Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I've scrutinized my liberal friend pretty thoroughly on why he voted for Obama. Or, more specifically, why he voted for Obama over Romney. Because yeah, "they weren't the ideal candidate for me" and "lesser of two evils" is the line that you get from 100% of absolutely every person who voted. The point still stands, what did Obama offer than made him the better choice?

---

Romney's economic policies were frighteningly similar to the policies that got us into the recession in the first place.

I didn't vote for Obama, though.

---

Using the phrase "lesser of two evils" usually implies that neither option offers anything beneficial. So, it is less about what Obama presented as reasons to vote for him and more about the reasons he gave NOT to vote for Romney. It just so happens that the majority of Americans were more afraid of that pathological liar than the man who has at least prevented the country from collapsing. This isn't to say Obama was/is a great man whom no other candidate could have bested. Frankly, I started hating the GOP the moment they refused to allow Ron Paul to speak at the convention. So for me, Romney became the embodiment of Republican narrow-mindedness and elitism.

---

At 5/4/13 11:22 AM, UltraHammer wrote: I've scrutinized my liberal friend pretty thoroughly on why he voted for Obama. Or, more specifically, why he voted for Obama over Romney. Because yeah, "they weren't the ideal candidate for me" and "lesser of two evils" is the line that you get from 100% of absolutely every person who voted. The point still stands, what did Obama offer than made him the better choice?

1. Same old Conservative rhetoric, call for a huge spending decrease while your actual plan is a spending increase since Conservatives love and hate deficits and a huge escalating debt
2. Obama is not in the party which insults people who don't vote for it. You attack the party, not the voters. Something that Romney never figured out.
3. He had nothing to offer that made him better than Obama.
4. Most importantly, Obama is not a Republican. Something that hurt Romney after Todd Aiken and Murdock. You know, people who seemed to be trying to aim for the wife beater and rapist demographic over women.

---

At 5/4/13 01:13 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Romney's economic policies were frighteningly similar to the policies that got us into the recession in the first place.

I didn't vote for Obama, though.

The irony being that Obama is a Bush rehash.

At 5/4/13 04:32 PM, Warforger wrote:

1. Same old Conservative rhetoric, call for a huge spending decrease while your actual plan is a spending increase since Conservatives love and hate deficits and a huge escalating debt

So you should love them.

2. Obama is not in the party which insults people who don't vote for it. You attack the party, not the voters. Something that Romney never figured out.

If voters are stupid, they deserve to be called stupid.

Like... hating Bush for his policies only to vote for Barrack (now Bush 4th term) Obama.

4. Most importantly, Obama is not a Republican. Something that hurt Romney after Todd Aiken and Murdock. You know, people who seemed to be trying to aim for the wife beater and rapist demographic over women.

Even though in reality millions of conservatives stayed home because they didn't consider Romney a Conservative.

Meanwhile Romney won independents, therefore nullifying your idiotic argument that Aiken and Murdock were even on people's minds when they voted.

---

At 5/4/13 04:56 PM, Memorize wrote: So you should love them.

I don't like either.

If voters are stupid, they deserve to be called stupid.

That doesn't matter, you don't insult your customers if you're trying to get them to buy your product. You'd obviously be a terrible politician. Although according to you stupid is "anyone who does not agree with me".

Like... hating Bush for his policies only to vote for Barrack (now Bush 4th term) Obama.

Their policies are similar, but not the same. Obviously things like bailouts weren't popular, but were better than the alternative. But doing things like the Iraq War kind of don't fit into Obama.

Even though in reality millions of conservatives stayed home because they didn't consider Romney a Conservative.

Nope. Not even close. The election was not lost by the Republicans because they didn't motivate Conservatives, in fact the reason may be that they're so far to the right that Conservatives were the only people they could mobilize and those are decreasing. You could tell because swing states like Ohio had the highest voter turnouts. If you look at the categories in terms of race, the only group Romney won was whites. Women v. Men he lost by alot too. Romney lost because the Republicans are unpopular and will increasingly be unpopular in the future if they don't manage to effectively rework their image.

Meanwhile Romney won independents, therefore nullifying your idiotic argument that Aiken and Murdock were even on people's minds when they voted.

Ah no. If anything it helps my argument because centrist Conservatives are so ashamed of the Republican party they don't identify with it anymore. Yet they still vote Republican because they're still Conservative. Although there is a huge movement pushing people who are centre-right into being identified as leftist.

---

Politics aside, probably charisma. Most minorities are poor. Obama and Romney being politicians come off as towering, more than likely, the minority will be distrusting of a White Man in power, than a Black man (half-white but you can't notice).

---

At 5/4/13 05:09 PM, Warforger wrote:

I don't like either.

Says the bailout supporter.

That doesn't matter, you don't insult your customers if you're trying to get them to buy your product. You'd obviously be a terrible politician. Although according to you stupid is "anyone who does not agree with me".

It's anyone who doesn't accept facts.

Their policies are similar, but not the same. Obviously things like bailouts weren't popular, but were better than the alternative.

Carrying the water, are we? lol

But doing things like the Iraq War kind of don't fit into Obama.

Oh right...

Because when Obama said he would withdraw us on day one, but instead asked the Iraqi Government if we could stay until 2020 only for them to reject it.... that wasn't like Bush at all, right?

So what did Obama do? Ah, that's it! He went with the withdraw plan set up BY BUSH with the Iraqi Government towards the end of '08 to be out by the end of 2011.

But are we out?

Oh wait... no. Because all he did was reclassify the status of various troops so he didn't have count them as "engaged", threw any soldier who actually did withdraw into a surge/nation building in Afghanistan, all while replacing the soldiers who left Iraq with Military Contractors.

All while starting more military conflicts and getting just as many troops needlessly killed in pointless military actions in just 4 years that Bush did in 2 full terms.

Nope. Not even close.

And you're close to be a fucking moron.

The election was not lost by the Republicans because they didn't motivate Conservatives, in fact the reason may be that they're so far to the right that Conservatives were the only people they could mobilize and those are decreasing.

Romney won independents by double digits while millions of self identified conservatives stayed home.

And if you ever bothered to look at exit polling data on the issues that the voters cared about, most thought the Government was too big, wanted to cut spending, and repeal Obamacare.

But hey! When you get two parties who supply you with two Statists to choose from!

Ah no. If anything it helps my argument because centrist Conservatives are so ashamed of the Republican party they don't identify with it anymore. Yet they still vote Republican because they're still Conservative. Although there is a huge movement pushing people who are centre-right into being identified as leftist.

So a pro-choice, Pro-bailout, pro-war, Spending increasing, Government run healthcare Republican (ObamaCare being modeled off of RomneyCare); all of which are positions Obama shares...

...is considered, to you, to be "far right wing?"

Once again... you're one stupid fuck.

---

At 5/4/13 04:56 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/4/13 01:13 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Romney's economic policies were frighteningly similar to the policies that got us into the recession in the first place.

I didn't vote for Obama, though.

The irony being that Obama is a Bush rehash.

I did explain that I did NOT vote for Obama, right?

---

At 5/4/13 05:41 PM, Memorize wrote: Says the bailout supporter.

It's funny, everyone outright hated the bailouts except for Economists in pretty much every reputable school of economics. It's the same thing with But that's okay, they don't know anything about it anyway since they're not Libertarians.

It's anyone who doesn't accept facts.

aka not being Libertarian.

Carrying the water, are we? lol

Alot of Reagan's policies were like Carter's, alot of Harding/Coolidges policies were like Wilson's, alot of Clevelands policies were like Arthur's policies etc. etc.

Oh right...

Because when Obama said he would withdraw us on day one,

You can't logistically do that. Of course you think you understand military logistics which i doubt you even know the basics of.

but instead asked the Iraqi Government if we could stay until 2020 only for them to reject it....

What? You mean the Iraq government asked the US to stay until 2020?

that wasn't like Bush at all, right?

Um no because he wasn't outright invading a nation just because he didn't like the government.

So what did Obama do? Ah, that's it! He went with the withdraw plan set up BY BUSH with the Iraqi Government towards the end of '08 to be out by the end of 2011.

I highly doubt that, considering Bush had set up an Iraq War commission which concluded that the US should just pull out. He just ignored that went ahead with it.

But are we out?

Oh wait... no. Because all he did was reclassify the status of various troops so he didn't have count them as "engaged", threw any soldier who actually did withdraw into a surge/nation building in Afghanistan, all while replacing the soldiers who left Iraq with Military Contractors.

Yah, just like any other country does, especially in allies....

All while starting more military conflicts

LOL! Now you're talking out of your ass.

and getting just as many troops needlessly killed in pointless military actions in just 4 years that Bush did in 2 full terms.

What do you mean? Very few died in Libya since we weren't even doing most of the engagement. Other than that he's mostly been using drone strikes which on their own don't risk US lives. So I can only think of the Afghanistan war which he didn't even start or begin. Please, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you're close to be a fucking moron.

So I don't agree with you? Outstanding.

Romney won independents by double digits while millions of self identified conservatives stayed home.

Being an independent is not an ideology. By ideology Obama won moderates. And Romney did not win Independents by double digits. Go back and read voter demographics.

And if you ever bothered to look at exit polling data on the issues that the voters cared about, most thought the Government was too big, wanted to cut spending,

Which is something Democratic Presidents do better than Republican Presidents.

and repeal Obamacare.

Oh that must be why Obama won.

So a pro-choice, Pro-bailout, pro-war, Spending increasing, Government run healthcare Republican (ObamaCare being modeled off of RomneyCare); all of which are positions Obama shares...

Romney wasn't pro-choice and he wasn't pro-bailout either. He didn't even want government run healthcare either since he stated the first thing he would do is repeal it. So no.

And you apparently didn't read his platform, which stated that he would ban abortions even if the mother's life was at risk.

...is considered, to you, to be "far right wing?"

Once again... you're one stupid fuck.

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

At 5/4/13 05:41 PM, Memorize wrote: And you're close to be a fucking moron.
Once again... you're one stupid fuck.

Christ, man, why do you always have to be like that with people?

---

At 5/4/13 11:11 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I thought it was for Hope,Change and Obama Phones.

but all we got is the same old shit like Bush.

Nope it's Hope Change Obey !

---

At 5/4/13 09:21 PM, Warforger wrote:

It's funny, everyone outright hated the bailouts except for Economists in pretty much every reputable school of economics. It's the same thing with But that's okay, they don't know anything about it anyway since they're not Libertarians.

Yes... all those "respected" economists who said everything was fine before the crash.

Gullible sucker. lol.

Alot of Reagan's policies were like Carter's, alot of Harding/Coolidges policies were like Wilson's, alot of Clevelands policies were like Arthur's policies etc. etc.

Exactly.

So why vote for one over the other when there's virtually zero difference between Bush and Obama?

War
Federal Reserve
Deficit spending
Foreign aid
Regulation
ObamaCare and Medicare part D
Patriot Act
Drone Strikes and double tapping
Indefinite detention
Stimulus
Bank bailout
Auto bailout

What difference?

You can't logistically do that. Of course you think you understand military logistics which i doubt you even know the basics of.

I can sure as hell do it in less than 4 years.

but instead asked the Iraqi Government if we could stay until 2020 only for them to reject it....

What? You mean the Iraq government asked the US to stay until 2020?

Learn... to... fucking... read.

Um no because he wasn't outright invading a nation just because he didn't like the government.

You mean if we only bomb from the sky it doesn't count as a war?

So... if we were to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran...

I highly doubt that, considering Bush had set up an Iraq War commission which concluded that the US should just pull out. He just ignored that went ahead with it.

Have fun!

In 2008!

"BAGHDAD, Aug. 21 -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here."

Yah, just like any other country does, especially in allies....

So... just like Bush.

LOL! Now you're talking out of your ass.

Yemen
Syria
Lybia
Surge in Afghanistan
Doubled drone strikes in Pakistan.

What do you mean? Very few died in Libya since we weren't even doing most of the engagement. Other than that he's mostly been using drone strikes which on their own don't risk US lives. So I can only think of the Afghanistan war which he didn't even start or begin. Please, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Remember kids....

If you kill people from far away... it doesn't count as a military conflict!

So I don't agree with you? Outstanding.

I think so too.

You're too much fun not to insult.

Which is something Democratic Presidents do better than Republican Presidents.

Obama sure proved that doubling down on Bush's policies.

Romney wasn't pro-choice and he wasn't pro-bailout either. He didn't even want government run healthcare either since he stated the first thing he would do is repeal it. So no.

Pro-choice as Governor.
Said he wouldn't try to repeal Roe v Wade
Supported TARP
Claimed, while Governor, that RomneyCare could be a model for the country.

It's amazing that you care more about their words in a campaign over their actions.

And you apparently didn't read his platform, which stated that he would ban abortions even if the mother's life was at risk.

You're a dumbass

"The official platform language poised for approval at next week's Republican National Convention doesn't fully represent the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Tuesday."

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Once again... you're a dumb fuck.

lolz

---

At 5/4/13 09:55 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 5/4/13 05:41 PM, Memorize wrote: And you're close to be a fucking moron.
Once again... you're one stupid fuck.

Christ, man, why do you always have to be like that with people?

He's compensating.

---

At 5/5/13 12:12 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/4/13 09:55 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 5/4/13 05:41 PM, Memorize wrote: And you're close to be a fucking moron.
Once again... you're one stupid fuck.

Christ, man, why do you always have to be like that with people?

He's compensating.

He's on point except his attitude is poor.

---

At 5/4/13 05:41 PM, Memorize wrote: Romney won independents by double digits while millions of self identified conservatives stayed home.

Exit poll data from New York Times, FOX News, and CNN: Share of Independent/Other vote, Romney 50%, Obama 45%.

5% = single digit.

And if you ever bothered to look at exit polling data on the issues that the voters cared about, most thought the Government was too big

Citation needed. Can't find any specific exit poll data regarding that question. Care to narrow it down?

wanted to cut spending,

Can't find any exit polling on attitudes toward spending. However, about 47% wanted to increase the income tax on high income earners ($250K+ per year) according to both FOX News and CNN exit polls. Another 13% wanted the income tax increased for everybody. Only 35% wanted no increase.

and repeal Obamacare.

According to both FOX News and CNN exit polls, only 25% wanted to fully repeal Obamacare, while 24% wanted to repeal some part of the law. 18% favored keeping it as it is, while 26% wanted it to be more expansive.

On the overall question, "should the 2010 healthcare law be repealed?" 49% did answer "yes" while 44% answered "no". But remember, probably a very sizable portion of those who answered "yes" are people who would want to repeal Obamacare and have it replaced with something even more progressive, such as a Single Payer system (incidentally, I am one of those people).

---

At 5/5/13 01:46 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Exit poll data from New York Times, FOX News, and CNN: Share of Independent/Other vote, Romney 50%, Obama 45%.

5% = single digit.

Hey look.

Someone who knows how to use Google.

Fucking finally

Can't find any exit polling on attitudes toward spending. However, about 47% wanted to increase the income tax on high income earners ($250K+ per year) according to both FOX News and CNN exit polls. Another 13% wanted the income tax increased for everybody. Only 35% wanted no increase.

Never said they didn't.

But hey! Never said I agreed with the voters either.

---

At 5/5/13 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/5/13 01:46 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Exit poll data from New York Times, FOX News, and CNN: Share of Independent/Other vote, Romney 50%, Obama 45%.

5% = single digit.

Hey look.

Someone who knows how to use Google.

Fucking finally

To add to this:

When I said he won by double digits, I was going from memory of what two analysts said during initial exit polling.

When I searched it up, I found it to be a 5 pt difference.

I initially wrote that in my previous reply, but I wanted to see if he would, just once, actually look someone up to correct me.

But no! You did it for him!

Damn you!

---

At 5/5/13 01:56 AM, Memorize wrote: Hey look.

Someone who knows how to use Google.

Fucking finally

So how's about you use it to find me your exit poll data which allegedly indicates that voters think the government is too big and that they want to cut spending, or did you just invent that along with Romney's double digit lead among independents and the public's desire to repeal Obamacare?

---

At 5/5/13 02:07 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

So how's about you use it to find me your exit poll data which allegedly indicates that voters think the government is too big and that they want to cut spending, or did you just invent that along with Romney's double digit lead among independents and the public's desire to repeal Obamacare?

I'll do that when he demands it, not you.

My little, fun debate isn't with you.

---

america is so effed up right now! all the affairs foreign & interior are getting messed up & thrown out the window . . . thanks obama

--supergandhi64

---

I voted for Obama because I like what the man is done, in that he defeated Osama bin Laden not to mention he removed most of the troops from the Iraq War. I admit that I was counting on him doing the same to those in Afghanistan, but since he can't be re-elected again, I won't be able to vote for him anyway.

---

At 5/5/13 11:37 AM, Ericho wrote: I voted for Obama because I like what the man is done, in that he defeated Osama bin Laden not to mention he removed most of the troops from the Iraq War. I admit that I was counting on him doing the same to those in Afghanistan, but since he can't be re-elected again, I won't be able to vote for him anyway.

You do understand that when troops are removed from one battlefield they are almost immediately moved to another battlefield. See the media just reports that the troops were pulled and that's all you here and that's called propaganda.

---

At 5/4/13 11:37 PM, Memorize wrote: Yes... all those "respected" economists who said everything was fine before the crash.

Not all, even then the reason for the crash was fraud and outright lies, so even if they did have access to data they probably couldn't fix it.

Gullible sucker. lol.

Say's the Libertarian.

Exactly.

So why vote for one over the other when there's virtually zero difference between Bush and Obama?

War

He didn't land troops did he in new conflicts?

Federal Reserve

What's wrong with this thing? It's like the most competent government institution, I mean even you have to admit that.

Deficit spending

Bush expanded it, so far Obama's reduced it. In theory both could've tried going straight to surplus spending, but doing so would crash the economy from so many budget cuts, which would send the budget back into deficit. This is exactly what happened in Europe.

Foreign aid

Ok? The only people against it are those people who don't know much about foreign policy. Like Rand Paul, who then get people who are veterans and experts on it go against them.

Regulation

You mean Bush's laughable EPA whose goal was to help companies get around environmental regulations?

ObamaCare and Medicare part D

Obamacare is regulation, Medicare is expanded spending.

Drone Strikes and double tapping

Drone strikes are an issue connected with the prisons. Obama tried to close down Guantanamo Bay and try those prisoners in the US and there was a huge rally by the American public and Congress against it. He's still de-escalating the prison but he's still tracking down and finding new terrorists. The problem is that he can't capture them because he has no prison to put them in, and he can't send US troops in or he'll risk more lives. Thus the only option out of all of this is drone strikes. Now I don't agree with the whole 50 Civilians = 1 Terrorist but I see the basic reasoning for it.

Indefinite detention

Pretty much gone under Obama since he's taking in less prisoners and trying the ones he already has.

Stimulus

Which helped.

Bank bailout

You mean TARP? That was more like a loan than anything, meaning they pay it back. TARP is the Troubled Asset Relief Program, it means that the government bought the assets of the troubled banks so they could get cash in turn they would buy them back once they've gotten back on the ground.

Auto bailout

As opposed to what, a Great Depression?

What difference?

De-escalation of wars, sending aid to countries with family planning again, passage of equal pay act, Obamacare etc.

I can sure as hell do it in less than 4 years.

You said day 1.

Learn... to... fucking... read.

Oh ok I was just making sure. So you have them mixed up. An Iraqi general said that his forces wouldn't be able to survive on their own and that the US should stay until 2020. Not Obama.

Um no because he wasn't outright invading a nation just because he didn't like the government.

You mean if we only bomb from the sky it doesn't count as a war?

We weren't outright invading nations and overthrowing the governments and occupying them. We let the inhabitants do that.

So... if we were to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran...

Nope a huge stretch missing the entire point.

I highly doubt that, considering Bush had set up an Iraq War commission which concluded that the US should just pull out. He just ignored that went ahead with it.

Have fun!

In 2008!

"BAGHDAD, Aug. 21 -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here."

Yah, just like any other country does, especially in allies....

So... just like Bush.

Um sure I guess. That's what you do when an ally needs help.

LOL! Now you're talking out of your ass.

Yemen
Syria
Lybia
Surge in Afghanistan
Doubled drone strikes in Pakistan.

You said STARTED, not joined. Bush STARTED wars, Obama provided support for a certain side in a war. Unless of course you think the US was in the Afghan-Soviet War, the Indo-Pakistan wars etc. as a full fledged participant then no.

Remember kids....

If you kill people from far away... it doesn't count as a military conflict!

So according to your definition everytime there is a military skirmish it's a war on the scale of an actual invasion of a country. So if I send an assassin to kill a political leader, it's the same thing as sending an army to occupy a country.

I think so too.

Great.

You're too much fun not to insult.

Your insults are wasted and don't come from an authoritative source since you don't know what you're talking about.

Obama sure proved that doubling down on Bush's policies.

You mean like reducing the deficit?

Pro-choice as Governor.

*as governor, not as Presidential Candidate.

Said he wouldn't try to repeal Roe v Wade

Presidents can't do that.

Supported TARP

Ok?

Claimed, while Governor, that RomneyCare could be a model for the country.

Well durr that's what you do when you're a governor.

It's amazing that you care more about their words in a campaign over their actions.

The words mean more than their actions at that point anyway.

You're a dumbass

"The official platform language poised for approval at next week's Republican National Convention doesn't fully represent the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Tuesday."

Which doesn't matter again. If he dared go against that he would risk going against party lines, and instantly be hurt in his dealings with Congress. Obama would have no such constraints.

Once again... you're a dumb fuck.

lolz

I guess I am since I bother to respond to your posts. Not like I'll get any substance out of it.

---

At 5/4/13 04:32 PM, Warforger wrote: Same old Conservative rhetoric, call for a huge spending decrease while your actual plan is a spending increase since Conservatives love and hate deficits and a huge escalating debt

R&R's plan was for spending to go up less fast, until it eventually balanced. So many people depend on Government money right now that cutting it off all at once would cause a pretty serious uproar.

Obama is not in the party which insults people who don't vote for it. You attack the party, not the voters. Something that Romney never figured out.

For the eighty-seventh trillionth time, his 'forty seven percent' comment was made in the context of "okay guys, here's the situation. Over here are the people who are never going to vote for me no matter what, and over here are the people who I have a chance of winning over."

Most importantly, Obama is not a Republican. Something that hurt Romney after Todd Aiken and Murdock. You know, people who seemed to be trying to aim for the wife beater and rapist demographic over women.

Now I know that if I respond to this comment, you'll say "oh ho ho, I was just being hyperbolic!". But no you actually do mean it. You actually do think that Todd Akin is pro rape. That assumption really did get into your head and has remained there ever since. The wretchedness of that is muffled only by how common it is for people to carry that false assumption.

The thing is, you just want Todd Akin to be pro rape. His quote was that of a really bad understanding of the human body. There was nothing, absolutely, positively nothing about whether-or-not rape is acceptable. None. At. All.

But people like you oh so really, really want it to be that way. You people will scour every last word, every last sentence said by anyone on our side for the slightest, faintest little sliver of text that--if taken out of context and the words switched around a little bit--will sound like the 100% made-up stereotype you had conceived of.

Case in point, Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke. A woman makes the case that birth control should be provided in every health care plan. What does the radio host say?

"Why doesn't she buy birth control for herself? It's actually not that expensive. If she and her friend could afford to go to a college like this, why couldn't they afford that?"

But those were just his first thoughts. What did he say after THAT?

"Since when was it someone else's responsibility to make sure you have condoms? Are we not adults who can control our own lives?"

Okay but what did he say after THAT?

"Also, she claimed people were spending up to three thousand dollars a year on birth control. How can you possibly be spending that much?"

Huh, I sort of thought there was a sexist comment in there somewhere. What did he do next?

Why, he went on for like twenty minutes talking about freedom, independence, self-responsibility, entitlement mentality and property ownership; all off of the Sandra Fluke story.

Oh, but then after pretty much all that, he then said,

"Also, doesn't having someone else pay for your sex make you a prostitute? If someone is paying for you to have sex, what does that make you? A slut, a prostitute, right?"

Aha! There it is. Now that's not quite what the word 'prostitute' means, but it's at least halfway logical. Obviously it was a dirty joke; an offensive joke, but still a joke.

So, how did the media respond to it? And--most likely--how did you ASSUME it all happened?

Today, Sandra Fluke made comments about women's rights to birth control, and Rush Limbaugh said, 'a woman talking about birth control?! She's a slut! A slut! She's a prostitute!"

The way people talked about this incident on the forums, that was EXACTLY how they thought it went down. Because you see, that's how they WANT it to be. They WANT Rush Limbaugh to be sexist.

Did anyone ever stop to realize that if calling someone a prostitute after twenty five years of being on the radio is just about the most sexist thing you've ever said, doesn't that shine a very, very positive light on Rush? Heck after the Fluke incident blew up, many conservative commentary outlets were pointing out how Bill Maher and the 'Ed' show make far worse, far more sexist jokes on a regular basis. I.E. Maher calling Sarah Palin the C-word.

---

At 5/5/13 09:01 PM, UltraHammer wrote:

At 5/4/13 04:32 PM, Warforger wrote: Same old Conservative rhetoric, call for a huge spending decrease while your actual plan is a spending increase since Conservatives love and hate deficits and a huge escalating debt

R&R's plan was for spending to go up less fast, until it eventually balanced.

Um at this point that's exactly what Obama did.

So many people depend on Government money right now that cutting it off all at once would cause a pretty serious uproar.

That uproar being a Depression.

For the eighty-seventh trillionth time, his 'forty seven percent' comment was made in the context of "okay guys, here's the situation. Over here are the people who are never going to vote for me no matter what, and over here are the people who I have a chance of winning over."

Exactly, it was 100% in context, he was saying that these people depend on the government and consequently vote for Democrats because they believe they're for social welfare programs. That's why it was so bad. It wasn't anything like the "You didn't build that" when it was 100% out of context. It's one of those things where it seems to have been said 100 times and it's now a fact, despite the fact that there isn't much which supports such a notion no matter how well it seems to fit into your rhetoric.

Now I know that if I respond to this comment, you'll say "oh ho ho, I was just being hyperbolic!". But no you actually do mean it. You actually do think that Todd Akin is pro rape. That assumption really did get into your head and has remained there ever since. The wretchedness of that is muffled only by how common it is for people to carry that false assumption.

NO. NO. NO. I was in fact being hyperbolic, I was outright joking. If you read my post you would understand that. And I wasn't saying that I believed that, i was saying that was the image the party he was a part of portrayed itself as and that was what helped bring him down. And I wasn't even talking about Todd Akin being Pro-Rape, he isn't even by the standards of his comments, I was talking about Murdock who called rape a plan by God because all life is sacred and a gift from God, therefore someone getting raped was a plan by God. I am making sound much worse than what he tried to present but the sad part is that it's roughly accurate. You can go look up his follow-up to his comment if you want he tries to explain what he meant but doesn't shake off the part where rape is part of a plan by God. Now I was accusing Todd Akin of being anti-Women's rights because he wants all of their actions to be judged by men at the very least. He could even have gotten away saying "Sorry, it must have been something I had heard a long time ago and I apologize if anyone was offended" but instead he said "I meant forced, not Legitimate".

Overall I was in fact joking, hell I was regurgitating a joke from the Daily Show. Now I'm just going to delete the rest since I bet during the time Obama said "you didn't build that" you were having a field day talking about him being anti-business.

---

At 5/5/13 09:01 PM, UltraHammer wrote: For the eighty-seventh trillionth time, his 'forty seven percent' comment was made in the context of "okay guys, here's the situation. Over here are the people who are never going to vote for me no matter what, and over here are the people who I have a chance of winning over."

That may have been how it started, but he didn't stop there. He then went on to say that that 47% were lazy, entitled moochers who would never take care of their own lives. It was an insensitive, incorrct, and, most importantly, an impolitic thing to say. And when your job is politics, that's what kills you.

The thing is, you just want Todd Akin to be pro rape. His quote was that of a really bad understanding of the human body. There was nothing, absolutely, positively nothing about whether-or-not rape is acceptable. None. At. All.

Actually, no. While his "understanding" of biology is head-slappingly nonexistent, that wasn't the problem with his comment. Noone thinks Akin is "pro-rape" so you can go burn down that strawman somewhere else. The problem with his comment was the fact that he intimates a large number of reported rapes are outright lies, done by women for personal gain, or in order to shirk some supposed responsibility for an unexpected pregnancy. That is the truly galling thing about his comments.

Did anyone ever stop to realize that if calling someone a prostitute after twenty five years of being on the radio is just about the most sexist thing you've ever said, doesn't that shine a very, very positive light on Rush?

So, it's "he's not sexist because he wasn't as sexist as he could be"? Really?

Heck after the Fluke incident blew up, many conservative commentary outlets were pointing out how Bill Maher and the 'Ed' show make far worse, far more sexist jokes on a regular basis. I.E. Maher calling Sarah Palin the C-word.

The comparison might be apt if there was a similar power dynamic between Maher and the democratic party, and if he didn't already get LOOOOOADS of shit from the evil "liberal media" for it.

---

At 5/5/13 09:33 PM, Ravariel wrote: That may have been how it started, but he didn't stop there. He then went on to say that that 47% were lazy, entitled moochers

Not actual words he used, but theoretically not much more of a stretch, so go on.

who would never take care of their own lives.

You know I must say, having read the quote again, you're a lot closer to correct that I remembered.

Any politician campaigning for reduction in entitlements of any sort will get a response from millions of people that these changes will ruin their lives. And politicians don't hesitate joining in, either. Heck you think Romney was being condescending with his comment? Obama had a mini-campaign devoted to how an eighty five billion dollar reduction (a very small amount) in the growth of government spending would cause tons and tons of people's lives to be thrown out of commission.

It was an insensitive, incorrct, and, most importantly, an impolitic thing to say. And when your job is politics, that's what kills you.

Again it probably isn't as many as 47%; again it was a rough number for the sake of quantifying the idea for the sake of campaign strategy.

Now should I bring up that he said this in a private meeting where only supporters of his were hearing? Due to the fact that his comment was quite a bit more correct than it was incorrect, you should keep in mind that he never intended to offend anyone with it; because he was only going to share it with those who didn't apply, but who he felt needed to hear his assessment of that demographic.

Noone thinks Akin is "pro-rape" so you can go burn down that strawman somewhere else.

Really? You don't think that? You just think he's appealing to the pro-rape demographic, is all, since that's what you explicitly said.

But no you were just being hyperbolic. Oh well, I guess I should let comedic exagerations pass. *puts apparent strawman away*

The problem with his comment was the fact that he intimates a large number of reported rapes are outright lies, done by women for personal gain, or in order to shirk some supposed responsibility for an unexpected pregnancy. That is the truly galling thing about his comments.

Mm, yes. Indeed. I really like the part of his quote where he says that. Because, you know, that's totally something that he said.

So, it's "he's not sexist because he wasn't as sexist as he could be"? Really?

By your original post, it was very clear that you function with the idea that Republicans/conservatives are inherently (far) more misogynistic that Democrats/liberals. And my counter point was, "look at how thick of a microscope you guys are having to look into, and look at how much you have to mutilate the context and meaning of sentences, to find any trace amount of evidence to prove your assumptions".

So, yes: because Rush Limbaugh's misogynist joke (using words that would pass in a PG-13 movie) was basically the most offensive gender-related comment he's ever made in his career, yes, that means he's probably not sexist.

The comparison might be apt if there was a similar power dynamic between Maher and the democratic party

Limbaugh doesn't have power over the Republican party...?

and if he didn't already get LOOOOOADS of shit from the evil "liberal media" for it.

Well that's nice.

---

You didn't respond to the person you thought you responded to by the way.