Harris-Walz / Dems
- Thread starter Teufel
- Start date
Well, it was a fox rep, so calling him a "member of the press" is insulting to both reporters and dicks.
I'm not disagreeing, but it is rather unprofessional. Especially when the other party has little goal or purpose other than finding things to get mad about. It's like handing a lighter to a pyromaniac.
To continue the metaphor: it's really more like giving oxygen to a pyromaniac, who'se also pyrokenetic, and whose every bodily waste is kindling.
They are perfectly happy to literally invent reasons to be pissed off and screaming. Might as well call them what they are.
They are perfectly happy to literally invent reasons to be pissed off and screaming. Might as well call them what they are.
I actually disagree.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
But more than that, the faux-polite society culture cultivated by our government is really what has allowed the fascist sentiment to fester for these 80 years relatively unobserved, I think it's high time we take out the mask of civility and call these rabble rousing troublemakers exactly what they are.
Were I President one of my first acts would be yanking the press pass of Faux Noise and burning it on the desk in the Oval Office during a Nationally Televised Address.
Isn’t that what made the Right love Dump so much though? He didn’t have the civility of the past sixty years of politics — he called it as he saw it. How many times did he call a female a “Nasty Woman”. How is SOB any better or more defendable, even if the Faux News rep is an idiot?
Doocy has a BA in journalism. Him asking a gotcha question to damage the President doesn’t make him a stupid son of a bitch.
What purpose did the whole thing serve? Doocy gets his “so much for the tolerant left”. Biden apologized which doesn’t negate the first thing but also doesn’t please the “straight shooters” who wanted him to call people stupid.
Now pulling Fox News credentials because they give white supremacists’ like Tucker Carlson a platform to spread hate? I’d totally be onboard with that.
Unfortunately, they have a precedent for getting away with it. They legally defended Tucker Carlson in court by basically admitting that no sane person would believe him, and therefore anyone who does is nuts and can't be blame on them. And the judge bought it.
No, it makes him a malicious son of a bitch for working for a propaganda agency instead of honest journalism.
White House disputes reports of federal funds for crack pipes
The Biden administration on Wednesday pushed back on what it called “misinformation,” saying a federal grant program meant to reduce harm to drug users does not include taxpay…
thehill.com
i suspect no one ever expected Biden be accused of this.
No one produced any evidence that this was ever going to be a thing. One conservative blog said they had a source that told them it was a thing. That's it. That's the whole controversy.
That's enough for the Senate though.
thehill.com
That's enough for the Senate though.
Rubio, Manchin offer bill to prevent feds from buying ‘crack pipes’
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Friday introduced a bipartisan bill aimed at blocking federal funds from going toward “crack pipes” …
thehill.com
Rubio, Manchin offer bill to prevent feds from buying ‘crack pipes’
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Friday introduced a bipartisan bill aimed at blocking federal funds from going toward “crack pipes” …
This has me more upset than it has any right to, but what the hell is going on that the GOVERNMENT feels it needs to come up with these cutesy names for their legislation?
WHY is it that MARKETING is a consideration when we're running country!?
I don't want to draw parallels to Idiocracy, but holy hell is this one of the dumbest things I've heard today.
*exhales dejectedly
Yeah...I know it's been going on for a while. I think it's just the realization/recognition of how long it's been going that set me off.
I might have known at some point that PATRIOT stood for something, but it also made sense at the time for the legislation to have a "rah rah" title to it, so it didn't really bug me too much.
I think that it's just upsetting to think that:
a) "the powers" think so little of us, think that we can be bought out by chintzy names and cheap theatrics
b) it seems to be working
Of course it works. I mean, look at the previous president. Cheap theatrics are basically all he ever had.
This argument comes up every time Congress cooks up a terrible bill, but honestly this is pretty common, has been going on longer than most of us have been alive, and both sides do it. Remember the COVFEFE Act? The idea that the time and effort taken to give a bill a clever name is a waste is a bit like the argument that we should have gone out of our way to prevent rich people from getting stimulus checks. And as for the idea that it's making the mockery of serious issues... I'd just like to remind everyone that the freaking Amber Alert's name is a pun. The fight to keep wordplay out of serious issues is one you're not going to win.