I've seen Rachel Maddow go after it several times.
On the other hand? That lie of the year he says is a lie? Only a lie if you really finesse it.
"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," he said, to boos from the audience. "I will fight for every good job in America. I?m going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if it?s fair, America will win."
Conservatives made up the initial story based on a misrepresentation of a Bloomberg story which said that Chrysler was going to produce Jeeps for the Chinese market in China. This is a standard business practice. It turned into Chrysler going overseas, and then shifting ALL jobs overseas. When conservatives report on how Politifact (and the left) lied about Romney's lie, they try and point to other sources or frame it in the light of the ad he ran that said they would build Jeeps in China. That's still kind of shifty, as the ad was about what Obama had done for the US economy and what Romney would do; what Chrysler did for the Chinese market was wholly irellevant.
What's interesting here is that this guy also mentioned Maddow. Now, Rachel, she's gone after Politifact for what they actually say. Usually it's a case of Politifact's rating not jiving with the story itself (The body of the article refuting all claims, for example, but the headline saying "partially/mostly true."). Compare and contrast to the right going after Politifact and lying to do so, and we have a clear case of false equivalence.
Well, they have to find some way to deal with the cognitive dissonance I think the reason Sarah Palin was saying her daughter made the "right choice" simply had to do with not choosing to abort the child. Though never did I hear her actually follow through with any criticism of her daughter that she loves to spout in other places--nothing about how she should have waited, or about how the sex was a mistake. All smiles and glossing over, ignoring the real problems and conversations that need to be had, just as this brand of conservative has been doing for several decades now. As long as they can find enough rugs to sweep everything under they'll be okay.
And this is more common than you think. My mom's side of the family are all Baptist and very conservative, and in the last few years two of my cousins have had children out of wedlock. While they do look very much down on sex before marriage, nothing negative was said around them. All smiles and sunshine, "Oh, you're having a baby? That's wonderful! When's the shower?" My theory is the whole "no sex before marriage" thing is supposed to keep everybody happy and to keep the family in order, but when that fails they just go to plan B and pretend everybody is happy and the whole family is order. They're too stubborn and scared to find a new standard for order, so they just pretend anything that falls short of the standard didn't happen. When nobody's pregnant they'll tell you how great purity is and how "just fine" they are, and when all of that falls apart they still pretend they're just fine because they have nothing else to fall back on. They refuse to address it in the open because that shatters the order that they value over the truth and even their own alleged "virtues."
As for the politics that happened after Bristolgate, I'm guessing the reason the conservatives didn't attack Bristol was because it opened the floodgates to too many questions they don't have answers for, and I'm guessing the opposition[footnote]In this case I refuse to call them "liberals" because to me the idea of making sure people are educated on how sex and pregnancy works isn't a "liberal" idea, it's common sense.[/footnote] didn't use her as a rallying point because she wasn't on their side at first and trying to force it would have been in very poor taste.
Well yeah, I know it's about her choice to not have an abortion. That's the choice they think she shouldn't be allowed to make I was referencing. And yeah, the silence was deafening.
But no, it doesn't happen more than I think (I know it's a common saying, but I feel pedantic today...>.>). Red states tend to lead in teen pregnancy, infidelity, and divorce. Further, teens who practice "abstinence" are just as likely to have sex, and more likely to engage in oral and anal sex...It's more or less like telling a dog not to hump other dogs. It may look like it understands, but it's gonna do it anyway. And hell, I have people I know from grade school on Facebook who have four or more kids, and they're all "save it for marriage (like I didn't!)."
And sadly, the notion that education works is solidly a "liberal" idea these days.
Screamarie said:
Well...I do like your avatar...and I have always enjoyed watching you set people straight...okay, the council of single women gives you pardon. Just don't spread it around too much, we have our evil reputation to keep.
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't expect this to go anywhere. There will be plenty more conjecture and unsupported claims before the mods wake up and realize this whole thread should have been deported to the R&P dungeon a while ago.
That was so off the wall and disjointed I couldn't even follow it.
I almost think I entered a straw man's mind, little weird, poorly thought out, and wtf thoughts just coming up and out without any real thought by anyone involved.
I'm not sure which is worse though, them saying these things, or me hearing them.
I didn't get through the whole 12 pages of the thread before posting; but I hope someone has already pointed out the obvious about these statistics.
It's not progress when you have 4 times more single mothers living just above the poverty line. I'd hardly call the single adult making up many of these "households," earning 20,000 a year, a breadwinner. To be fair, there was an increase in the percentage of two person households where the woman makes more than the man, but those women are overwhelmingly college educated and white. Meaning, it doesn't exactly paint a portrait of progress for everyone.
Both Shock and Awe and AgedGrunt made the same point and they were completely ignored. Find it odd that nobody in this entire thread wanted to talk about what the numbers behind the data actually are; and instead just bash fox news and have a gender war.
It actually is. Progress doesn't mean everything is sunshine and roses. Progress means things are moving forwards. Women joining the workforce in a society that treats workers like shit invariably means there will be more women treated like shit as workers. Still, there's the other side of the coin....
Seventy-one percent of husbands are working in households where women make more money than their spouses, and they have a median family income of $80,000, according to 2011 data.
And you're free to redefine words all you want. However, most of us are going to operate on the basis of using words as they are usually used. That means that even people on the poverty line are breadwinners.
To be fair, there was an increase in the percentage of two person households where the woman makes more than the man, but those women are overwhelmingly college educated and white. Meaning, it doesn't exactly paint a portrait of progress for everyone.
To be fair, that's not what the pundits were losing their shit over. There's a reason the people bitching about teh wimminz destroying our culture is the big story. Fox already made it a "gender war," no matter how much you try and foist it on posters here.
EDIT: And if you want to talk numbers, only 49% are college educated. Not overwhelming. 69% are white, so we could argue that is overwhelming, but as whites make up 73% of America, I hardly see how this would be anything out of proportion. Looks like the numbers don't help this argument any, do they?
And yeah, it's not progress for everyone. And?
Both Shock and Awe and AgedGrunt made the same point and they were completely ignored. Find it odd that nobody in this entire thread wanted to talk about what the numbers behind the data actually are; and instead just bash fox news and have a gender war.
All I've seen from Aged Grunt is attempts to justify and enforce a false equivalence fallacy, but you're right. If their arguments are as poorly thought out as this one, they deserve to be destroyed just as completely.
The first guy said 4 out of 10 households rather then just reducing it tow 2 out of 5. Is basic math that hard? Why is that the thing I notice the most?
If anyone is redefining anything, it's you saying that progress is more single mothers on government assistance living just above the poverty line. A breadwinner supports their family, not a combination of their minimum wage job and Uncle Sam.
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but it's kind of an extension of the original debate in the OP's video: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/31/lou-dobbs-megyn-kelly-and-erick-erickson-clash-over-women-breadwinners-america-live
She is and she isn't. Out of all the Fox news pundits I hate her the least. She tends to spout the same bullshit and most of the Fox News personalities, and like them it is all an act. At times she breaks characters, though, and when that happens it is hilarious.
This is one of those times. A Fox news reporter would NEVER cite research saying homosexual couples are just as good at raising children than heterosexual couples, and yet here she is. I remember when Barack Obama was reelected I flipped over to Fox out of a morbid sense of curiosity and even though it was obvious it was going to happen some guy was flapping his jaw about how it was too close to call yet. She turned to him and basically told him to stop being an ass. It was one of the funniest things I've seen and I wish I could find that video.
I didn't get through the whole 12 pages of the thread before posting; but I hope someone has already pointed out the obvious about these statistics.
It's not progress when you have 4 times more single mothers living just above the poverty line. I'd hardly call the single adult making up many of these "households," earning 20,000 a year, a breadwinner. To be fair, there was an increase in the percentage of two person households where the woman makes more than the man, but those women are overwhelmingly college educated and white. Meaning, it doesn't exactly paint a portrait of progress for everyone.
It's like the old saying goes: Every journey begins with a single step. And if it doesn't start with white, highly educated women, it will never start and it will certainly never work its way down to the lower ranks in the social ladder. I do agree with you though: America, the land of oppertunity, where all are created equal, as long as you are male, white and christian.
It's like the old saying goes: Every journey begins with a single step. And if it doesn't start with white, highly educated women, it will never start and it will certainly never work its way down to the lower ranks in the social ladder.
This journey leads one place: A generation of children who call their grandma "Mommy" and their mommy "Pam," who are going to rob me in 10 years; to borrow from Chris Rock.
It is funny to see everyone in this thread working themselves into a lather over this.
The Fox News piece in question is, like most of their commentary, designed to appeal to a group of people who hold onto religion in a world that is quickly leaving religion behind. Look at what they focus on. Women's rights, women in the workplace, homosexual marriage, gays in the military or boy scouts, basically all things that people disapprove of for religious reasons.
Eventually the theist group will become so marginalized that they won't have a voice on network TV.
EDIT: This means that the only change the government should make is stepping out of the issue. Instead of legalizing something, just not having the government decide the issue. This includes Gay Marriage and drug legalization, the government should just step out of it. It would make the solutions much easier, as both sides may get what they want.
If you're saying that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, and heterosexual couples should not have anything like the current institution of marriage, fair enough.
That would be the government stepping out of the issue entirely.
Similarly, with certain substances, legalizing them would be stepping out of the issue. (Whether one thinks that's a good idea or not is different)
But I'm kinda confused on your use f the word 'legalize' here.
Surely legalizing drugs would be the government stepping out of the whole thing? they wouldn't be punishing people for it, or rewarding them?
For marriage, marriage is an institution that is between an amount of people( or objects, I don't care), their pockets, and their faith(or lack of faith, don't matter to me). The government should not have much to do with it outside of keeping numbers. I don't agree with you on what legalization means, I feel legalization is the feds throwing a bone to a hot button issue, so they can continue to regulate said issue, though I am a person who believes a citizens duty is to doubt power constantly and may exercise that doubt too much. Though, I do think any use in a disapproving private or public area do deserve regulation, whether by private or public entities of security.
Again with the emotional reactions. I'm no fan of "the left" (which is as hilariously inaccurate a definition as "the right", but that's a completely [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Assembly_(France)] different [http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012] discussion [http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638]), either... and I agree that both Democrats and Republicans are afraid of not having control of everyone's opinions. That's why we have MSNBC and Fox News, respectively (neither of which do much in the way of actual journalism). Our political situation is most certainly polarized by changes in culture and released constraints on political spending for "both sides"... which actually tend to be much the same on substantive economic issues... it's just that the more socially conservative "right" drew a proverbial line in the sand in 2008 and hasn't budged since on any issue, much less social progress... and it's showing (also, it has the marginally more socially progressive "right" pissed off to the point of hurling insults... as you pointed out).
I think the chart in the second link is no good in the modern age, as on that list, I am far right, and far downward, and if people saw that they would not be a fan of what they believe that implies. I also think that someone can't be too far to the left and still remain on the libertarian scale, as federal control of someones finances is not a belief of a libertarian(though I'm not sure on the politics of that if it is a odd hypothetical very small federal government with citizen enforced socialism).
Also, I'd say the right is playing the same game as the left, just not quite as well. I think that poor publicity comes with the movements of a more visibly grey opinion. By that I mean, that it's easy to say that someone who is against free health care wants someone to not be treated, while its more difficult to say that free health care damages freedom in private finances and requires money that doesn't exist. The conservative people are stuck with a poor public view because of the nature of their politics. It is tough to apply that social change, but let me say, that social change is really screwed on both sides. The left asks for permission from the federal powers that be on things, given that it benefits them, for example only legalizing gay marriage and as opposed to making marriage a completely private issue for individuals to decide. Both sides have screwed politics on economic and social issues, and they seek to oppress the opinion of the other side, which is not progress in any way.
I don't agree with you on what legalization means, I feel legalization is the feds throwing a bone to a hot button issue, so they can continue to regulate said issue, though I am a person who believes a citizens duty is to doubt power constantly and may exercise that doubt too much. Though, I do think any use in a disapproving private or public area do deserve regulation, whether by private or public entities of security.
because I understand it to mean making something previously illegal legal. It might mean the government will try to regulate it differently, but 'stepping out of the issue' would include making it legal.
Talking about the situation in the US, gay marriage isn't illegal. The police isn't going to come and arrest you if you hold a wedding ceremony for two people of the same sex. The issue is that gays cannot have the same legal benefits heterosexual people do.
For example, my mother married her long-time boyfriend because that made it possible for her to move with him to the States where he got a job. If they were a homosexual couple, they would not have had the same legal benefits.
TheScientificIssole said:
The left asks for permission from the federal powers that be on things, given that it benefits them, for example only legalizing gay marriage and as opposed to making marriage a completely private issue for individuals to decide. Both sides have screwed politics on economic and social issues, and they seek to oppress the opinion of the other side, which is not progress in any way.
The problem in the US at the moment is that the law on marriage isn't equal.
There are two ways to achieve equality:
1) make homosexual marriage possible
2) take away the priviledges heterosexual people enjoy at the moment
The thing is, achieving 1) is far easier, because homosexuals are a minority and most heterosexuals wouldn't be happy to lose any benefits. And a lot of people believe marriage is a beneficial institution.
I do. It's practical to have a way to make yourself a family in the eyes of the law, because family members get treated differently.
(For example when it comes to visitation rights or inheritance)
I have half a mind to send them the links on how they have now successfully fertilized an egg using only female cells making men no longer necessary for sperm.
But without men... who would do all the dangerous work in the world? =D
(Not to mention the inventing etc. ZINNGGG!!111!)
But anyway, how come statistics like this never seem to provide justification for society to no longer feel pressured into patronizing and pitying women? It's hard to treat people as equals when people are literally called out as sexists for treating women the same as they treat men.
I mean it's like... how come we so often seem to get told almost in the same breath... that women are still being discriminated against and are disadvantaged in all sorts of ways... and then some statistic comes up that makes women look good and suggests they're outperforming men? (Which would be hardly surprising either when the success of women at virtually any cost seems to be a priority these days)
Again with the emotional reactions. I'm no fan of "the left" (which is as hilariously inaccurate a definition as "the right", but that's a completely [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Assembly_(France)] different [http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012] discussion [http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638]), either... and I agree that both Democrats and Republicans are afraid of not having control of everyone's opinions. That's why we have MSNBC and Fox News, respectively (neither of which do much in the way of actual journalism). Our political situation is most certainly polarized by changes in culture and released constraints on political spending for "both sides"... which actually tend to be much the same on substantive economic issues... it's just that the more socially conservative "right" drew a proverbial line in the sand in 2008 and hasn't budged since on any issue, much less social progress... and it's showing (also, it has the marginally more socially progressive "right" pissed off to the point of hurling insults... as you pointed out).
I think the chart in the second link is no good in the modern age, as on that list, I am far right, and far downward, and if people saw that they would not be a fan of what they believe that implies. I also think that someone can't be too far to the left and still remain on the libertarian scale, as federal control of someones finances is not a belief of a libertarian(though I'm not sure on the politics of that if it is a odd hypothetical very small federal government with citizen enforced socialism).
Also, I'd say the right is playing the same game as the left, just not quite as well. I think that poor publicity comes with the movements of a more visibly grey opinion. By that I mean, that it's easy to say that someone who is against free health care wants someone to not be treated, while its more difficult to say that free health care damages freedom in private finances and requires money that doesn't exist. The conservative people are stuck with a poor public view because of the nature of their politics. It is tough to apply that social change, but let me say, that social change is really screwed on both sides. The left asks for permission from the federal powers that be on things, given that it benefits them, for example only legalizing gay marriage and as opposed to making marriage a completely private issue for individuals to decide. Both sides have screwed politics on economic and social issues, and they seek to oppress the opinion of the other side, which is not progress in any way.
I think we've gotten pretty far off topic here, but there are still a few points I'd like to make.
First: Libertarian. The US Libertarian party misuses the shit out of the word (well, it's mostly their various 501c3 supporters, but those are the people they answer to in the end in any case). It's the opposite of authoritarian, nothing more. A belief in the value of personal liberty over control. One can not be libertarian and be for a market where money and power all reside at the top. We have the choice between an authoritarian government or authoritarian corporations at this point in time. Hamstringing the government just consolidates power in the other side of the arena. That's not libertarian, it's just capitalist extremism. Which is how most people in the US define "Libertarian" at this point... though to be honest, that redefinition happened when I was in elementary school.
Medical care: if socializing it to the level of single-payer healthcare (which still leaves plenty of competition in drug manufacture and among doctors, it just removes competition between hospitals and keeps them honest) doesn't work, why are Canadians, Germans and Japanese people doing so well on that front while in the US the bills for having a kid are around the same price as a new car?
(hint: our biggest export is the dollar, usually to tax havens)
As for the Republicans and Democrats, you're right. The Democrats (right authoritarians) are using similar tactics to the Republicans (extreme right authoritarians)... and are more successful in their use... mostly because they're using those tactics to appeal to progressive young people rather than religious extremists (it's just a numbers game, and progressive young people currently outnumber religious extremists in the right areas).
I do agree that both sides are focused on combating the other side, due to the nature of our political system (electoral college [http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC9936C719FF689E7D], first-past-the-post voting, et cetera). It worked for the technology and society we had in the late 18th and early 19th centuries... but it was broken by 1880, and it's still broken now.
I agree on the marriage front, by the way. The government should redefine those benefits. They should have nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with raising kids. Thanks to our influential religious sects, though, the two are still seen culturally as one and the same.
I don't often bring that one up, though, because I have no stake in it. I want nothing to do with kids, and got a vasectomy to ensure I never make any... so I'm probably the wrong one to make that decision... I've just seen too many people game the system for tax breaks with as little intention of being monogamous or raising kids as I have.
I'd say that's about it, so...
TL;DR: Our system is broken, and our nation has so far refused to learn from more successful nations.
I usually test more centrist. Hm.
Also, if people don't like what their beliefs say about them, they should examine why, maybe realize their culture disagrees with them, and accept that. It's something that led me to accept that our culture is really, really fucked up.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I think the reason Sarah Palin was saying her daughter made the "right choice" simply had to do with not choosing to abort the child. Though never did I hear her actually follow through with any criticism of her daughter that she loves to spout in other places--nothing about how she should have waited, or about how the sex was a mistake. All smiles and glossing over, ignoring the real problems and conversations that need to be had, just as this brand of conservative has been doing for several decades now. As long as they can find enough rugs to sweep everything under they'll be okay.
