The thing is, the media they consume (FOX, Limbaugh, etc) actually constructs this weird other reality for them. They're looking at everything through this weird lens and it's all consistent as long as you never listen to or get exposed to anything else.
I worry that a similar thing goes on on the left, but I like to think that it's recognized when it does. For example: Alternet is understood to be pretty nutty and biased.
The easiest way to solve this problem is by having no meaningful interaction with your family outside of mandatory holidays, where you can chat about the weather.
Where do they acquire the regular humans they use to point out how great America is during the SOTU?? Do they set up nets at various malls around the country or something? And is this a catch and release sort of thing or are they executed after?
BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI, that is what my E-mail is full of today. that and Hillary Clinton saying "What does it matter" taken completely out of context.. BLARGH... *crushes things*
I find that less surprising than the fact Missouri has a Democrat Governor. Is Missouri like Texas in that gerrymandering hides the true percentage of democrat voters?
I love how they keep pushing out their goalpost. Once Obama was re-elected, they really had nowhere to look but a deep false hope in taking the senate in the midterms, or a highly unlikely presidential victory in 2016.
Once they lose in 2016, will they immediately look to 2020?
I love how they keep pushing out their goalpost. Once Obama was re-elected, they really had nowhere to look but a deep false hope in taking the senate in the midterms, or a highly unlikely presidential victory in 2016.
Once they lose in 2016, will they immediately look to 2020?
Depends how well they do in the midterms. Dems needs to up their game, they really dropped the ball in 2010.
I love how they keep pushing out their goalpost. Once Obama was re-elected, they really had nowhere to look but a deep false hope in taking the senate in the midterms, or a highly unlikely presidential victory in 2016.
Once they lose in 2016, will they immediately look to 2020?
Isn't that how both Dems and Repubs act when they are in the minority?
I love how they keep pushing out their goalpost. Once Obama was re-elected, they really had nowhere to look but a deep false hope in taking the senate in the midterms.
I think you're underestimating how difficult it's going to be for the Dems to retain control of the Senate this year. They have to win a defensive campaign in ten states: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa (open seat), Louisiana, Michigan (open seat), Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota (open seat), and West Virginia (open seat). It's likely that NJ will vote blue, as well as Georgia or Kentucky, but there's a reasonable chance that the Dems will lose the majority of those tossup/lean D/lean R seats.
I'm not worried about the senate. Polls show it's not a big concern, and the Republicans' only real shot is if they can somehow keep their foot out of their collective mouths on social issues for the next several months. They're trying to stay under the radar.
I am getting tired of articles with headlines like "Conservatives hate gays" when the people in the article should be more accurately described as religious fundamentalists.
The most accurate title should be used to describe someone otherwise the article comes off as an agenda driven hit piece designed to smear a larger group based on the actions of a minority of people with a low affiliation level to the group being smeared.
Seriously, if the person is the head of the "Our religion hates gays" interest group which sides with a strict interpretation of the bible in all of its views it should be described as a religious group not a political group because religion is at the core of their belief system. If the person is an elected official it is fair to call them out by party affiliation or political philosophy but private individuals and groups should be referred to by the most accurate description possible.
I am getting tired of articles with headlines like "Conservatives hate gays" when the people in the article should be more accurately described as religious fundamentalists.
The distinction here is between fiscal and social conservatives, though. Fiscal conservatives may or may not give a rat's ass as to whether someone is gay -- they're mostly focused on issues of spending and taxation. Social conservatives do, however. Given that the GOP has been actively courting support from social conservatives since at least the 1980s, I think it's fair game to make the blanket statement that conservatives in general hate gays since social conservatives make up the majority of mainstream conservatives in this country. Sure, you have your exceptions like your traditional New England Republicans (who tend to be fiscally conservative to moderate and socially liberal), but social conservatism definitely dominates conservative politics as a whole at the national level.
Jim Crow is right and why would we expect anything different when the government forces equality that the citizens are not ready for? Lawrence vs. Texas was only ten years ago. After the civil war even abolitionist states had lots of problems with racial integration.
One can hope that we will not have to endure 100 years of this until a gay MLK shows up.
I expect that states that follow the legislative process to grant same sex marriage will do fine and those that have it forced on them via the judicial process will go Jim Crow.
One possible end run would be for SCOTUS to declare sexual orientation a protected class and looking at the rulings from federal judges it appears that the lower courts are already using strict scrutiny when judging these marriage equality cases.
I am getting tired of articles with headlines like "Conservatives hate gays" when the people in the article should be more accurately described as religious fundamentalists.
This is what happens when an entire political party/ideology surrenders to the Tea Party and allows nutjobs to speak for them all.
Comments
I worry that a similar thing goes on on the left, but I like to think that it's recognized when it does. For example: Alternet is understood to be pretty nutty and biased.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad...
As to the specifically named and invited ones... letters to the President, apparently.
House of Cards is like a documentary.
I also find it ironic that governor is a Democrat named Nixon.
Once they lose in 2016, will they immediately look to 2020?
The most accurate title should be used to describe someone otherwise the article comes off as an agenda driven hit piece designed to smear a larger group based on the actions of a minority of people with a low affiliation level to the group being smeared.
Seriously, if the person is the head of the "Our religion hates gays" interest group which sides with a strict interpretation of the bible in all of its views it should be described as a religious group not a political group because religion is at the core of their belief system. If the person is an elected official it is fair to call them out by party affiliation or political philosophy but private individuals and groups should be referred to by the most accurate description possible.
money.cnn.com/2014/02/25/news/economy/arizona-anti-gay-bill/
Oh, and then there's this responsible gun owner:
blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/02/19/rep-jared-wright-leaves-loaded-handgun-house-committee-room/106136/
And this motherfucker who doesn't even know what a woman actually is:
msnbc.com/the-last-word/state-sen-calls-pregnant-women-hosts
AND, because all our country's other really serious problems are solved:
huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/ban-gays-nfl_n_4849250.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
How the hell have we not picked up torches and pitchforks and run people like this into the ocean?
One can hope that we will not have to endure 100 years of this until a gay MLK shows up.
I expect that states that follow the legislative process to grant same sex marriage will do fine and those that have it forced on them via the judicial process will go Jim Crow.
One possible end run would be for SCOTUS to declare sexual orientation a protected class and looking at the rulings from federal judges it appears that the lower courts are already using strict scrutiny when judging these marriage equality cases.
Ignoring the fact that society at large may not have been ready for integration, any sort of segregation laws are inherently not right.
It doesn't help that practically the majority of the "conservative" movement in the US is openly opposed to gay marriage.