Topic: Culture Wars (Read 78060 times)

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #640 on:** February 19, 2012, 10:05:03 AM »

Something I just want to get off my back real quick:

It's completely unacceptable for the Government to force Church-run businesses to provide healthcare for its religiously unaffiliated employees that would go against the employer's beliefs.

BUT it's totally acceptable for the Government to draft laws and amendments explicitly outlining who Churches can marry, literally forcing people to adhere to a specific type of religious observation.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #641 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:50:21 PM »

Well, they both involve allowing people to force their religious beliefs on others, so in that respect, at least they're consistent.

Thad · « **Reply #642 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:52:26 AM »

Quote from: Disposable Ninja on February 19, 2012, 10:05:03 AM

It's completely unacceptable for the Government to force Church-run businesses to provide healthcare for its religiously unaffiliated employees that would go against the employer's beliefs.

And of course Stewart already covered the obvious slippery slope in this reasoning: what about religions that don't believe in vaccinations? What about Christian Scientists?

(Usual disclaimer: I'm not generally much for slippery slopes, but constitutional law is a place where it is absolutely acceptable to examine them and their legal implications.)

Quote from: Disposable Ninja on February 19, 2012, 10:05:03 AM

BUT it's totally acceptable for the Government to draft laws and amendments explicitly outlining who Churches can marry, literally forcing people to adhere to a specific type of religious observation.

Strictly speaking even THAT'S not a straight analogy -- because as you note, it's not churches who are being "forced" to supply birth control, it's church-owned businesses.

Bal · « **Reply #643 on:** February 20, 2012, 09:11:25 AM »

Churches are businesses, and shouldn't be treated any differently. Now, they should still be able to apply for not-for-profit status, but they shouldn't get it just because what they're selling is God.

Büge · « **Reply #644 on:** February 22, 2012, 11:44:47 AM »

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #645 on:** February 22, 2012, 11:47:11 AM »

YOU DON'T FUCKING SAY

Thad · « **Reply #646 on:** February 22, 2012, 11:50:08 AM »

Really? All I saw in the trailer was a couple of pop stars and some half-baked slapstick. I thought they'd boiled the message right the hell out of it.

Zach · « **Reply #647 on:** February 23, 2012, 01:06:12 AM »

Truffula Tree Certified - Mazda CX-5 and Dr. Seuss' The Lorax (Extended Version)

I do not believe that the Trufella Tree Seal of Approval is an award that is given to cars.

Mongrel · « **Reply #648 on:** February 23, 2012, 01:05:20 PM »

Can you tell the difference between Santorum quotes and Megadeth lyrics?

Thad · « **Reply #649 on:** March 02, 2012, 01:56:30 PM »

This week's Senate vote shows the Senate Republicans are completely fucking onboard with the birth control insanity. That will cost them in November.

Also Rush Limbaugh is seeing how far he can push this thing. I am hoping for a repeat of 2006 where he decided it would be a good idea to mock a well-liked actor with a debilitating disease and gave the Senate to the Democrats.

EDIT TO ADD: Not providing a link because I'm sick of seeing his smirking face at the top of my Google News page as it is. For anyone who doesn't know what he said, you can either punch up any news site or just make an educated guess.

Brentai · « **Reply #650 on:** March 02, 2012, 02:01:57 PM »

Boehner trying to do damage control is just... I don't know if it's entertaining or sad. Honestly I'm waiting for that guy to snap and switch parties out of sheer frustration.

Thad · « **Reply #651 on:** March 02, 2012, 02:03:42 PM »

Haven't seen it but I assume it's standard "Oh fuck Limbaugh said something awful but you can't criticize Limbaugh and still be a Republican" trouble.

Brentai · « **Reply #652 on:** March 02, 2012, 02:23:42 PM »

No, he strongly divorces the GOP establishment from the tone of Limbaugh's comments. Not the message per se, just the tone.

I haven't checked the reaction of those under him but I wouldn't be too surprised if they were... somewhat less critical of such remarks.

Mongrel · « **Reply #653 on:** March 06, 2012, 03:47:22 PM »

Continuing the growing trend of comedy outlets serving as better news sources and editorialists than most conventional news sources, Cracked has a straight-as-hell article on Six things rich peopel need to stop saying.

Nothing earth-shattering, but man, it's nuts when you think it take some place like Cracked to put a plain-spoken comprehensive rebuttal together.

Court jesters serving their purpose, I suppose.

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #654 on:** March 06, 2012, 04:45:53 PM »

... they're making a movie about John Dies At The End?

Holy shit that's awesome.

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #655 on:** March 07, 2012, 12:15:21 AM »

It's pretty much made, at this point. Showing at one of those film festivals, first.

Büge · « **Reply #656 on:** March 07, 2012, 07:32:46 AM »

Büge · « **Reply #657 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:33:00 AM »

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/10/442048/breaking-98-major-advertisers-dump-rush-limbaugh/

Thad · « **Reply #658 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:05:17 AM »

Evanier:

Quote

I keep reading articles and blog posts about whether the current controversy will “destroy Rush Limbaugh.” In terms of knocking him off the air, never. His show simply makes too much money and the folks who make it with him (syndicators, local stations, etc.) will continue to profit. Even if at some point he hit an unprofitable period — which he won’t — he could knock down his salary a few million a year and the others who’ve made so much off him could and would bide their time and wait to see if his audience returns. As yet, there’s no evidence it’s going away at all.

[...]

It is a bit of a fib to say that 40+ of his advertisers have deserted him. If you look at the list, what you see is that a lot of companies that buy ad packages on stations that carry Rush have asked that their commercials not be placed in or around his show, at least until the current flap blows over. Most of those firms did not make a deliberate attempt in the first place to “sponsor Rush Limbaugh.” Some profess not to have even known their spots were airing during his program in some markets and that’s not at all impossible.

Limbaugh has done damage of some indeterminate amount to his political movement in that he’s furthered the notion that Republicans and Conservatives are hostile to women — especially women who dare to be unmarried, outspoken and/or sexually-active. If this keeps up, one of these days some prominent Republican candidate is going to have to pull a “Sister Souljah” maneuver and deliver some kind of smackdown that says, in effect, Rush ain’t running this party and he ain’t setting the agenda and he ain’t always helping us by alienating swing voters we think we can reach. But I don’t see that happening soon.

What does seem likely now is that a lot of advertisers will opt to avoid controversial shows. There will always be someone who wants to buy ad time on Rush’s broadcasts. It may not be AOL or other mainstream companies. It may more likely be more companies that want to sell you overpriced gold or equipment to enable you to survive the inevitable nuclear holocaust next month…the kind Glenn Beck was reduced to in his waning days on Fox. But there’ll be someone.

I agree with him that this isn't going to kill Rush's show, but it WILL have a ripple effect -- Rush can weather this storm, but I'm not so sure about smalltimers like, say, my own former Congressman JD Hayworth. Advertisers who are seeking to avoid controversy won't just be pulling out of Rush's show, they'll be avoiding right-wing talk radio in general, and if that results in somebody down the chain losing their job, well, that's the free market, dudes.

Sharkey · « **Reply #659 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:27:10 PM »

"Oh, we'll still pay you. Just don't run our ads for that one particular show. At least for a few days."

That's not sending a message to the producers of the show or stations that run it. That's publicly dodging potential criticism while actually changing fuckall about your behavior. Which is probably the point and seems to work pretty well.

Meanwhile, if your weird personal definition of "boycott" happens to be "I will continue to give an equal or very slightly smaller amount of money to the producers of these goods/services for a brief window of time while telling everyone about my boycott," I might just be justified in thinking you're either illiterate, a shithead, or a master manipulator. Or some combination of the three.

News:

Author Topic: Culture Wars (Read 78060 times)