Comments | vap0rtranz: ObamaCare Script

vap0rtranz

ObamaCare Script

Aug 17, 2009 22:57

In genuine patriotic spirit, I tuned into four AM talk shows today, but in banal conservative rhetoric, I heard the same Obamacare paranoia script from each show. The order of memorization by repetition was:

Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Mark Levin
Janet Parshall

By the time Mark's show aired, there were odd 'deja vu' phrases coming out of the radio. Now ( Read more... )

links, dialogues & conversations, language & semantics, government & politics, philosophy, society & culture

Comments 15

You didn't know? fireboy4plai August 19 2009, 18:14:55 UTC

Sometimes you do confuse me a bit. I don't mean to say that youre not observant or anything. But it seems that you're saying that you thought Limbaugh and Beck and O'Reilly and their ilk were not working from a script. *I* always thought they were fairly obvious about doing it. Although the most obvious they could have possibly been was that all three of them compared Obama to a fascist eugenicist in the same two day news cycle. The Daily Show did a video montage where they combined footage from Limbaugh's live feed and Beck's evening show and the two were finishing each other's sentences. But none of this is new, even the Daily Show treats it like a regular feature rather than a one-off 'hey isn't that weird' sort of thing. They ARE Big Corp Media, Limbaugh has one of the largest market shares in the country and Beck and O'Reilly have exclusive contracts with Fox News ( ... )

Re: You didn't know? vap0rtranz August 21 2009, 20:53:44 UTC

One tall-tell sign of someone thinking less of your thinking is their prefacing excuse from condescension.

Since you believe this "ilk" read from a script ... well, that may just mean that you aren't observant. Beliefs are fickle like that. So is watching a medium, in this case mass media, accuse the object of loathe with the same beliefs as you ascribe to them. So Jon Stewart in your case. It's simplest (and obvious) to say that a critical observer who watches the Daily Show or the Oreilly Factor always doubts the claims made. aka. don't necessarily believe everything on TV -- even from "newscasters" who generally have a similar belief system as your own.

I'm one of those individualistic idiots who likes to see the evidence for himself and make his own conclusions. I can assume that you, however, believe everything that Jon implies, and that's a rather conformist position to be in.

Re: You didn't know? fireboy4plai August 21 2009, 22:01:58 UTC

Hey now. I didn't accuse you of anything of the sort. If you're having a bad day I get it, but I haven't said anything condescending. I said that you're observant and that I was therefore surprised that you hadn't noticed something. It was by way of an introduction to the topic, I didn't say you're an imbecile ( ... )

Re: You didn't know? fireboy4plai August 21 2009, 22:08:11 UTC

And that should be umbrage, not umbridge. Damn Harry Potter.

Re: You didn't know? fireboy4plai August 24 2009, 06:17:57 UTC

My journal doesn't lean to the left. It practically IS the left. I bike rather than drive, I'm queer and proud of it and think queer unions should be legal, I'm a supporter of the American Indian Movement and a member of a Two-Spirit Lodge. I think that government has absolutely no right to legislate morality or be based on Biblical principle, but that Jesus was completely right in "that which you do to the least of you so you do unto me". I'd have to look Right to see FDR. No kidding I'm a leftie. But that really doesn't apply to what we've been discussing. I'm asserting that the voices of the New Right are not genuine political thinkers, these are not Goldwater Republicans, they're media darlings with stars in their eyes and $10,000 signing bonuses. How is not reading Coulter risking cognitive atrophy? You could just as easily say that not getting a tarot reading once a week risks cognitive atrophy. Coulter is a contrarian who thinks she's witty. I'd much rather be engaged in spirited debate with someone who THOUGHTFULLY ( ... )

Re: You didn't know? vap0rtranz August 24 2009, 13:59:19 UTC

God man, I've also got Goldwater on the shelf. Coulter and media darlings isn't the point. The point was understanding who listens to them in a kind of political yin-yang. Extremes of either political end tend to cause division instead of compromise. When we have a country of this size, compromise one of few ways that we can get anything done at the federal level. It's the same for large business ( ... )

Re: You didn't know? fireboy4plai August 24 2009, 17:53:39 UTC

See, this is what I'm talking about. It always takes me about two drafts to respond to paragraphs like that. Your summaries of what I've said contain some of the strangest presumptions. I have to repeat how this or that was not the connection I made. So, that biking is a left-wing darling is not my fault. And I said Michael Moore is a left wing propagandist, not spouter, the connective issue between O'Reilly and Moore is propaganda, not left-wingedness. The connection between Moore and bikes was not even implied. I was, in fact, dismissive of Moore in my original, therefore I am saying that I do not see Moore as representing a "true" left message. I thought you knew Theory Of Logic ( ... )

Re: You didn't know? vap0rtranz August 25 2009, 00:55:14 UTC

I"m at a loss to how this was spun into an attack on whatever grounds you've made for your political beliefs, because the OP and my replies have attempted to be about about people who believe the media -- Jon included -- not undermining the protagonists ( ... )

Thread 11