Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XI

[DBryan]

Who's angry? I'm not angry. I'm using logic to show why you're wrong. You're avoiding all of the points I and others have made.

 

[floreairfoot]

Who's angry? I'm not angry. I'm using logic to show why you're wrong. You're avoiding all of the points I and others have made.

By telling me that I'm using "talking points"? No, your trying to discredit me because you don't agree.

I've not avoided one point. If you think otherwise, give me an example.

 

[DBryan]

You've completely failed to show how the 2 situations are analogous.

How could anyone reasonably compare Sarah Palin to Sandra Fluke? What I said earlier, which you failed to address...

Sarah gives as good as she gets. Besides blowing off Limbaugh, I can't think of a mean word Sandra Fluke has said about anyone publicly.

Sarah was a governor and the vice presidential nominee. She can take it. Obama has taken that, and worse. It's to be expected when you're so close to the highest office.

How could anybody reasonably compare Rush Limbaugh to Bill Maher?

How is Rush's three day tirade, and dozens upon dozens of personal insults, an effective analogy for Maher's stab at one of the most famous political figures in the world?

If you can't show that the situations are analogous, then you are making a false analogy. Which is a logical fallacy.

You've completely failed to address the context of the remarks.

And simply by pointing to Bill Maher, all you are doing is making a fallacy by pointing to 2 wrongs. What Maher did does not cancel out what Rush did.

You've done nothing but deflect.

You've ridiculously claimed that the only reason Rush was singled out is because he's a conservative commentator, which undermines and is flat out ignorant of what he said and did over the course of several days on his radio show. He targeted a woman who's only crime was to give a testimony to congress and called her a **** and said she should do porn.

How is that at all analogous to Maher and Sarah Palin?

And please, go into more specifics other than language. Language alone does not make the situations analogous. The context of the language makes all the difference.

 

[Schlosser85]

The left clearly has selective moral outrage.

Pointing it out just makes them angerier.

And all I have to do is switch out the word "left" for "right", and it's equally true, so this is a completely pointless and immature childish pissing contest that's a useless distraction from the issues that matter.

 

[floreairfoot]

You've completely failed to show how the 2 situations are analogous.

How could anyone reasonably compare Sarah Palin to Sandra Fluke? What I said earlier, which you failed to address...

I have continually explained, this is not about Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin. You and everyone else, keep repeating it. I'm not going over it again; please read my previous posts.

This is about, as I said, THE SELECTIVE MORAL OUTRAGE OF THE LEFT.

How could anybody reasonably compare Rush Limbaugh to Bill Maher?

As I have said - they are both political commentators.

How is Rush's three day tirade, and dozens upon dozens of personal insults, an effective analogy for Maher's stab at one of the most famous political figures in the world?

Famous or not famous, these are two woman (in the public eye) that were called demeaning and derogatory names.

There was a storm over what Rush said, not from what Maher said.

Again, I stress, this is not about Sarah Palin and Sandra Fluke.

You've completely failed to address the context of the remarks.

Remarks of members, or Rush and Maher?

I have done both.

And simply by pointing to Bill Maher, all you are doing is making a fallacy by pointing to 2 wrongs. What Maher did does not cancel out what Rush did.

For the 6th or 7th time, this is not about the remarks being "wrong", I do not find fault in Rush or Maher.

I find fault in blatant liberal hypocrisy.

You've ridiculously claimed that the only reason Rush was singled out is because he's a conservative commentator, which undermines and is flat out ignorant of what he said and did over the course of several days on his radio show. He targeted a woman who's only crime was to give a testimony to congress and called her a **** and said she should do porn.

As you should now know, it's not about the content of comments made by either party, it's about a double standard.

I would do the same if it was coming from a Republican President, no question.

 

[DBryan]

I don't accept your premise that there is any kind of double standard or hypocrisy AT ALL because you haven't shown that the situations are analogous.

 

[Schlosser85]

The right has selective moral outrage every bit as much as the left does, if not more so.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do see some hypocrisy. But I also see a big difference. If someone like Bill Maher says something incredibly offensive, most Democrats would condemn him if asked about it. Limbaugh on the other hand, not so much. With little exception, they either agree with him, or they're terrified of him.

The latter also has some unfortunate implications. The people who are ready to go to war, are scared of displeasing a radio talk show host.

 

[Raiden]

The issue that's on all Americans' minds. The unsatisfying economy? An unwanted war potentially brewing with Iran? A need for new energy alternatives? Curbing the national debt?

Nope. To Santorum the pressing issue of the day is porn.

This is why he can never win. Not in the general, in any case.

I guess Santorum still think people get their porn from magazines off the newstands or from adult stores. And banning porn is going to make Americans into modern-day Puritans, for sure.

 

[Schlosser85]

I do see some hypocrisy. But I also see a big difference. If someone like Bill Maher says something incredibly offensive, most Democrats would condemn him if asked about it. Limbaugh on the other hand, not so much. With little exception, they either agree with him, or they're terrified of him.

The latter also has some unfortunate implications. The people who are ready to go to war, are scared of displeasing a radio talk show host.

They're not ready to go to war, they're ready to send young people barely out of high school to die in Iraq while they hide behind their multiple deferments.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Reno v. ACLU made online porn legal. Though there are still obscenity laws, they generally aren't enforced, since they'd be thrown out in court.

Then again, many of Santorum's views go directly against established American liberties.

 

[Anita18]

I don't accept your premise that there is any kind of double standard or hypocrisy AT ALL because you haven't shown that the situations are analogous.

Right. I asked of any examples where a Rush-equivalent liberal mouthpiece made equally derogatory comments about Sarah Palin (or anyone else) for DAYS and the Dems failed to criticize them.

No examples presented yet. So I guess I have to assume that's all floreairfoot's opinion too since she's unable to find any evidence.

It goes both ways, you know.

 

[floreairfoot]

I'm a smart woman and I didn't want Sarah Palin representing me. How's that.

No examples presented yet. So I guess I have to assume that's all floreairfoot's opinion too since she's unable to find any evidence.

My example was Maher, sorry if you didn't like it.

 

[Anita18]

My example was Maher, sorry if you didn't like it.

Maher is a self-described libertarian who happens to throw money at some Dems every now and again. I don't think any Democrats quake in his presence. He's the rogue blabbermouth, really.

I think it's fairly accepted that the Dems have Stewart and Colbert as their biggest mouthpieces, but even they've poked fun at the left every so often when they deserve it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I really wouldn't call Stewart and Colbert as Democratic mouthpieces. They have an agenda, but it's more along the lines of exposing the absurdity in American politics rather than promoting the agenda of certain political parties.

 

[Anita18]

I really wouldn't call Stewart and Colbert as Democratic mouthpieces. They have an agenda, but it's more along the lines of exposing the absurdity in American politics rather than promoting the agenda of certain political parties.

I definitely wouldn't either. It's just that their jobs were SO easy when Dubya was in office. And this GOP primary season is good easy fodder as well.

In that way, I think they were associated with "the liberal media" even if their real agenda is completely different. Reality does have a liberal bias.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't know about Colbert (since he's usually in-character) but Stewart has openly admitted that he's a liberal, and that his show reflects that. However, his show is still probably the most balanced political show on television. He regularly has on guests who don't agree with him, and he has criticized politicians on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[SV Fan]

I don't know about Colbert (since he's usually in-character) but Stewart has openly admitted that he's a liberal, and that his show reflects that. However, his show is still probably the most balanced political show on television. He regularly has on guests who don't agree with him, and he has criticized politicians on both sides of the political spectrum.

Isn't Colbert Republican? He usually speaks in pro Republican terms. lol

 

[Anita18]

Isn't Colbert Republican? He usually speaks in pro Republican terms. lol

...are you sure you're watching it in the correct frame of mind?

Watch this and get back to me. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Colbert is a satirist. He makes fun of conservative blowhards like Bill O'Reilly. In a 2004 interview, he described himself as a Democrat. He's also a devout Catholic in real-life who teaches Sunday School when he has the time. So yeah, a complicated, but AWESOME dude.

But yeah, if you're not used to satire, it's difficult keeping up with him. My mother is Chinese where satire DOES NOT FLY anywhere, and it was so hard for her to read his book, because she'd have to stop every page and remind herself that he really doesn't believe such things.

 

[SV Fan]

...are you sure you're watching it in the correct frame of mind?

I was joking(hence the "lol")

 

[Anita18]

I was joking(hence the "lol")

Oh thank God.

But yes, when I try to explain his schtick to people to aren't familiar with him, I confuse them SO MUCH. I think you really have to watch his show to get it.

 

[Marx]

Your comment just proved my point, it's all an opinion.

So for Obama to play the moral mediator, when he obviously doesn't care (shown to us by past decisions), is hilarious.



Wow, Bill Maher?

You're being ridiculous.

One situation is a false analogy of the other for multiple reasons, which have been pointed out.

Sarah Palin was the vice Presidential nominee. She was holding interviews with major networks, she was on the campaign trail giving speeches, she was quite literally ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS POLITICAL FIGURES IN THE WORLD.

She is more fair game for criticism than a woman who gave one testimony to a congressional hearing on women's health issues.

I'm not saying Sandra Fluke is beyond criticism.

I'm saying that there are MULTIPLE reasons why the situations are so very, very different.

Palin has a wealth of public comments that affected political discourse, and she continues to do so. Fluke gave one testimony.

If you do not see that the two situations are not analogous, it is because you don't want to.

I am sick to death of the projection of the right wing. I am sick to death of the martyrdom and victimhood of the right wing. Poor Sarah Palin. Give me a break.

Sarah gives as good as she gets. Besides blowing off Limbaugh, I can't think of a mean word Sandra Fluke has said about anyone publicly.

Sarah was a governor and the vice presidential nominee. She can take it. Obama has taken that, and worse. It's to be expected when you're so close to the highest office.

If you're upset about people complaining about her having expensive clothes or the early criticisms of her not having Trig, attacking her daughter, etc. I can understand somewhat.

But the claims that Palin was incompetent, dangerously ignorant, narcissistic and dangerous are all very true and that's most the criticism. She didn't know anything about foreign policy, non-energy domestic policy or history. Instead of trying to learn she'd shutdown and blame the "liberal media" for expecting her to have basic knowledge about how the world works. She'd dabble in rhetoric that insinuated the first black man running for president was a terrorist. She used gun related language and imagery to attack House Democrats including one who was later shot in the head.

She is an ignorant and petty woman. There is nothing sexist about pointing that out. And most have without using Maher's language so your point is lost.

You're just repeating talking points now.

Like I said, the two situations are not analogous and if you don't see that it is because you refuse to see it.

Rush is being singled out because he called a woman a **** and said that she should record pornography, all because of her testimony on contraception and health. He went on rants against her for days.

The language used and how offended I am all depends on context. You don't care about context, you only care about pointing to someone who's vaguely on the other side of the political fence who at some point used derogatory language in some pathetic "two wrongs make a right" game of deflection.

It's sad and every single person here is intelligent enough to see it for what it is.

Exactly DA and DB.

 

[Pagan]

Maher is a self-described libertarian who happens to throw money at some Dems every now and again. I don't think any Democrats quake in his presence. He's the rogue blabbermouth, really.

I think it's fairly accepted that the Dems have Stewart and Colbert as their biggest mouthpieces, but even they've poked fun at the left every so often when they deserve it.

John Oliver made Wexler and Obama look like giant *****es Thursday night over their decision to defund UNESCO for supporting statehood for Palestine

Part 1

Part 2

 

[SV Fan]

John Oliver made Wexler and Obama look like giant *****es Thursday night over their decision to defund UNESCO for supporting statehood for Palestine

I always say one of the biggest threats to America is AIPAC, I don't think it's that hard to figure out who is pushing that. So much for Obama hating Israel.

 

[8wid]

I'm tired of many just thinking the Iraq War had to do with simply getting cheap oil. That was a motivation because US corporations took control of the supply, hoped to create a pro-Western democracy that would invite in Western media, consumerist values, and favorable trade deals. Some of the defense contractors made a mint building the US bases there and the infrastructure of Iraq. The military industry loved the making of profit from weapons and ratings the war would bring.

But I think the reason Bush went there was to appease the lobbyists and special interests that feed his reelection campaign and to make up for his intelligence failings in preventing 9/11, not catching or killing Bin Laden, and helping America get some version of revenge for 9/11 in which he would be seen as a heroic war time President who freed Iraq and Afghanistan that would be reelected in 2004. It was opportunity fed by his ego to remain President of the United States.

Luckily, all of that has fallen apart miserably.