Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Document the Atrocities! The American Political Media

19899101103104106

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    I feel like you don't even understand my position.

    It's a terrible policy. The DoD should wield whatever funding or administrative power they can to force the issue. And the electorate of Oklahoma should be ashamed of themselves.

    But somebody writing to criticize the policy should do so accurately. Even if you want to use "denies benefits" in a headline, the body should at least make passing mention of the ability to apply at federal offices, and certainly should take pains not to imply the opposite.

    Edit: As it stands, a reader can walk away from the story with the impression that all members are entirely unable to receive benefits. This would even, Id say, be the most likely takeaway. And it is wrong.

    mcdermott on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Research time!

    Oklahoma has 3.8 million people (wait, what?)

    The five largest cities (OKC, Tulsa, Norman, Broken Arrow, and Lawton) have ~1.3. Wiki says about 2/3 of the state live in the OKC/Tulsa metropolitan statistical areas. Which are seven counties each, of pretty reasonable county size in the Great Plains. Assuming all the federal stuff is in the actual major cities, and National Guard members are distributed evenly (probably more in the rural areas, in actuality), even the ones on the outskirts of those Metro areas are facing probably an hour plus drive both ways to apply.

    Cursory search has 7 federal buildings in Oklahoma: 3 in OKC, 1 in Tulsa, 1 in Muskogee, 1 in Lawton, and 1 in McAlester.

    Additionally, four military bases, where you could maybe get this kind of thing processed? Altus Air Force Base in Altus, Fort Sill near Lawton, Tinker Air Force Base near OKC, and Vance Air Force Base, in north central Oklahoma. The people in the northwest part of the state and particularly in the panhandle are pretty screwed.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    I feel like you don't even understand my position.

    It's a terrible policy. The DoD should wield whatever funding or administrative power they can to force the issue. And the electorate of Oklahoma should be ashamed of themselves.

    But somebody writing to criticize the policy should do so accurately. Even if you want to use "denies benefits" in a headline, the body should at least make passing mention of the ability to apply at federal offices, and certainly should take pains not to imply the opposite.

    Edit: As it stands, a reader can walk away from the story with the impression that all members are entirely unable to receive benefits. This would even, Id say, be the most likely takeaway. And it is wrong.

    There's a difference between not understanding your position and considering it mere sophistry.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Research time!

    Oklahoma has 3.8 million people (wait, what?)

    The five largest cities (OKC, Tulsa, Norman, Broken Arrow, and Lawton) have ~1.3. Wiki says about 2/3 of the state live in the OKC/Tulsa metropolitan statistical areas. Which are seven counties each, of pretty reasonable county size in the Great Plains. Assuming all the federal stuff is in the actual major cities, and National Guard members are distributed evenly (probably more in the rural areas, in actuality), even the ones on the outskirts of those Metro areas are facing probably an hour plus drive both ways to apply.

    Cursory search has 7 federal buildings in Oklahoma: 3 in OKC, 1 in Tulsa, 1 in Muskogee, 1 in Lawton, and 1 in McAlester.

    Additionally, four military bases, where you could maybe get this kind of thing processed? Altus Air Force Base in Altus, Fort Sill near Lawton, Tinker Air Force Base near OKC, and Vance Air Force Base, in north central Oklahoma. The people in the northwest part of the state and particularly in the panhandle are pretty screwed.

    I agree, this is why the policy is terrible and the DoD should act quickly.

    But a writer who makes no mention whatsoever of the ability to apply at federal installations, and implies that all servicemembers are being denied these benefits (not just the ones in the far reaches of the state), is not being entirely honest.

    At no point was I arguing the merits of OK's policy. It's legitimately terrible. On a sale of Kanye West to Hitler, it's Kitten Murder.

    *checks thread title*

    Yup, I -thought- I was in the right place. Huh.

    Squidget0
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Research time!

    Oklahoma has 3.8 million people (wait, what?)

    The five largest cities (OKC, Tulsa, Norman, Broken Arrow, and Lawton) have ~1.3. Wiki says about 2/3 of the state live in the OKC/Tulsa metropolitan statistical areas. Which are seven counties each, of pretty reasonable county size in the Great Plains. Assuming all the federal stuff is in the actual major cities, and National Guard members are distributed evenly (probably more in the rural areas, in actuality), even the ones on the outskirts of those Metro areas are facing probably an hour plus drive both ways to apply.

    Cursory search has 7 federal buildings in Oklahoma: 3 in OKC, 1 in Tulsa, 1 in Muskogee, 1 in Lawton, and 1 in McAlester.

    Additionally, four military bases, where you could maybe get this kind of thing processed? Altus Air Force Base in Altus, Fort Sill near Lawton, Tinker Air Force Base near OKC, and Vance Air Force Base, in north central Oklahoma. The people in the northwest part of the state and particularly in the panhandle are pretty screwed.

    I agree, this is why the policy is terrible and the DoD should act quickly.

    But a writer who makes no mention whatsoever of the ability to apply at federal installations, and implies that all servicemembers are being denied these benefits (not just the ones in the far reaches of the state), is not being entirely honest.

    At no point was I arguing the merits of OK's policy. It's legitimately terrible. On a sale of Kanye West to Hitler, it's Kitten Murder.

    *checks thread title*

    Yup, I -thought- I was in the right place. Huh.

    It's pretty much like saying the Texas abortion bill doesn't ban abortion, because you could theoretically get one in the state still, it just makes it wholly impractical. Or that making people drive for an hour to get a state issued ID to vote isn't actually infringing on their right to vote because it's totally possible to do a thing.

    I mean, you're technically right, but I don't think you're actually right.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    I feel like you don't even understand my position.

    It's a terrible policy. The DoD should wield whatever funding or administrative power they can to force the issue. And the electorate of Oklahoma should be ashamed of themselves.

    But somebody writing to criticize the policy should do so accurately. Even if you want to use "denies benefits" in a headline, the body should at least make passing mention of the ability to apply at federal offices, and certainly should take pains not to imply the opposite.

    Edit: As it stands, a reader can walk away from the story with the impression that all members are entirely unable to receive benefits. This would even, Id say, be the most likely takeaway. And it is wrong.

    There's a difference between not understanding your position and considering it mere sophistry.

    So you are arguing that the reader isn't likely to be mislead as to the actual nature of the policy?

    Or that this is acceptable, if it achieves the editorial goal?

    Again, this is not a gay rights thread. I oppose the policy. I'm in the Guard, for fuck's sake, I get the effect this can have on these people.

    Edit: those questions weren't rhetorical, btw, I'm trying to clarify your position.

    mcdermott on
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    To sum it up, bad policy does not excuse bad journalism.

    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
    mcdermottSpoitGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsSCREECH OF THE FARGHawaleelonelyahavaoverride367
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Research time!

    Oklahoma has 3.8 million people (wait, what?)

    The five largest cities (OKC, Tulsa, Norman, Broken Arrow, and Lawton) have ~1.3. Wiki says about 2/3 of the state live in the OKC/Tulsa metropolitan statistical areas. Which are seven counties each, of pretty reasonable county size in the Great Plains. Assuming all the federal stuff is in the actual major cities, and National Guard members are distributed evenly (probably more in the rural areas, in actuality), even the ones on the outskirts of those Metro areas are facing probably an hour plus drive both ways to apply.

    Cursory search has 7 federal buildings in Oklahoma: 3 in OKC, 1 in Tulsa, 1 in Muskogee, 1 in Lawton, and 1 in McAlester.

    Additionally, four military bases, where you could maybe get this kind of thing processed? Altus Air Force Base in Altus, Fort Sill near Lawton, Tinker Air Force Base near OKC, and Vance Air Force Base, in north central Oklahoma. The people in the northwest part of the state and particularly in the panhandle are pretty screwed.

    I agree, this is why the policy is terrible and the DoD should act quickly.

    But a writer who makes no mention whatsoever of the ability to apply at federal installations, and implies that all servicemembers are being denied these benefits (not just the ones in the far reaches of the state), is not being entirely honest.

    At no point was I arguing the merits of OK's policy. It's legitimately terrible. On a sale of Kanye West to Hitler, it's Kitten Murder.

    *checks thread title*

    Yup, I -thought- I was in the right place. Huh.

    It's pretty much like saying the Texas abortion bill doesn't ban abortion, because you could theoretically get one in the state still, it just makes it wholly impractical. Or that making people drive for an hour to get a state issued ID to vote isn't actually infringing on their right to vote because it's totally possible to do a thing.

    I mean, you're technically right, but I don't think you're actually right.

    Again, the "original" piece in the chain both describes the detrimental aspect of the policy, while not distorting the particulars.

    You state that making some people driving an hour to get an ID to vote is bad, and why. You don't claim "now nobody gets to vote!"

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    I feel like you don't even understand my position.

    It's a terrible policy. The DoD should wield whatever funding or administrative power they can to force the issue. And the electorate of Oklahoma should be ashamed of themselves.

    But somebody writing to criticize the policy should do so accurately. Even if you want to use "denies benefits" in a headline, the body should at least make passing mention of the ability to apply at federal offices, and certainly should take pains not to imply the opposite.

    Edit: As it stands, a reader can walk away from the story with the impression that all members are entirely unable to receive benefits. This would even, Id say, be the most likely takeaway. And it is wrong.

    There's a difference between not understanding your position and considering it mere sophistry.

    So you are arguing that the reader isn't likely to be mislead as to the actual nature of the policy?

    Or that this is acceptable, if it achieves the editorial goal?

    Again, this is not a gay rights thread. I oppose the policy. I'm in the Guard, for fuck's sake, I get the effect this
    can have on these people.

    Edit: those questions weren't rhetorical, btw, I'm trying to clarify your position.

    Part of determining the actual nature of the policy is to look at what the policy will actually do to people. It's easy to say "well, they just can go to a federal facility", but as people are pointing out, this suddenly narrows the number of available locations, and makes it harder for people to get their rightful benefits. And for a lot of service members in OK, this decision has the potential to effectively cut off their benefits, as they may not have the resources and/or time to get to a federally operated DEERS office.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    I feel like you don't even understand my position.

    It's a terrible policy. The DoD should wield whatever funding or administrative power they can to force the issue. And the electorate of Oklahoma should be ashamed of themselves.

    But somebody writing to criticize the policy should do so accurately. Even if you want to use "denies benefits" in a headline, the body should at least make passing mention of the ability to apply at federal offices, and certainly should take pains not to imply the opposite.

    Edit: As it stands, a reader can walk away from the story with the impression that all members are entirely unable to receive benefits. This would even, Id say, be the most likely takeaway. And it is wrong.

    There's a difference between not understanding your position and considering it mere sophistry.

    So you are arguing that the reader isn't likely to be mislead as to the actual nature of the policy?

    Or that this is acceptable, if it achieves the editorial goal?

    Again, this is not a gay rights thread. I oppose the policy. I'm in the Guard, for fuck's sake, I get the effect this
    can have on these people.

    Edit: those questions weren't rhetorical, btw, I'm trying to clarify your position.

    Part of determining the actual nature of the policy is to look at what the policy will actually do to people. It's easy to say "well, they just can go to a federal facility", but as people are pointing out, this suddenly narrows the number of available locations, and makes it harder for people to get their rightful benefits. And for a lot of service members in OK, this decision has the potential to effectively cut off their benefits, as they may not have the resources and/or time to get to a federally operated DEERS office.

    I'd question how many members are effectively cut off, rather than just inconvenienced (even if that inconvenience is significant). What portion of married Guard members don't have cars, or access to cars? How do most of Oklahoma's Guard get to drill each month? I know that poverty isn't unheard of in the guard. Ive known guys who (unofficially) lived in the Bozeman armory for a stretch, and guys who have to arrange rides to our armory each month (most are unmarried, mind you). I'm not arguing that the effect isn't significant, or even prohibitive in the cases of some members. That's why it's a terrible policy! Well, that and the bigotry.

    I'm saying that "all members denied benefits" exaggerates it. No more. This isn't a "state effectively bans abortion" issue. The bulk of married servicemembers have either cars or access to a ride, and will in some reasonable time period make it to one of the several installations, and they will get their benefits.

    Those that won't are enough of a problem to warrant shining a spotlight on the issue, and trying to force a solution. So why exaggerate?

    mcdermott on
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    I feel like you don't even understand my position.

    It's a terrible policy. The DoD should wield whatever funding or administrative power they can to force the issue. And the electorate of Oklahoma should be ashamed of themselves.

    But somebody writing to criticize the policy should do so accurately. Even if you want to use "denies benefits" in a headline, the body should at least make passing mention of the ability to apply at federal offices, and certainly should take pains not to imply the opposite.

    Edit: As it stands, a reader can walk away from the story with the impression that all members are entirely unable to receive benefits. This would even, Id say, be the most likely takeaway. And it is wrong.

    There's a difference between not understanding your position and considering it mere sophistry.

    So you are arguing that the reader isn't likely to be mislead as to the actual nature of the policy?

    Or that this is acceptable, if it achieves the editorial goal?

    Again, this is not a gay rights thread. I oppose the policy. I'm in the Guard, for fuck's sake, I get the effect this
    can have on these people.

    Edit: those questions weren't rhetorical, btw, I'm trying to clarify your position.

    Part of determining the actual nature of the policy is to look at what the policy will actually do to people. It's easy to say "well, they just can go to a federal facility", but as people are pointing out, this suddenly narrows the number of available locations, and makes it harder for people to get their rightful benefits. And for a lot of service members in OK, this decision has the potential to effectively cut off their benefits, as they may not have the resources and/or time to get to a federally operated DEERS office.

    Sure, and Obamacare might lead to the government at some point being involved in a decision that decides whether a particular patient lives or dies. So really, a headline describing Obamacare as a "giant socialist death panel" would be potentially accurate, for some people. All good then, right?

    You can play this game from any side, misleading your readers to build a narrative. Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be as sympathetic if the news in this case wasn't being massaged in favor of policies you support.

    Squidget0 on
    Arch wrote: »
    the lynch mob is a feature, not a bug in the democratic system
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »

    Sure, and Obamacare might lead to the government at some point being involved in a decision that decides whether a particular patient lives or dies. So really, a headline describing Obamacare as a "giant socialist death panel" would be potentially accurate, for some people. All good then, right?

    You can play this game from any side, misleading your readers to build a narrative. Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be as sympathetic if the news in this case wasn't being massaged in favor of policies you support.

    No, never, not in the slightest. Where as the point of the Oklahoma governor's decision was to make it as incovenient as possible for gay couples to get benefits they are guarenteed because Oklahoma is run by bigots.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Preacher wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »

    Sure, and Obamacare might lead to the government at some point being involved in a decision that decides whether a particular patient lives or dies. So really, a headline describing Obamacare as a "giant socialist death panel" would be potentially accurate, for some people. All good then, right?

    You can play this game from any side, misleading your readers to build a narrative. Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be as sympathetic if the news in this case wasn't being massaged in favor of policies you support.

    No, never, not in the slightest. Where as the point of the Oklahoma governor's decision was to make it as incovenient as possible for all married Guard members to get benefits they are guarenteed because Oklahoma is run by bigots.

    For the accuracy.

    And, now that I'm not on a phone, a link to the post I'm talking about. I mean, maybe I'm just stupid but I read that and I do not in any way get an accurate sense of the nature of the policy. An excerpt, that I suspect would lead a reader to get an erroneous impression of what the policy actually is:
    In September, Fallin vowed to prohibit Oklahoma’s National Guard from providing benefits to married same-sex couples, directly violating a Pentagon directive and a presidential decree. Now, after a Pentagon pushback, Fallin has doubled down, cutting spousal benefits for the entire Oklahoma National Guard, including straight couples. The Republican governor, in other words, would rather deny every soldier benefits than grant a few gay ones the rights they have been federally guaranteed.

    You cannot tell me that is an accurate depiction of the situation at hand. The governor cannot "cut" those benefits. They're not hers to cut. Nor can she "deny" them. She can step aside entirely, and force the federal government to do the paperwork, which yes will certainly lead to some couples (not "all" or the "entire" Guard or "every soldier") not receiving those benefits (due to inability or insufficient motivation to make the trip). This is terrible! But this is not what is being described. And that is my problem. At no point did I make any defense of this policy, nor is my intent to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of it.

    So am I stupid? Will the average reader of that post actually come away with an accurate sense of the issue being described? Or will readers who fail to follow the links provided (or who don't read carefully in those further links, since by step two in Media Telephone the distortion had already begun) walk away with an erroneous impression of what is actually happening? An impression that, potentially, they will tell their friends and family and coworkers about? This isn't quite "random counterfactual citation on side of van pictured on facebook" levels of misinformation, but this is exactly the problem, or part of it.


    Now, whether or not bloggers on Slate are part of the political media may be a good question. I'd argue that, in many circles, they are treated as such. That outlet in particular is one I've seen cited here (on D&D) in the past, their writers are cited elsewhere, and appear on other outlets. It's a sad, awful little digital rag but it has from time to time tried to project some semblance of legitimacy. Maybe there's a conversation to be had as to whether this outlet actually exists on the fringe of the "political media," as being discussed. That at least is a subject where I might expect some controversy. But whether or not the linked piece is utterly misleading? I just do not understand how any of you can argue that. Please, help me understand.

    But in doing so, remember that I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate Oklahoma's policy. And their governor. And legislature. And Constitution. And the bulk of their electorate. I'd say I hate the state as a whole, but I've met at least a few decent people from there. But only a few. And that, as a member of the National Guard and a card-carrying liberal, I understand completely why the policy is unacceptable, and must be fixed (even if legal, which it may or may not be, all measures available to the federal government should be leveraged to force the issue). None of this is what I am arguing.

    mcdermott on
    RchanenGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6jungleroomx
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »

    Sure, and Obamacare might lead to the government at some point being involved in a decision that decides whether a particular patient lives or dies. So really, a headline describing Obamacare as a "giant socialist death panel" would be potentially accurate, for some people. All good then, right?

    You can play this game from any side, misleading your readers to build a narrative. Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be as sympathetic if the news in this case wasn't being massaged in favor of policies you support.

    No, never, not in the slightest. Where as the point of the Oklahoma governor's decision was to make it as inconvenient as possible for all married Guard members to get benefits they are guaranteed because Oklahoma is run by bigots.

    For the accuracy.
    Not quite. The point of Fallin's actions, at every point, has been to fuck over the gays. Fucking over the straights has been an unintended but acceptable consequence when it has happened.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    A fair point.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular

    It will. Remember when the GOP went batshit when he ate a hotdog?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular


    Hmm I've seen this argument before...

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Preacher wrote: »

    Not from me. But hey, at least you're straw manning me in the right thread now. Congrats.

    I totally agree that some subset of guardsmen will be effectively denied benefits due to the inability to get over the hurdle the policy represents (or insufficient motivation). So saying that NO servicemembers are being denied benefits, while perhaps technically accurate (since alternate process exists), is misleading and dishonest.

    I guess we can argue which is MORE dishonest, saying NO (married) soldiers are being denied benefits or saying ALL of them are. If that's your cup of tea. I figure both arguments are goosey as fuck. And any media outlet making either statement is part of the problem.

    mcdermott on
    Exriel
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular

    It will. Remember when the GOP went batshit when he ate a hotdog?

    OR when he ordered mustard on a burger

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Obamacare II: Care Harder

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    No according to lamar alexander that was the filibuster reform we did earlier.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Santorum gets into the movie business.

    Because that's what Hollywood needs.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Santorum gets into the movie business.

    Because that's what Hollywood needs.

    He's going the obscure Christian family route. Hollywood won't notice that he exists.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    I always thought you had to have some sort of history to be considered a "mogul." Apparently you can just be a dude people know from elsewhere, too.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    1) Lara Logan is taking a "leave of absence" from 60 Minutes.
    2) Mark Halperin, conservative hack, rides again.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    1) Lara Logan is taking a "leave of absence" from 60 Minutes.
    2) Mark Halperin, conservative hack, rides again.

    The question with Logan is whether she will accept responsibility and learn her lesson, or if she will flee straight to BMN, burning her reputation on the way.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    Santorum gets into the movie business.

    Because that's what Hollywood needs.

    Santorum was already in the movie business!

    B)

    shryke wrote: »
    ...Barack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama...
    shrykeMild ConfusionForar
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/26/21628974-lara-logan-placed-on-leave-over-discredited-60-minutes-report?lite

    Yeah it looks like Logan's leave of absence was prompted by the internal review showing shockingly she knew her report was garbage and went ahead anyway. So Fox News Bound she is.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    jmcdonald
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Also in a shock to no one, Alec Baldwins show on MSNBC was canceled. So again both sides bad.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It's a day ending in "y", so The Child Stalker is being a horrible excuse for a human again:

    twitchytwat.jpg

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • RalgRalg Registered User regular
    Santorum gets into the movie business.

    Because that's what Hollywood needs.

    The state Hollywood is now, Santorum might be an improvement.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    That doesn't even make any sense. That tweet is worded just like most of the others I've seen. Nothing is unusual or improper.

    Caulk Bite 6Harry DresdenGnome-InterruptusShadowenMill
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I was confused who posted that until I saw Twitchy. God damn Malkin.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    All I can see is that it's composed mostly of hashtags... but then again it's twitter, so...

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    That doesn't even make any sense. That tweet is worded just like most of the others I've seen. Nothing is unusual or improper.

    Its malkin the woman is full of so much hate she has a toilet that rotates pictures of puppies and kittens for her to shit on.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Mild Confusion
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Preacher wrote: »
    I was confused who posted that until I saw Twitchy. God damn Malkin.

    What the conservative pundits have done to Fluke is just unconscionable. And to see women conservatives not only ignoring the rampant misogyny on display from their male counterparts, but actually joining in, just depresses the shit out of me.

    Dark_Side on
    Harry DresdenArdolShadowenCaulk Bite 6Man in the MistsSquigieLovely
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Ralg wrote: »
    Santorum gets into the movie business.

    Because that's what Hollywood needs.

    The state Hollywood is now, Santorum might be an improvement.

    Let's not get carried away here.

    ShadowenshrykeMild Confusion
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I was confused who posted that until I saw Twitchy. God damn Malkin.

    What the conservative pundits have done to Fluke is just unconscionable. And to see women conservatives not only ignoring the rampant misogyny on display from their male counterparts, but actually joining in, just depresses the shit out of me.

    Megyn Kelly makes me the saddest. Like when its something that effects her personally like maternity leave she's all "Rawr women need that" and then she calls fluke a whore or says that pepper spray is just a food condiment. I just can't understand why someone would spew such hate even for a pay check.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
This discussion has been closed.