Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Democrats losing the foreign policy battle to a party that wasn't able to stop the worst terrorist attack in our history and invaded the wrong country.

And by double digits at that!

This stupid country.

 

[benjipwns]

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Democrats losing the foreign policy battle to a party that wasn't able to stop the worst terrorist attack in our history and invaded the wrong country.

And by double digits at that!

This stupid country.

 

[WayneMorse]

Do you think Republicans will begin to come out in support of Assad as a way to undermine Hillary for not being supportive of him during the Syrian Civil War? ie. "Hillary helped cause ISIS,"?

 

[Trouble]

Do you think Republicans will begin to come out in support of Assad as a way to undermine Hillary for not being supportive of him during the Syrian Civil War? ie. "Hillary helped cause ISIS,"?

It doesn't help that she voted for the Iraq war, since a lot of the high ranking ISIS people are Baathists from Sadaam's army. That's a tough line of attack for Republicans to get behind since W started the war and all.

I think coming out in support of Assad would be scorned by all sides, but I wouldn't put it past some of the nuttier fringe folk. Say, perhaps Trump.

 

[benjipwns]

But none of the candidates except someone like Peter King or John Bolton will have been in Congress or whatever when the Iraq vote came up. Hillary was.

I don't expect Republicans to throw W. under the bus, but they're in a better position to do so really.

 

[benjipwns]

Rubio handles the tough questions from Sean Hannity:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...4088-rubio-to-cpac-ive-learned-on-immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE845CJSw2c

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that he's learned he was wrong on his approach to immigration reform.

Rubio, a onetime Tea Party favorite whose support for a comprehensive immigration reform package hurt him with the GOP base, told the conservative crowd that he now understands U.S. borders must be secured before anything else can be done.

"It wasn't very popular, I don't know if you know that from some of the folks here," Rubio said with a smile, earning laughs from the crowd, when asked about his earlier support for the bill by Fox News host Sean Hannity.

"You have 10 or 12 million people in this country, many of whom have lived here for longer than a decade, have not otherwise violated our law other than immigration laws, I get all that," Rubio said. "But what I've learned is you can't even have a conversation about that until people believe and know, not just believe but it's proven to them that future illegal immigration will be controlled.

...

Rubio said recent border issues had proven his earlier approach was wrong, calling a border security first approach "the only way forward."

"You can't just tell people you're going to secure the border, we're going to do E-Verify. You have to do that, they have to see it, they have to see it working, and then they're going to have a reasonable conversation with you about the other parts, but they're not going to even want to talk about that until that's done first. And what's happened over the last two years, the migratory crisis this summer, the two executive orders, that's even more true than it's been."

Rubio said Obama had “proven true” one of the biggest arguments against the “Gang of Eight” bill—that a path to citizenship was on the table before the border was fully secured.

“The president not once but now twice has basically said by executive order, ‘I won’t enforce the law,'” Rubio said.

Rubio suggested congressional Republicans should continue to fight to block the orders from being implemented, even though he admitted that the GOP would get the blame.

“If you lose that constitutional check and balance on power, you lose the essence of what makes our nation different from others,” he said. “It’s not a policy debate. This is a constitutional debate.”

 

[Diablos]

Nikki Haley is now flirting with the idea of a state exchange as a means to prepare for potential fallout from the SCOTUS siding with King. Then she goes on to say she's still opposed. Whatever that means.

It's early, still. If the GOP does enough nationally to give Roberts or whoever else could be the deciding vote confidence they as a party have viable solutions, this could really poison the well per se. I don't expect most states to do much of anything if they haven't already, with rare exception. Tennessee has introduced a bill banning the state from setting up an exchange, for example.

Aetna's CEO is in constant contact with Mitch McConnell. I wonder what those convos are like...

 

[Manmademan]

Okay, nevermind. Makes way more sense now.

on top of that, there is often a "straight ticket" button, allowing voters to walk in, hit a "republican for everything" button, and walk out in seconds without actually looking at who is running.

 

[FiggyCal]

99 times Bill O'Reily lied to America

 

[speculawyer]

Do you think Republicans will begin to come out in support of Assad as a way to undermine Hillary for not being supportive of him during the Syrian Civil War? ie. "Hillary helped cause ISIS,"?

Coming out in support of Assad is just not tenable. That pretty much means you are also in support of:
-Dictatorship
-Russia
-Iran

 

[speculawyer]

99 times Bill O'Reily lied to America

Yeah, the amazing thing is that he is actually getting criticized for lying. He's been lying for years and years and years. I guess a good thing out of the Bryan Williams issue is that it finally got some coverage about the fact that Fox lies nonstop.

 

[benjipwns]

Here's the thing, looking at the list. I'm not sure half of those or more are lies. I have no reason to think O'Reilly doesn't believe those things to be true. He's never struck me as a details or research guy, more of a fuck it, we'll do it live. He knows his gut and that's what he runs with, some pinhead can look it up and he's right until then.

Rush Limbaugh calls him Ted Baxter (ironically so does Keith Olbermann) and I think that's a more accurate grasp of O'Reilly than a deliberate liar.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Here's the thing, looking at the list. I'm not sure half of those or more are lies. I have no reason to think O'Reilly doesn't believe those things to be true. He's never struck me as a details or research guy, more of a fuck it, we'll do it live. He knows his gut and that's what he runs with, some pinhead can look it up and he's right until then.

Rush Limbaugh calls him Ted Baxter (ironically so does Keith Olbermann) and I think that's a more accurate grasp of O'Reilly than a deliberate liar.

Ditto. He's kind of an idiot (or at least research-averse), but most of the time he's not lying, per se.

Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.

 

[thepotatoman]

Here's the thing, looking at the list. I'm not sure half of those or more are lies. I have no reason to think O'Reilly doesn't believe those things to be true. He's never struck me as a details or research guy, more of a fuck it, we'll do it live. He knows his gut and that's what he runs with, some pinhead can look it up and he's right until then.

Rush Limbaugh calls him Ted Baxter (ironically so does Keith Olbermann) and I think that's a more accurate grasp of O'Reilly than a deliberate liar.

That still leaves roughly half that are full on lies. I mean, how else do you really explain the entire affair with his nonexistent awards and the multiple lies to try to cover up his original lie.

 

[FiggyCal]

Here's the thing, looking at the list. I'm not sure half of those or more are lies. I have no reason to think O'Reilly doesn't believe those things to be true. He's never struck me as a details or research guy, more of a fuck it, we'll do it live. He knows his gut and that's what he runs with, some pinhead can look it up and he's right until then.

Rush Limbaugh calls him Ted Baxter (ironically so does Keith Olbermann) and I think that's a more accurate grasp of O'Reilly than a deliberate liar.

I think Bill truly believes most of the things he says on his show. There's some very obvious attempts to bend and stray from the truth, like when he says that he's a registered independent and he gets 6 million views. But he's pretty consistent about his beliefs when compared to some other conservative hosts. I think as far as intentional dishonesty goes, Hannity is a million times worse.

Bill O'Reilly will say things that he thinks is true and is apathetic to what reality is. I guess he's more of a bullshitter than a liar.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think Bill truly believes most of the things he says on his show. There's some very obvious attempts to bend and stray from the truth, like when he says that he's a registered independent and he gets 6 million views. But he's pretty consistent about his beliefs when compared to some other conservative hosts. I think as far as intentional dishonesty goes, Hannity is a million times worse.

Bill O'Reilly will say things that he thinks is true and is apathetic to what reality is. I guess he's more of a bullshitter than a liar.

good book

 

[FiggyCal]

good book

I read it for my philosophy class a while back.

Spoiler

And I'm pretty sure I got the definition wrong :x

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The ardent and unclouded quality of love that Mr Giuliani and Mr Williamson find missing in Mr Obama is largely the privilege of those oblivious of and immune to America's history of injustice and abuse. Those least aware of historical oppression, those furthest from its living reality, will find it easiest to express their love of country in a hearty and uncomplicated way. The demand that American presidents emanate this sort of blithe nationalism therefore does have a racist and probably sexist upshot, even if there is no bigotry behind it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...atriotism?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/itscomplicated

 

[Coriolanus]

I have no reason to think O'Reilly doesn't believe those things to be true.

The Costanza defense it is.

 

[speculawyer]

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Democrats losing the foreign policy battle to a party that wasn't able to stop the worst terrorist attack in our history and invaded the wrong country.

And by double digits at that!

This stupid country.

Seriously. That is pretty maddening. I have no doubt that if a John McCain or someone like him got into office, the GOP to revert back to war mode and whip up fear, paranoia, and nationalism in order to get us into another war.


The current situation is weird. There are lots of GOPers calling for more military action but they can't seem to bring themselves to authorize a new AUMF because that would mean the Kenyan Muslim would have that military power. They are melting down over that.

 

[benjipwns]

I do think there is a difference between willfully lying or willfully deploying figures you should have looked into before running with it and and just blasting your opinion off the top of your head because you're an idiot.

If you compare O'Reilly to Hannity they're very distinct. Hannity is a talking points machine just BAM BAM BAM gets the party line out there over and over never wavering. So he'll have the number the GOP wants out there. Let's say it's that Obama spent $2 trillion on an Islamic birthday party. O'Reilly has heard about this somewhere and he's got his guest on and he's pissed about it, but he's winging it, he remembers it's a big amount but fuck if he knows so he says $4 trillion and calls his guest a pinhead for trying to downplay this and all the terrorist fist jabs that went on at the party.

Meanwhile the truth is that Obama only spent $1 trillion on his Islamic birthday party, the other $1 trillion was spent on his anti-Christianity birthday party.

 

[speculawyer]

Here's the thing, looking at the list. I'm not sure half of those or more are lies. I have no reason to think O'Reilly doesn't believe those things to be true. He's never struck me as a details or research guy, more of a fuck it, we'll do it live. He knows his gut and that's what he runs with, some pinhead can look it up and he's right until then.

Rush Limbaugh calls him Ted Baxter (ironically so does Keith Olbermann) and I think that's a more accurate grasp of O'Reilly than a deliberate liar.

I think Bill truly believes most of the things he says on his show. There's some very obvious attempts to bend and stray from the truth, like when he says that he's a registered independent and he gets 6 million views. But he's pretty consistent about his beliefs when compared to some other conservative hosts. I think as far as intentional dishonesty goes, Hannity is a million times worse.

Bill O'Reilly will say things that he thinks is true and is apathetic to what reality is. I guess he's more of a bullshitter than a liar.

Sure . . . but whether you are a bullshitter or a liar, you should not be a respected journalist or even commentator (a commentator can have strong opinions and select particular facts to support their commentary . . . but you can't invent facts to support your commentary.)

 

[Coriolanus]

Seriously. That is pretty maddening. I have no doubt that if a John McCain or someone like him got into office, the GOP to revert back to war mode and whip up fear, paranoia, and nationalism in order to get us into another war.


The current situation is weird.

To condense it:

The party that killed Osama Bin Laden is considered worse at foreign affairs than the party that failed to kill Osama Bin Laden.

"Democrats are shit at messaging" example #9351515

 

[FiggyCal]

I do think there is a difference between willfully lying or willfully deploying figures you should have looked into before running with it and and just blasting your opinion off the top of your head because you're an idiot.

If you compare O'Reilly to Hannity they're very distinct. Hannity is a talking points machine just BAM BAM BAM gets the party line out there over and over never wavering. So he'll have the number the GOP wants out there. Let's say it's that Obama spent $2 trillion on an Islamic birthday party. O'Reilly has heard about this somewhere and he's got his guest on and he's pissed about it, but he's winging it, he remembers it's a big amount but fuck if he knows so he says $4 trillion and calls his guest a pinhead for trying to downplay this and all the terrorist fist jabs that went on at the party.

Meanwhile the truth is that Obama only spent $1 trillion on his Islamic birthday party, the other $1 trillion was spent on his anti-Christianity birthday party.

The point of the article was that nothing in that list was true.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

To condense it:

The party that killed Osama Bin Laden is considered worse at foreign affairs than the party that failed to kill Osama Bin Laden.

"Democrats are shit at messaging" example #9351515

Its not messaging its cultural conditioning (I'd love to see a regional or racial break down of that. I imagine it will be largely chrisitian white and southern with Blacks, Latinos, Asians and non evangelicals much more torn or leaning democratic)

The Democratic party is relatively uncomfortable with the bellicose language and xenophobia of the conservative movement. People on a whole will probably always view those that are more forceful as better at handling foreign affairs. The party that is willing to talk with adversaries, not get into wars is always going to come in second there.

I don't think its a problem though, its a relatively arbitrary ranking because it goes into the much more complex decision of voting where things are ranked based on their perceived importance and people in 2016 will most likely chose the democrats because they share more culturally with them (especially in swing states).

Bellicosity wins votes, always will.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think Bill truly believes most of the things he says on his show. There's some very obvious attempts to bend and stray from the truth, like when he says that he's a registered independent and he gets 6 million views. But he's pretty consistent about his beliefs when compared to some other conservative hosts. I think as far as intentional dishonesty goes, Hannity is a million times worse.

Bill O'Reilly will say things that he thinks is true and is apathetic to what reality is. I guess he's more of a bullshitter than a liar.

I don't see much of a difference between a bullshitter and a liar. If the bullshit you spew happens to be lies, then guess what that makes you

 

[benjipwns]

The point of the article was that nothing in that list was true.

It says 99 lies. (But a bitch ain't one.)

but you can't invent facts to support your commentary.)

I think the history of journalism would suggest otherwise. If we're just counting institutions I don't think there's a single one standing that hasn't been battered by this at some point. And most of them in recent memory.

I don't see much of a difference between a bullshitter and a liar. If the bullshit you spew happens to be lies, then guess what that makes you

Lying implies malice and knowledge that it's untrue.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ok, then he's a stupid liar rather than an evil liar.

Although a number of those are pretty harmful and intentional.

 

[Coriolanus]

I don't think its a problem though, its a relatively arbitrary ranking because it goes into the much more complex decision of voting where things are ranked based on their perceived importance and people in 2016 will most likely chose the democrats because they share more culturally with them (especially in swing states).

Bellicosity wins votes, always will.

I just see it as a way to deny the opposing party a rhetorical leg up. I understand the concern over not sounding overtly (and needlessly) bellicose, but, since this is one of those few examples where you can drag the other side over the coals, why shouldn't you? There will be no adverse effects. Fuck will people do, vote for the party that failed to kill the Satan du jour?

Thus the opposition in reduced to bitching about how it's unfair that the guy politicized the killing, which is a far weaker position for them. (especially since the counter to that is "awww you gon' cry? babby gon cry?")

 

[B-Dubs]

good book

It really is, I got a copy a number of years back.

 

[benjipwns]

More polls!

lol at boomer party gap on marijuana

I'd love to see a regional or racial break down of that. I imagine it will be largely chrisitian white and southern with Blacks, Latinos, Asians and non evangelicals much more torn or leaning democratic

They didn't do available crosstabs for release for those unfortunately.

 

[ivysaur12]

lol at boomer party gap on marijuana

I had a good laugh at that.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah but like Latinos are natural Republicans

 

[benjipwns]

I would have drawn that climate chaos graph differently. Flipped "human activity" and "natural causes." So that the two "not human activity" choices are closer together.

If you combine "natural causes" and "isn't warming" you get:
Hispanic: 70% human activity vs 30% not
Blacks: 56% human vs 43% not
Whites: 53% not vs 44% human
Total: 50% human activity vs 48% not

So why do Hispanics (and, to some extent, blacks) stand out? One possibility might lie in the age of the Hispanic population. With a median age of 27 years, Hispanics are significantly younger than whites (42), blacks (33) and the nation as a whole (37). Overall, younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to say the Earth is warming because of human activity. Six-in-ten Americans ages 18-29 say the Earth is warming due to human activity, compared with 31% of those ages 65 and older.

Another possible explanation for these trends is differing political preferences by race and ethnicity. Those who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party are significantly more likely than those who prefer the Republican Party to say the Earth is warming because of human activity (by 71% to 27%) – and Hispanics and blacks are more likely to lean Democratic than whites. About 54% of Hispanics and 81% of blacks identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 40% of whites.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s?hootPostID=a152a3c25bb9a4260032e553a355ba58

what

 

[Tamanon]

I would've loved to have Halperin's curve in my classes I guess.

 

[ivysaur12]

I would've loved to have Halperin's curve in my classes I guess.

Scott Walker wouldve loved that in college, too.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s?hootPostID=a152a3c25bb9a4260032e553a355ba58

what

Does this guy even understand how an overall grade is supposed to work? Either he's a dipshit who has no idea how grades work or that's one hell of a curve.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't see much of a difference between a bullshitter and a liar. If the bullshit you spew happens to be lies, then guess what that makes you

A liar is intentionally deceptive and a bullshitter is complete idiot. Neither should get any respect.

 

[speculawyer]

While people, stop embarrassing me.

Anyone have a clue as to why Latinos are so climate change aware? Many from hotter countries? Covered heavily in Spanish media?

 

[Tamanon]

While people, stop embarrassing me.

Anyone have a clue as to why Latinos are so climate change aware? Many from hotter countries? Covered heavily in Spanish media?

Witnessing more drastic changes in the environment as more industrialization occurs in originating countries is my guess.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s?hootPostID=a152a3c25bb9a4260032e553a355ba58

what

Halperin in a nutshell.

 

[ivysaur12]

CPAC Straw Poll results:

#Patakimentum

 

[B-Dubs]

Goddamn, Jeb can't even beat Carson. It's early, but if that keeps up he'll be the worst frontrunner ever.

 

[Tamanon]

LOL at Perry and Jindal.

 

[Poodlestrike]

With any luck, Rand takes this as a sign that he's got a chance, and forgoes filing in Kentucky.

 

[CygnusXS]

With any luck, Rand takes this as a sign that he's got a chance, and forgoes filing in Kentucky.

I thought they found a loophole around that by changing the Kentucky primary into a caucus?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I thought they found a loophole around that by changing the Kentucky primary into a caucus?

Not that I can see. Rand wants them to change to a Presidential primary caucus, so he can get an early bump, but I don't think that helps him with his Senatorial issue. Kentucky just doesn't allow you to run for both offices at the same time, AFAIK.

 

[Jooney]

CPAC Straw Poll results:

#Patakimentum

lol Christie

http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...atriotism?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/itscomplicated

Great read, thanks.

Watching Giuliani worm his way out of this has just been sad. He knew exactly who is audience was when he said those remarks. So much of the GOP campaign process is an exercise in brand awareness.

 

[Trouble]

lol Christie

Seriously. He did worse than Carly Fiorina, which is amazing.