The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

Yeah, look what it took for them to not be "mainstream" too. The only way to differentiate themselves was to put hacks lke O"Reilly and Hannity on the air.
 
HEY.

HEY.

NO ONE WATCH LAST CHANCE KITCHEN FOR TOP CHEF THIS WEEK, OK? THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHO WON.

Yeah that's right, fuck you Bravo Network.
 
wow indeed, how they could go through all that and leave off "me love you long time" is just beyond words...
 
Rep. Spencer Bachus faces insider-trading investigation
The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee over possible violations of insider-trading laws, according to individuals familiar with the case.
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who holds one of the most influential positions in the House, has been a frequent trader on Capitol Hill, buying stock options while overseeing the nation’s banking and financial services industries.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/02/09/gIQA21Ui2Q_story.html?sub=AR

In the interests of being balanced I'm well aware that Dems do this too. I think it's a punk move whoever does it.
 
I don't get this crap about faith based employers being required to provide contraceptives. The dunderheads running for the republican nomination act like it's some sort of affront to religion. I'd ask (Romney in particular) why we don't respect other religious beliefs. I mean we don't allow Mormons to marry a dozen people, how is that any different than requiring, say a Catholic school, to provide contraceptives?

Hell, what if I start a religion that thinks theft is only wrong if you get caught? Do I get some religious exemption from the law?
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't get this crap about faith based employers being required to provide contraceptives. The dunderheads running for the republican nomination act like it's some sort of affront to religion. I'd ask (Romney in particular) why we don't respect other religious beliefs. I mean we don't allow Mormons to marry a dozen people, how is that any different than requiring, say a Catholic school, to provide contraceptives?

Hell, what if I start a religion that thinks theft is only wrong if you get caught? Do I get some religious exemption from the law?[/QUOTE]

I was thinking through this issue earlier myself. On the one hand I do see the argument they're trying to make in that the government is forcing them to do something which is against their religion. On the other hand, just because Catholicism is a popular religion shouldn't give it special treatment.

As you eluded to we force people to conform to society over their religion all the time. Just throwing "religion" onto some type of activity shouldn't put it outside of the government's control. Otherwise, like you said, everyone could just go about creating their own religion to skirt their laws as they see fit. I worship Charles Ponzi and my religion requires me to cultivate Ponzi schemes as proper worship to my god, how can the government stop me?

So many people in America have this religious hierarchy that somehow Christianity trumps all and anything else is just weird mumbo-jumbo. It reminds me of a discussion I had with my girlfriend just last night. She mentioned that some friends from work were Wiccan which she thought was kind of weird. My reply was, is it any weirder than a religion that advocates ritualistic cannibalism of their principle deity? Things got tense when she realized I was referring to Christianity and communion so I just dropped it.

Christianity shouldn't get a pass and be afforded special treatment because it's the dominant religion. Religious freedom cuts both ways.
 
I learned a new word today from the same people that brought you schadenfreude.

Wutbürger—a rough translation might be “rageniks.”

I now have something new to call the crazies at my local community meetings.
 
I have no idea, I'd expect them not to. The funny thing though, is that a lot of Catholic organizations already provide contraceptives to their employees, so this is basically much to do about nothing. Just something else for a bunch of blowhards to argue about.
 
http://wonkette.com/463278/cpac-once-again-full-of-self-hating-gay-men-hunting-for-gay-sex

cpac-gay-men.jpg


Larry Craig Republicans up ins.
 
[quote name='nasum']Do catholic hospitals perform vasectomies or hystorectomies? That's kinda the ultimate in birth control.[/QUOTE]

I've worked in operating rooms at two Catholic hospitals so I'll take this one.

Hysterectomies are NOT performed as an "ultimate form of birth control" and happen with regularity. They are only performed when a patient has cancer, severe uncontrollable bleeding after birth, and a few other rare instances.

On the other hand, tubal ligation (burning or clipping the Fallopian tube) is rarely performed.

Vasectomies are rarely done in any operating room. It's usually performed in a doctor's office under sedation. I have no idea if surgeons in a Catholic hospital's network perform them but I would say they don't.

Another weird quirk is that every operating room in a Catholic hospital is sanctified by the local bishop/cardianal/Catholic bigwig........except for one. That's where "emergency" D&C's (dilation and curettage) are performed. Even surgeons in a Catholic system put the health of a woman above dogma. You will never find someone in the system that will admit this though.
 
I should say that I was only jokingly suggesting a hysterectomy as birth control, but considering the hardline stance taken on even something as simple as a contraceptive in the form of rubbers, it would be interesting to see if a hysterectomy (in the case of cancer and such) would be deemed wrong.

In addition to that, if the "white house" had consulted with catholic leaders on this policy, wouldn't that have violated separation of church and state?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you ask me, catering to some religions (or sects of religions) and not others is already endorsing one religion over another. But lets be honest, in the case of Catholics and Mormons, who has more lobbying power? Who is more likely to get their way? You'd think Romney would see that and be outraged, but of course he's not.
 
[quote name='nasum']I should say that I was only jokingly suggesting a hysterectomy as birth control, but considering the hardline stance taken on even something as simple as a contraceptive in the form of rubbers, it would be interesting to see if a hysterectomy (in the case of cancer and such) would be deemed wrong.

In addition to that, if the "white house" had consulted with catholic leaders on this policy, wouldn't that have violated separation of church and state?[/QUOTE]

You should've said orchiectomy (removal of the entire testis) instead of vasectomy if you wanted to somehow joke about the end all be all of sterilization.

As far as I know, hysterectomy has never been a controversial procedure.

It looks like the White House tried to treat the Catholic Church like any other employer and got busted for it. It will be interesting to find out where the Catholic Church ceases to become a religion and becomes an employer in the eyes of the government. I think we all hoped that religious dogma wouldn't trump an employer's responsibility for the health of their employees.
 
surprise surprise, Mitch McConnell wants to play the budget game again and introduce Obama's budget into the senate for a vote.

Think it might backfire this time?
 
[quote name='depascal22']

Vasectomies are rarely done in any operating room. It's usually performed in a doctor's office under sedation. I have no idea if surgeons in a Catholic hospital's network perform them but I would say they don't.

[/QUOTE]

Remember when they would show full surgeries on the discovery networks. I think it was in the 90's. They would show heart surgery, shoulder surgery, etc.

One day, I'm flipping the channel, and there's this doctor working on this guys knee. But it's kinda strange. The guy isn't under anesthesia, it's in a normal looking office and I can't figure out what the doctor is trying to do.

Then I realized, it wasn't the guys knee I was looking at!
 
The thing I don't get is that, whether they'd admit it or not, most Catholic women have used contraceptives. So where exactly is all this fury coming from? Old men, that's where. Every Catholic official I've seen interviewed has been some middle aged or older bishop or cardinal etc., and obviously they're a no icky girls allowed club.

So I guess the question is, why do a bunch of old guys give a fuck about any of this?
 
Jesus christ, talk about projection:

I was just watching MSNBC, and I thought the headline read 'God refuses to accept contraception plan despite its popularity'
 
I'm considering putting together a policy youtube channel/blog that tries to explain public policy in a practical manner and give a complete accounting of policy issues that face the country and my local state of Delaware.

Anyway, one of the first topics I've thought about tackling is Social Security. I'm going to try to make a video this month. While doing some research, as a lark I took a look to see what were some of the most popular websites and videos online about Social Security. And in my search I found an absolutely amazing piece of right wing propoganda. The level of detail and crafting that went into it is just exceptional. If you want to see a text book example of using facts to manipulate the truth and the creation of a sham website, take a look.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I'm considering putting together a policy youtube channel/blog that tries to explain public policy in a practical manner and give a complete accounting of policy issues that face the country and my local state of Delaware.

Anyway, one of the first topics I've thought about tackling is Social Security. I'm going to try to make a video this month. While doing some research, as a lark I took a look to see what were some of the most popular websites and videos online about Social Security. And in my search I found an absolutely amazing piece of right wing propoganda. The level of detail and crafting that went into it is just exceptional. If you want to see a text book example of using facts to manipulate the truth and the creation of a sham website, take a look.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I wish I had time to sift through that. I am particularly fond of the table and corresponding explanation wherein they imply that $30K/year in SS funds is measurably worse than $10K/year in SS funds.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, I wish I had time to sift through that. I am particularly fond of the table and corresponding explanation wherein they imply that $30K/year in SS funds is measurably worse than $10K/year in SS funds.[/QUOTE]

One thing that site does is that they throw so many facts and figures that it's practically unintelligible. The idea is that if they throw all these numbers at once, line after line, you'll either misread or misremember a specific fact. They also put the numbers in such a way that they're easy to misread. But they would argues, "Hey, we're just giving all the facts.

A perfect example is this is the following...

* In 2009, the administrative costs of the Social Security program were $6,182,000,000. This was equal to 0.90% of all Social Security outlays for the year or enough to pay 442,583 retired workers the average annual old-age benefit of $13,968 for 2010.[156] [157]
Click to expand...

That line is factually accurate, but look how it's crafted. Instead of saying the Social security administration costs were 6.2 billion, they list out the numbers. But the real kicker is they state that administration costs were "0.90%" of the program. 0.90% ~ 1%. But, lets say your reading through this and being overloaded with numbers. It would be very easy to misread 0.90% as 90%. Especially when surrounded by long numbers. They could have said 0.9%, approx 1%, 00.9%, but they intentionally used 0.90%.

In addition, on the second line, they make an implication using facts, that Social Security is inefficient. "See, if it wasn't for all that administration cost we could pay 442,583 citizens $13,968." But there's no context. Social Security is a $700 billion program with over 50 million beneficiaries. Issuing the Social Security Cards, processions beneficiary applications, fraud auditing, educational materials, benefit mailings, customer service, staffing, they all cost money. A 1% administration cost is amazingly efficient. In fact, social security may be one of the most efficiently administered programs in the world. But they use facts in that one sentence to imply the opposite.

Most of the entire document, and there's pages of it, is like that.

It is absolutely insidious. All are factually accurate but they use all sorts of tricks. They'll cherry pick a fact from a document, and link it, but they neither give the direct quote or take it out of context. They don't expect the reader to actually go back and read the 40 page GAO report that actually explains the fact they cherry picked. Or they compare apples and oranges. Or they use facts with no context. Or they use quotes taken out of context to accuse people of being liars. (The Gore hit piece or the section on the media is a perfect example.)

Look, I'm a Republican, and I believe in reforming Social Security, and that includes reducing benefits and adding some market based reforms to the trust fund, but this web page actually stunned me with it's sophistication as a piece of right-wing propaganda. Even down to the seal of approval and the mission statement which they constantly violate in their own writing. The mention of the Declaration of Independence is specifically calculated. Then they come out and say, yeah we're libertarian/conservative, but that has no impact on our judgements. These are all unbiased facts.

It's absolutely astounding.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I'm considering putting together a policy youtube channel/blog that tries to explain public policy in a practical manner and give a complete accounting of policy issues that face the country and my local state of Delaware.
[/QUOTE]

I fully expect you to yell out IT'S A TRAP right before you dismantle false rhetoric.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.
 
[quote name='Strell']I fully expect you to yell out IT'S A TRAP right before you dismantle false rhetoric.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.[/QUOTE]

Actually I decided that my signature BS line will be Sherman potter saying it's Horse Hockey.
 
Charles Murray's argument is suspect because he won't begin to acknowledge the possibility that structural economic decline led to resultant cultural decay, so there's inherent bias and unfairness from the start. Such an argument is dishonest at worst, woefully, embarrassingly incomplete at best.

Since this is the same person who co-authored "The Bell Curve," it's clear that he is merely disguising controversial "research" in a way that fits the confirmatory bias of racists and culture warriors increases book sales in a substantially huge way.

The age-old question of "why do people openly vote against their own self-interest" is a good question, but the discovery of the answer is never pleasant. It usually leads to a recognition of manipulation by powerful/wealthy elites seeking to protect their own interests using the vast resources they have at their disposal (i.e., a necessarily Marxist argument)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The age-old question of "why do people openly vote against their own self-interest" is a good question, but the discovery of the answer is never pleasant. It usually leads to a recognition of manipulation by powerful/wealthy elites seeking to protect their own interests using the vast resources they have at their disposal (i.e., a necessarily Marxist argument)[/QUOTE]

Or just being fucking stupid too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Charles Murray's argument is suspect because he won't begin to acknowledge the possibility that structural economic decline led to resultant cultural decay, so there's inherent bias and unfairness from the start. Such an argument is dishonest at worst, woefully, embarrassingly incomplete at best.

Since this is the same person who co-authored "The Bell Curve," it's clear that he is merely disguising controversial "research" in a way that fits the confirmatory bias of racists and culture warriors increases book sales in a substantially huge way.

The age-old question of "why do people openly vote against their own self-interest" is a good question, but the discovery of the answer is never pleasant. It usually leads to a recognition of manipulation by powerful/wealthy elites seeking to protect their own interests using the vast resources they have at their disposal (i.e., a necessarily Marxist argument)[/QUOTE]

Frankly, I'm embarrassed I supported the republicans as long as I did. The funny thing is, I couldn't really give you a specific reason why I did though. I think it was mostly a misguided sense of fairness (along the lines of the current Romney tax thread) and the belief that they really did want a smaller government which would somehow benefit all of us. Now I see there were significant gaps in that line of reasoning in that less government and regulation only benefits those with significant resources to begin with, not the rest of us.

As for their social issues, I never saw eye to eye with them on those. The underlying bigotry in their beliefs is staggering. New Jersey and same sex marriage is a perfect example. Back when it was state Supreme Court's opening the door to same sex marriage the republicans blamed them on being "activist judges." Now the legislature is passing it, which should be indicative of the will of the people, Chris Christie is still moving to veto it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Frankly, I'm embarrassed I supported the republicans as long as I did. The funny thing is, I couldn't really give you a specific reason why I did though. I think it was mostly a misguided sense of fairness (along the lines of the current Romney tax thread) and the belief that they really did want a smaller government which would somehow benefit all of us. Now I see there were significant gaps in that line of reasoning in that less government and regulation only benefits those with significant resources to begin with, not the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

Me too. People think that minds don't get changed but they do.

Debates matter. There are alot of thick skulls but there are also alot of people watching, and every sentence is a chance to get someone to reevaluate their position. It's slight, it's bit-by-bit, but it does happen.

Of course the conservatives in this country get crazier every day. What used to be called the lunatic fringe is now called the grass roots tea party.
 
This election year, he’s back and getting a lot of attention from sociologists and pundits (Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010” sparked the current flurry of commentary). But in 2012 he’s no longer even working class. He’s fallen through the last restraints of decency and industriousness, down into the demoralized and pathological underclass that, in the past, Americans associated with the black poor. There, he lives on disability, is no longer fit for employment nor has any impulse to get a job, is divorced, fathers illegitimate children who grow up to do the same, gets hooked on meth or prescription drugs, does time in prison now and then, and has bad teeth.
Click to expand...

In other words, they became what they hated. Little bit of poetic justice on your shirt there.
 
I don't know that you can really call TP the lunatic fringe. I'd be more inclined to think of them as misinformed/misguided people that simply don't think things through to the big picture element. The "taxes are bad" thing is easy enough to see from their point of view if you stop at your paycheck. I mean hell, if you could get an extra 5-10% out of your labour with reduced taxes, that's great! But if you take another step or three to see what you get for your taxes, then you realize that the return on investment is pretty damn great. I rather enjoy driving on roads that aren't so pocked with potholes that I need to replace my suspension every 4 years.
Those taxes also pay for that military they're so fond of as well as the police that reaffirm that authoritarian style of govt that they indirectly favour.
THough I'd really love to see the look on the face of anyone that wants to get rid of Social Security when you tell them "fine, it's gone, you don't get any despite paying in".

There's always going to be some small part of the population that is pissed about things too. They're the religious right and the ultra lefty. But they're such a minority that it's more or less ok to ignore them at all times. The sad thing is that they tend to be the most vocal in terms of primary/caucus voting that they get heard despite their low numbers.

I suppose we can now call Chris Christie an activist governor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top