Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 10:37 AM
Number of posts: 16,162
Number of posts: 16,162
"Obama is on vacation... again!"
"Obama is lazy"
"Tell Obama to get off the golf course!"
This is just a microcosm, one that represents what is going on here. Obama has taken vacation, but his 138 days pales in comparison to the 1138 days that Congress has taken.
What causes people to ignore the fact that the Republican-led Congress has taken nearly ten times the vacation that Obama has taken? It's almost comical, and indeed, the perfect point to lead into this because of how disproportionate it is.
Humans have a natural tendency to exaggerate the harm caused by what they deem the 'other', and to dismiss any notion of harm caused by a group that is familiar to them.
It's tribalism at it's core. (In this case, the 'good' Republicans vs the 'bad' Democrats)
Today we have systems, politicians, media, and more that serve to exaggerate the exaggerations already present, entrench them, and enshrine them in our society, and make them ideas that are firmly rooted in our culture.
And it's something that feeds into privilege, whether it be white, male, wealthy, straight, and so on.
Ferguson - They're all rioters and making it about race... no matter how peaceful they will be. But the city has absolutely no problems inside it even though it's putting out more arrest warrants than people who live in the city.
Crime in general - A white person who commits a crime is just mentally ill, an outlier so to speak. A black person commits a crime and the entire community is somehow responsible, they all have to confront what is going on.
Inequality - A safety net for the poor is reprehensible, they should all be viewed with suspicion. But a rich person earned his inheritance and network of other rich people.
And you will find far more examples with even cursory glances, so ask why, and I mean really challenge the people who walk around with this way of thinking... that why some groups are responsible as a whole for their violent members, but other groups are not their keepers. Why the actions of some people merit disdain, but similar (Or even greater) actions by others get a shrug.
The Magnifying Glass of the 'bad other' and the Blindfold of the 'good familiar' will only hold us back a whole, and I think that this kind of increasingly entrenched tribalism will only lead us to ruin in the end.
Posted by ck4829 | Wed Aug 27, 2014, 01:07 PM (2 replies)
Back in 2011, I had written this thread:
It was entertaining, but also very frightening to see all the wildy diverging and unsourced data about cutting people off from unemployment insurance.
Next month, it will be three years since I wrote that and many of the links from those things I had pasted have since faded. So I decided, why not make another one, all from articles and discussions after I had posted this thread?
So here goes...
"Disagree...It's been shown that about 1/3 of people on unemployment find a job immediatly when the unemployment ends."
-Here is where it's shown. Ready? Ha! Fooled you.
"Here’s another statistic you should know: two-thirds of people on unemployment find a job… wait for it… within two weeks of their benefits running out. In other words, the job search tends to get serious when the well is about to runs dry.
-Nothing to back this statistic up."
"The vast majority of people on unemployment find a job within the last two weeks of benefits ending."
-Nowhere to be found.
"I think that the records show most people on unemployment get a job about two weeks before their benefits run out."
-Problem finding the record for the record?
"Government stats show that about 70% of people on unemployment get a job shorty after their Benefits run out. Why? Because all of the sudden they really needed a Job."
-Government stats are pretty easy to cite, why didn't you?
"There are a lot of statistics that support people getting "comfortable" on government assistance. For instance most people on unemployment get a job within the LAST 2 weeks of their payments."
-2 weeks? Oh really?
"I cannot find the documentation to support this assertion, but I believe it is true that most people on unemployment find a job right before the unemployment expires."
-Finally someone who says he has nothing to support his assertion and admits it's just a belief, that's all you had to say!
It looks like the right wing echo chamber that we don't see is starting to find something to latch onto with two weeks, so if you ever see a person say something like this, ask them where they got their data, and if they say "Most" and "two weeks before", ask them ten times as hard.
Posted by ck4829 | Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:55 PM (1 replies)
Bryan Fischer lays out the economic ideology of homophobia AKA Freedomism (Anti-Gay) Nazis (Pro-Gay)
Last month, after Christian radio stations and music fans began to boycott the band Jars of Clay over the lead singer's support for marriage equality, Bryan Fischer proclaimed that this sort of reaction was the logical result of that singer's own decision to make a "foolish declaration."
If someone chooses to speak out on this sort of issue, Fischer declared, "that's fine, but then don't complain when there are consequences for making a foolish declaration like that."
Of course, that was two whole weeks ago, back when Fischer found such "consequences" to be totally acceptable because he happened to disagree with the stated position of the person who was experiencing those consequences. That stand has now been totally abandoned in the face of the Benham brothers having lost their HGTV program over their anti-gay, anti-choice activism, with Fischer declaring on his radio program today that they are the victims of the "gay gestapo" which will soon force Christians to wear yellow crosses upon their sleeves "like the Jews in Nazi Germany."
"They're going to make us wear yellow crosses on our sleeves," Fischer stated, "so they can identify us, so they will know whom not to hire, they will know whom to fire ... they will know whom not to do business with"
Just to recap, when someone that Fischer disagrees with suffers a backlash because of their publicly stated position, that is because "there are consequences for making a foolish declaration" ... but when someone that Fischer agrees with suffers consequences for making public declarations, that is Nazi-like persecution.
The scary thing is, he's not alone. And this whole concept can be looked at further.
Here is a forum where the topic is about the Kentucky Print Shop that doesn't want to do business with gays. One poster calls it freedom, the Free Market, and sums it up as 'free country'.
And on another thread, the topic being Mississippi businesses putting up "We don't discriminate" stickers in protest of a 'religious freedom' that can legalize discrimination against gays, the very same poster describes the advocates of this as being akin to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-un.
Posted by ck4829 | Fri May 9, 2014, 11:36 AM (1 replies)
Hey kids and kids-at-heart, want to do something... DANGEROUS?
"BE FOREWARNED: If you allow it at all, don't let your children to watch the Olympics without supervision."
Here's the context, it's about the commentary, that will be provided by Johnny Weir... a gay man.
AVERT YOUR GAZE, IT'S DA GAYS!
I used to think when I heard them talk about this magical indoctrination they apparently do, 'So how does it work, is it like radiation? Do they have to breathe on me? How long do I have to be around a gay person before my heterosexuality is compromised?' But just the act of SEEING gays on TV is enough to do it now? Wow. How soon before being on the same planet as a gay person can do it?
It's more than that, as everyone knows:
Gays attract hurricanes and tornadoes too.
Gays are all making plans to go to Sochi for the sole purpose of terrorizing people there.
Gays have connections to all the top scientific institutions and associations and THAT is the reason why 'brilliant' researchers like Paul Cameron are laughed at by scientists and at least one judge.
But my favorite is what I call the ABSOLUTE SCORCHED EARTH, BOYCOTT THE GAYS tactic.
You know what I am talking about, we've all seen it:
"I REFUSE to buy, support, use, or endorse any product, service, or NOUN for that matter that supports gays or is supported by gays, is gay friendly, acknowledges that gays exist, whatever."
Some famous sightings:
'Disney says gay people have loved ones and wants to give them shared insurance. BOYCOTT!' (Wiley Drake)
'Someone put ads in a gay magazine. BOYCOTT!' (American Family Association)
And the best one of all, 'Google is going against countries that have moral laws against homosexuals, they'll soon be feeling the burn of our BOYCOTT!' (Tony Perkins, the Google initiative that he was speaking against included reforming laws that allow for the execution of gays)
And yet, they are silent about gay people liking little things such as air and water. Isn't that weird?
If all you homophobes are going to worry about your adult cooties, can we also play freeze tag, freeze Boehner and company, and then just leave them where they are?
Posted by ck4829 | Wed Jan 29, 2014, 11:46 PM (0 replies)
By the way, it stands for bilateral structure, totally. Yep.
Basically, it's the idea that...
If you cut or eliminate any assistance, food stamps, welfare the poor receive then they will work harder, and they will grudgingly accept the first job they find and it will be easy to do since there are so many jobs around.
But there's another side to this curve, and that is...
If you raise taxes or increase regulations on the rich or 'job creators', then they will not work as hard, they will flee the Nazi US with it's genocidal progressive taxes, the country will become a desolate wasteland, and the US will become the live action version of Fallout and the living shall envy the dead.
Short version is:
The rich will work harder if they have even more, and the poor will work harder if they have even less.
Basically the BS Curve is a staple of right wing thought, although you also see it a lot in libertarian thought as well. You hear it from politicians, the media, probably from some of your friends and family, and more.
It's so vital to right wing talking points and the curve is a force behind so much legislation, but yet there is so little to back it.
* No empirical research
* No interviews with people affected by it ("First I was poor then the Nazi government cut my food stamps so I found a job. Then I won the lottery and now the Communist government wants to tax me for it!"
* God, not even a graph of the BS Curve exists, I mean if people can say "Hunger is a motivator for the poor!" and "The 30% tax rate for the rich is just like the Holocaust for them!" so many times and with so much fervor, then someone, ANYONE, can draw a visualization of an estimation of when the morale increases/demoralization happens vs what the poor and rich have.
People need to get out there and ask their politicians, their media, and people who talk about this what exactly the BS Curve (And remember, it means Bilateral Structure) means to them and what are the circumstances and inner workings of it.
* What is the BS Curve as how it relates to the working poor? If they find they qualify for welfare and food stamps, will they quit their jobs and live on the dole? What is the percentage chance of this happening?
* There was a case of a rich woman in Seattle, she lived in an upscale neighborhood, she also took in welfare, rent assistance, and both state and federal disability payments. Will she work harder or not as much now that the government took all of this away?
* If we cut it down even further, how does the BS Curve work in regards to the lower lower class, lower upper class, lower upper middle class, working class, lower upper class, etc.? What does giving them more vs giving them less do for them?
* Has the BS Curve been researched in other countries, if the BS Curve holds true, then countries with universal health care, robust safety nets, quality education, and other programs paid for by a healthy to substantial tax rate will be Kafkaesque nightmares that nobody would want to live in or even visit while countries that are 'every man for himself' and no taxes should be stable and friendly. What countries show the BS Curve?
And let's get a graph people, everybody needs to see the Bilateral Structure curve for themselves.
Posted by ck4829 | Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:22 AM (1 replies)
"Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on them; it’s war for them."
So when Jim DeMint said gays and unmarried women should be barred from teaching (Here), he was obviously looking out for them, protecting them from, or doing them a service... well, because you know, FREEDOM!
Or when Todd Akin and a host of other Republicans go on about pregnancy from rape being rare to non-existent because of magical secretions or other ways to shut that whole thing down, it's NOT the 'just-world-hypothesis' that pretty much amounts to 'It wasn't rape because you are pregnant and must have enjoyed it'. No, get it RIGHT! It's some bit of super-science that us normal scientists don't have access to.
Or when Fox News went on a (air quote)whine spree(/air quote) because women won't have to pay more in health insurance because they're women, they weren't actually complaining about it or trying to cause divisions or anything like that. Paying more for some items at some times should be considered a good thing, just like when Fox News made the incredible discovery that low gas prices under Obama might be a bad thing. (Here)
So yeah women, job discrimination, pseudoscience, higher prices because of your sex, they're not BAD things, they're all things that are actually in your corner. Don't you see now or are you going to continue be blinded by all those liberals?
Posted by ck4829 | Mon Jan 27, 2014, 12:45 PM (7 replies)
Theodore Shoebat, the son of anti-Islam activist Walid Shoebat, and an anti-gay activist in his own right, railed against the "Sodomite nazis" who are attacking Phil Robertson "simply because he pointed out a truth to the darkness of the sick, violent, and twisted mindset of homosexuals"
To many modern Christians, allowing homosexuality as a right is esteemed as being “free under Christ,” as though Christ believed that evil deserves freedom. I find no freedom for the sodomite ever specified in the Bible or in any teaching in Church tradition.
Father is a fake terrorist, son spews REAL terrorist rhetoric and threats. What a change.
Posted by ck4829 | Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:31 PM (3 replies)
Throughout the 1980s, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- now infamous for its work on behalf of “stand your ground” laws and restrictions on voting rights -- was instrumental in pushing anti-gay policies throughout the country, according to documents recently uncovered by People For the American Way and the Center For Media and Democracy.
A 1985 policy memo entitled “Homosexuals: Just Another Minority Group” sums up ALEC’s anti-gay policy positions and the false claims and outrageous stereotypes on which they were based. ALEC disseminated the memo to its public sector members, arguing that the “homosexual movement has had an impact too great and far reaching for Americans to ignore.”
Through the policy memo and its monthly newsletters, ALEC tracked local, state and federal legislation and provided its members with “research” to help them prevent advances in gay rights. However ALEC of course did not view these rights as rights; instead, ALEC asserted that the gay community was organizing “to achieve the privileges it thinks it deserves.”
So what “privileges” exactly were gay people demanding that infuriated ALEC so much? To name a few, the “privilege” to not be physically assaulted for being gay; the “privilege” of not being incarcerated for being gay; the “privilege” of not being barred from employment opportunities, housing and public accommodations for being gay; the “privilege” to dress as they liked; or the “privilege” of not being compiled into state directories to be blacklisted and discriminated against.
Some pretty disturbing stuff in here, includes the 'categorization' of gays, stereotypes, the homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory which they said is something that unites all 'categories' of gays, and they're HOMOSEXUAL so they must be SEXUAL in nature.
Posted by ck4829 | Wed Dec 4, 2013, 11:47 AM (0 replies)
Now, rarely, people do claim that demons and being gay are linked (Although it does happen). But there is more to it than that, there was a moral panic involving "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the early 1980's and going through to the early 1990's; today's homophobia may have taken many of the rhetoric and symbols and incorporated them into it's own movement.
Let's find out what and how.
Cabals and Conspiracies
The mighty Homosexual Agenda, the secret society of gays who are using the book "After the Ball" to enact their sinister agenda... of being accepted. Or something like that. Just how evil is the Homosexual Agenda? Well, in 2004, Senator Tom Coburn said it was worse than terrorism. And in 2010, the Family Research Council produced a graphic labeled "Homosexual Agenda" and had phrases such as "Innocence" and "Family" crossed out.
Sound familiar? It should. During the Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic, it was alleged that Satanists, Druids, and Witches were conspiring to control world affairs, the media, and get into Churches to make them Satan friendly... just like the secret Homosexual Agenda to get rid of Churches. What a coincidence.
I was a Teenage Zombie!
The right loves their out-of-bondage stories. So-called ex-gays are the focus here. The examples are dwindling as more and more realize ex-gay treatment is harmful and also realizing that sexual orientation can't really be changed, but the right still clings to this.
This isn't exclusive to gays either, there are also stories of ex-Islamic terrorists who make questionable claims as well, Kamal Saleem (AKA the GRAND WAZIR OF ISLAM) and Walid Shoebat (Who said he firebombed Bank Leumi but the bank said it's bogus) are examples of this targeted group.
Turns out, there were ex-satanists during the Panic as well. Mike Warnke was the Panic's version of John Paulk (He doesn't claim to be ex-gay anymore) or Walid Shoebat. Warnke said he was a satanist, but left to join the Christians, but he had an insider view of the Satanic conspiracy. The claims were exposed as complete lies (By an Evangelical magazine). Ironically, Warnke warned people to stay away hucksters coming in the name of Christ (He was referring to John Todd, another fraudulent Ex-Satanist in particular)... and then passed a collection plate along as he needed cash to save people from human sacrifice by Satanists.
Symbols that mean Something
The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic had secret symbols everywhere according to the experts. Stars usually. These were secret pentagrams. The stars on the flag of the European Union or the symbol of Procter & Gamble were said to be the Satanist flag (AmWay distributors milked the latter as much as they could... pass the collection plate). Other symbols include the peace sign and the anarchy symbol.
And wouldn't you know it, the gays apparently have Secret Communication Skills as well. According to Peter LaBarbera, they STOLE the word "gay", they took rainbows, and they are taking the word "equality" as well.
Unlike the Satanists, the gays have mastered the delivery of their secret symbols in television. Tim Wildmon, the President of the American Family Association, agreed with a caller who said there was "evidence" of gay people on HGTV and Animal Planet. Wildmon expanded upon this, saying people have to watch out for it on shows for children as well.
Won't somebody please think of the children?
The two movements are very child-centric, and not in a good way. A very heavy part of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic was that the Conspiracy was out to recruit children, get into schools, sacrifice children, and even breed children to do this. Kee MacFarlane even testified in front of Congress, saying there was an organized national conspiracy of "orthodox satanic groups" that abused children. She provided no evidence of this, but you don't need evidence when there is a moral panic going on. This was seen in the McMartin preschool trial, now widely seen as a travesty of justice. Bizarre accusations of child sacrifice, flying through tunnels, going to Africa and coming back in the course of one day, and more were made.
And on the homophobic side, the accusations are also bizarre. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said that if a gay comes knocking on your door, and a boy answers the door, they may take him and run off with him. This is all a part of the Homosexual Recruitment idea, similar to the Homosexual Agenda idea above. And there are many ways that homosexuals recruit people according to homophobes, including by using anti-bullying. Because bullies help you stay straight apparently.
In 2003, Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent to Lawrence v Texas that there was a "homosexual agenda" seeking to... change things. It's time to see homophobia for what it is, a panic, recycled from another panic.
Posted by ck4829 | Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:03 PM (3 replies)
On today's "Pray In Jesus Name" program, "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt was discussing the UK Supreme Court's rejection of an appeal of an Northern Irish court ruling that granted same-sex and unmarried couples the right to adopt children.
While discussing the case, Klingenschmitt put a photo of two men and a baby on the screen so that he could point out that "one of the men almost has his tongue hanging out, like he's licking his chops, like this baby is ours now. And that's fine, you may call that love, but it looks to me a little bit like lust."
Klingenschmitt went on to say that gay couples "crave" to adopt "the children of heterosexual couples" so that they can raise and recruit them into the "homosexual lifestyle," declaring that allowing that to happen is child abuse.
Now, reading way bit too much into a photo and the idea that gays want to adopt children solely to 'recruit' them aside; did anyone notice else he went a bit too much on the mouth/eating features of the gay man, "tongue hanging out", "licking his chops", "crave" which composed the points of his diatribe against the photo?
That's a sign of some serious psychological issues and "Dr. Chaps" might want to get that looked at.
Posted by ck4829 | Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:43 AM (2 replies)