is that Williams had it all but was still unhappy. Unhappiness is a leftist trait."
Seriously - you might need to hire a private tutor at this point. You can't keep monopolizing the class's time like this.
Then we just have to disagree and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's pretty awesome the way you took that bit out of context after I've been accusing you of taking things out of context in this story. A+ for that one ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Here is that whole part, once again:
LIMBAUGH: “What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?” Well, I believe there is some. But I don’t think that the politics is driving it. I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough.
I hope I've cleared this up for you.
The bold is where Rush is clearly talking about politics (which mind you he never said wasn't in the "coverage" of the story, he simply said politics wasn't "driving" the story) and the italics is where he's clearly talking about the affection.
Notice the last part of the sentence before he says "If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn’t enough." is "but there is politics."
And the very next paragraph after he specifically talks about the political coverage of his death is the one you all are thinking links Robin Williams' suicide to him being unhappy for being a liberal.
Do you...do you guys know how the English language works?
If I say "I'm going to the store with Bob and Jim but not Larry, he's been sick lately."
Clearly "he" is Larry because that's the last person I mentioned.
Likewise if the last thing Rush said was the coverage of Robin Williams' suicide was partly due to politics because the left focused on him not having enough and being unhappy because he didn't have enough...
...
...
...
This sinking in yet?
I am sorry - I really cannot afford to help you with this anymore. You'll have to take an incomplete for now.
I graciously accept your defeat. Thanks for playing :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I get why you try.. it's entertaining picking on those with mental disabilities.. but at some point, you have to realize that it's not very nice to keep going on and on and making them look even more foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I apologize.
You're both going to have an appointment at the principal's office if you keep up the name calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Is Rush a Republican? I can't find any source for his party registration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"Name calling" usually is where one party uses a derogatory term for another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
I most certainly have not done that to you.
I await your apology.
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...8029286-16.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
For your Worst Apology Ever Award, did you just want "Keller" put on your trophy?
I apologize for being trolled by Tgo01. I thought I was better than getting caught up in his troll. I have learned my lesson.
You trolled well though.. you were just outflanked by facts and logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller
Better luck next time!
Troll me once, shame on you. Troll me twice, shame on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Not gonna happen, PB. Sorry.
This was amusing. People discussing a Rush Limbaugh meandering rant as if the guy was making a coherent point.
He stated that Robin Williams committed suicide BECAUSE he was a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
DUH.
Don't try to weasel out of it, you tried to make sense out of the equivalent of a bad high school essay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I don't think anyone was trying to say Rush Limbaugh was some sort of literary genius or great orator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
Just whether or not he said Robin Williams committed suicide because he was a liberal.
What am I weaseling out of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
Who knows what he was trying to say or imply, he rambled, he voiced a lot of opinions, one statement wasn't pertinent to the next. It's what he does. It wasn't coherent. Maybe it made sense in his mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Rubio - "Obama doesn't need congress' approval to strike Islamic State in Syria."
Technically that is true. He needs approval from congress to declare war but he doesn't need their say so to send in the Marines for a limited time. Doubtful of any of that happening because him and congress have been working on decreasing our military anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Technically it is true. Technically Rubio is still laughable.
As a conservative, it is my personal belief that Rush doesn't actually believe some of the things he says. He's an entertainer, and he says things to keep people interested and entertained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
I might be wrong, but I doubt it. Either way, I wish he would shut up.
I felt that way about Keith Olbermann. Thankfully he mostly has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Only 'cuz ESPN and TBS are paying him more to talk about sports than anyone else will to talk about politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I think Rachel Maddow is worse than Olbermann was, though.
Maddow, Rush, Coulter, Beck.. they're all disgusting hyperpartisan. Television personalities whose sole focus is ratings through sensationism.
Yep. Probably why I don't watch much TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Oh, Rubio, just stop talking.
Rubio condemns Obama and Clinton isolationism.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-isolationism/
So according to Ted Cruz... political satire = buying votes. Thats fucking nuts.Quote:
Sen. Ted Cruz says the comedy of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” is at risk and creator Lorne Michaels could be thrown in jail if a proposed constitutional amendment on campaign finance is passed.“Congress would have the power to make it a criminal offense; Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician. That is extraordinary. It is breathtaking, and it is dangerous,” the Texas Republican argued on the Senate floor on Tuesday, with a board of stills from the late-night sketch show displayed behind him.
Cruz said the proposal, which will face a vote Wednesday, gives Congress the authority to prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech.
“Well, NBC, which airs ‘Saturday Night Live,’ is a corporation,” said Cruz, who gave his own impression of Dana Carvey as President George H.W. Bush.
“I grew up watching ‘Saturday Night Live’; I love ‘Saturday Night Live.’ ‘Saturday Night Live,’ over the years, has had some of the most tremendous political satire,” the senator said. “Who can forget, in 2008, ‘Saturday Night Live’s’ wickedly funny characterization of the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin?”
“It was wickedly funny and also [had] a profoundly powerful effect on people’s assessment of Gov. Palin, who’s a friend of mine, ” he added.
Cruz said he asked Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, a former “SNL” actor and writer, whether he believed Congress should prohibit the show from making fun of politicians.
(QUIZ: Do you know Sen. Cruz?)
“Now, the good senator promptly assured me he had no intention of doing any such thing,” Cruz said. However, Cruz added that the debate was not about intentions but the impact of the amendment.
Cruz, who has been lampooned on “SNL” himself, slammed Democrats for supporting what he called an “abominable provision.”
The Democrat-led measure aims to reform campaign finance laws, including giving states more control over fundraising and campaign spending. However, it is not expected to pass. Rather, Democrats are putting the issue of campaign finance and big spending in the forefront ahead of November’s midterms. But top Republicans, such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who penned an op-ed for POLITICO, have come out swinging. Like Cruz, McConnell said the amendment is an assault on free speech.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz3DSAaMVxk
Did you read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that Congress passing a law that can prohibit corporations from influencing elections could lead to Congress forcing SNL to stop with the political jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Let's face it, his Sarah Palin reference is spot on. A lot of people got the impression Sarah Palin was an idiot from those SNL sketches. You can argue she's an idiot anyways or blah blah blah, but there is no denying SNL played a huge role in giving her that image. Hell, people still to this day think Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house."
It's kind of funny that Congress is even considering this legislation because this is exactly how we got into this mess to begin with.
Citizens United cried foul on Michael Moore's leftist bullshit movies because they said it violated campaign laws because he could use any money he wanted to produce his movies and he could advertise them whenever he wanted as well, even though they obviously painted Bush to be the devil and he shouldn't be reelected.
The courts basically said "Yeah, no. It's a real movie, we're not going to say people can't make movies."
So Citizens United said "Well shit, we'll just start making 'real movies' too so we can say and do whatever we want as well! LOOPHOLE!"
But then Citizens United was dragged into court for the exact same shit they accused Michael Moore of and thus we have the Citizens United ruling and now Congress is like "Hey! Let's just prevent all corporations from spending money on elections! What can go wrong?!"
This...is what can go wrong.
Hey, whatever happened to the Democrat mantra of wanting Congress to, y'know, work on job bills and getting the economy back on track? Why aren't you giving the Senate shit for this failure of a legislation? Oh, right, because Democrats are pushing for it.
>A lot of people got the impression Sarah Palin was (is) an idiot..
We don't need a skit to know that.
Apparently a lot of people did because the only thing they can quote from what Sarah Palin said was "I can see Russia from my house" even though she never said that. If that's the only thing people can point to then I think it kind of proves that a lot of people get their political "news" from SNL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I can see any country from my house, buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Do you live on the moon? :OQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Who are all of these people brainwashed into thinking a moronic politician is indeed a moron? Do you have any statistics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Google Earth motherfucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlOYatDYC40Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I feel like you're leading up to a "LEAVE PALIN ALOOOONE!!!11111" rant. Please tell us how you really feel.
Actually no I'm leading up to a "What Cruz said makes sense."Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
He's the one who brought up Palin; not me. I said he has a good point.
Look, it really doesn't matter what you think, or what pk thinks, or heck even what I think, it matters what present day Congress and future Congress thinks, and that's Cruz's point.
That is why I agree with Ted Cruz's point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Because campaign finance reform is totally censorship, yo. Carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It does need reform. They just need to be more careful with their verbiage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You don't think telling an entity to shut up is censorship? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Here is what part of the proposed legislation says:
"Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections."
Like...right there in black and white...Congress can prohibit such entities from spending money to influence elections.
There's quite a difference between censorship and allowing Super PACs. I'd think you'd be smart enough to see that, but you never can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Do you always post an article and then just say something completely random in response?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
As often as you comprehend them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
But *you* do not even comprehend the articles *you* post... ?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Where in my quote did you see the words "Super PACs"? It said "corporations."Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Where in my post does it even talk about disallowing any sort of entity? It quite plainly said "prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections."
It's okay that you don't understand the issue. Someday you'll maybe put in some further study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I've never seen someone be so condescending while being so obviously wrong at the same time. Mad props, WB.
http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/up...d-gif-pics.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Have you missed his other political posts? It's a common theme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I will say one thing. Ted Cruz is a good troll.
Critical thinking time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Why exactly are super PACs problematic? Why is unlimited corporate donations a problem?
You know that you and Cruz are purposefully trying to conflate the issue so your claims are staggering.
Add most of your entire posting history to the condescending category if it's suddenly an issue to you.
No, you're just simply refusing to believe what your own eyes are reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
This would be akin to trying to battle domestic violence by making domestic partnerships illegal altogether.
The way this legislation is written is like using an anvil when a screwdriver would do the job.
If this was all just about Super PACs then why does the legislation say Congress will have the power of "prohibiting such entities (corporations) from spending money to influence elections"?
Corporations could always spend money on elections because it was viewed as free speech. Now you're basically cheering Congress along for wanting to violate free speech under the guise of "Sticking it to them Super PACs!"
This is mind boggling on so many levels.
Everyone should be concerned when Congress can decide to silence large segments of our population on a whim but apparently as long as they "promise" they are just doing this to go after Super PACs then it's okay.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...9ImWg-F52xMhFd
Follow the leader, now.
You are. You're going with Ted Cruz's censorship line when it isn't there. Pretty simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What if they outlaw corporations from making campaign contributions and then say that since Mitt Romney said corporations are people too, that means people can't make campaign contributions either?
WHICH LEAVES ONLY UNIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g
Or what if they overturn Citizens United legislatively, thus stopping the distortion of campaign finance from corporations AND unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
But NOOOO! CENSORSHIP! ZOMG!
At this point it's quite obvious you are refusing to listen to reason simply because of where that reason came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
"Congress can decide corporations can't use their money to influence elections?! This is an outrage! Oh, wait, what? Cruz brought this to our attention? Well Cruz is just full of shit! Obviously Congress can be trusted to only use this to go after Super PACs! Damn that Cruz for trying to trick us!!"
Don't even joke about such a thing :OQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You really want to keep digging this hole you're in deeper and deeper don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Holy hell in a hand basket.Quote:
To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.
The wording is so vague and so loose that it just says "and others." AND OTHERS!
What is "and others"? Corporations? Unions? Candidates? Anyone over the age of 65? White people? Black people?
But wait, the media is saying this is just to strike down Citizens United and Super PACs so we have nothing to fear.
Don't you teach history or something WB? Aren't there countless examples throughout history of laws passed under the guise of one thing but then later on end up being used for something else entirely different and usually sinister?
But we're living in the US and our government would never do that so let's just ignore this.
We absolutely can't have reasonable campaign finance reform. We have to demagogue up censorship! ZOMG!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's obvious what this is in service of. You're just purposefully blind. It's okay. I'm sure it makes you happy.
None so blind as those that will not see, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Really? It's "obvious"? Just like when our founding fathers created the second amendment it was "obvious" they meant everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkxFMCdL33I
I honestly hope you're just trolling at this point WB because I would hate to believe that anyone would actually support such vague legislation that could literally be left up to interpretation of whoever may be in Congress at the time just because they so desperately want to believe that Congress can be trusted to only do what it's "obvious" they set out to do.
There's a big difference between a misspelling of the word bare and Ted Cruz trying to drum up some nonsense to protect his shady campaign cash. I hope you can see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Perhaps this needs to be quoted again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Actually, instead of me trying to tell you what the text says, how about you tell me what the text says?Quote:
To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.
From what I just quoted, tell me, who is the legislation specifically referring to? I'll get you started on the easy one, candidates.
Okay, who else?
It's specifically referring to the current workarounds for corporations to give unlimited campaign donations in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You've decided that it means CENSORSHIP! because Ted Cruz made a catchy argument to defend his dirty funds.
You want to be "noble" so you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Okay, now quote the part of the text where it clearly outlines this? Because I can't help but feel you are inferring this from what you read and it's not something you specifically read in the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Pretty obvious. You've decided this means CENSORSHIP! which is totally there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If you're asking for legislative or legal clarity as some founding principle you live in the wrong country.Quote:
Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.
Would it make any sense at all for me to blame the company that you work for every time you make a joke at my expense? Cruz is seriously delusional, dangerously so, if he believes SNL is what makes Palin look bad instead of Palin herself. I can't even believe this guy is allowed to be a congressman and present this insane garbage in our capitol. Imagine him doing this in front of the founding fathers? He'd be laughed out of Washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
People like Tgo01 eat it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I asked for specifics, not what's "obvious."Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So from "and others" you get that it's "obviously" referring to Super PACs and corporations? You then go on to state that we live in a country where legislation and laws as a rule aren't usually clear and are often left very vague so as to be left open to interpretation and that we as citizens should just trust our government to do the right thing and never abuse these loosely worded laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm not even sure I'm arguing with WB at the moment. Which Democratic official is holding a gun to your head, WB? Speak to us in code if you need assistance.
That's not at all what I said or he said. He merely used SNL's skits about Palin as an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Geezus Christ Almighty. If the government does ever decide to turn this country into a Monarchy all they have to do is make sure to get a Democratic president and Congress elected and apparently people will follow them into the sun.
It does a convenient job of covering other entities. We've had the fate of our nation changed from "regulate interstate commerce" so this isn't much of a stretch. All of this is trying to defend Citizens United. You're the one who's trying very hard not to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I happen to think that Roe vs. Wade is a dubious ruling. I love the fact that we got a clarified right of privacy out of "penumbras and emanations of the 4th amendment" however, even if the government isn't sticking to it. That's even less specific. It's clear they're talking about election swaying entities.
Right now a politician is trying to defend the abuse of a Supreme Court case. We shouldn't trust him to do the right thing and not abuse it.
You posted this. Or don't you remember?
Now you post this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What you smoking bro? I don't want any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Sarah Palin may be a genius, I don't know. That said, she comes off as an idiot whenever she opens her mouth. Again, I don't know if she is or not, but she is not a viable candidate for anything now, save a talk show host / commentator. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional, in my opinion.
You got a problem with overwhelming force, you bleeding heart pinko commie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Exactly. Other, unnamed entities. And you apparently have no problem with this. That's the scary part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The problem here Back is you think this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Is a summary of what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
It's not. What I said was:
Notice you left out the part where I qualified my statement with "a lot of people" got the impression Sarah Palin was an idiot from those sketches, I didn't say everyone arrived at that conclusion from watching SNL. I also said SNL played a role in giving Palin that image; I didn't say if left to her own devices she wouldn't have given herself that image anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And that's the point; the text of this legislation is so loosely defined that if even 1 person watched a Palin SNL skit and said to themselves "Holy shit! That lady is batshit crazy, I'm not going to vote for her now" then SNL just influenced the election. They spent money on influencing an election. An evil corporation spent money on influencing an election.
That's the point. You can choose to go the route of WB and insist Congress will only read the text the way WB chooses to read the text, but that doesn't make you right and Cruz wrong.
I can't help but laugh at the irony of people who are misinterpreting what I and Cruz are saying, even though we both have spelled out exactly what we are saying, then these same people go on and read a text that says "others" and insist that really means Super PACs/corporations and that it can never be misinterpreted to mean anything else.
I can't help but laugh...and honestly cry a little :(