Page 60 of 62

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:28 pm
by stimpy
Alefroth wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:08 pm
stimpy wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:54 pm I know that almost all politicians these days, D and R, are self serving assholes and I would never try and defend any of them, but isnt shit like this just propaganda? How in the world does anyone know what they were fist bumping about, let alone saying as fact that it was about blocking aid to vets?

Maybe it was a congratulatory bump over finding out that lesion on his dick wasnt herpes.
Maybe it was secret code for "I'll see you in the locker room in 10".
Maybe it was to celebrate booking a trip together to Mexico.

You can take the optics and make them whatever you want.
Was it "Yay.....fuck them vets"? Maybe. But honestly, who really knows except those in the little circle jerk.
I'd kind of think you guys are smart enough to not get sucked into media manipulation such as this.
I'm not a self-serving asshole defender, but...
Am I defending them? No. I"m saying dont be so quick to lap up what the media serves you when you think it' fits your narrative.
That could turn you into a Republican.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:28 pm
by Pyperkub
The plan was the same as always, governing by spite. (and maybe because they didn't get any grift for them or their donors).

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:33 pm
by Skinypupy
stimpy wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:54 pm I know that almost all politicians these days, D and R, are self serving assholes and I would never try and defend any of them, but isnt shit like this just propaganda? How in the world does anyone know what they were fist bumping about, let alone saying as fact that it was about blocking aid to vets?

Maybe it was a congratulatory bump over finding out that lesion on his dick wasnt herpes.
Maybe it was secret code for "I'll see you in the locker room in 10".
Maybe it was to celebrate booking a trip together to Mexico.

You can take the optics and make them whatever you want.
Was it "Yay.....fuck them vets"? Maybe. But honestly, who really knows except those in the little circle jerk.
I'd kind of think you guys are smart enough to not get sucked into media manipulation such as this.
Y’know, it is ok to sometimes just say “yeah, my side did a shitty thing”.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:36 pm
by stimpy
Skinypupy wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:33 pm
stimpy wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:54 pm I know that almost all politicians these days, D and R, are self serving assholes and I would never try and defend any of them, but isnt shit like this just propaganda? How in the world does anyone know what they were fist bumping about, let alone saying as fact that it was about blocking aid to vets?

Maybe it was a congratulatory bump over finding out that lesion on his dick wasnt herpes.
Maybe it was secret code for "I'll see you in the locker room in 10".
Maybe it was to celebrate booking a trip together to Mexico.

You can take the optics and make them whatever you want.
Was it "Yay.....fuck them vets"? Maybe. But honestly, who really knows except those in the little circle jerk.
I'd kind of think you guys are smart enough to not get sucked into media manipulation such as this.
Y’know, it is ok to sometimes just say “yeah, my side did a shitty thing”.
Just refuse to see my point.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:48 pm
by Zarathud
If you’re willing to let vets be collateral damage, you are saying “It’s ok to fuck those vets.” While it may not be their primary intention, face eating leopards are going to eat faces.

And they should get condemned when they do it.

Fuck Ted Cruz. Once in general (lack of) principle. Second for his actions. Three times for being a hypocrite on vets.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:02 pm
by Daehawk
Vets have always gotten screwed in this country. Its shameful. Its not right. They should be held up and supported by the nation. And yet people still join to go get maimed and fly their flag proudly and vote Republican because FREEDOM.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:27 pm
by hepcat
stimpy wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:54 pm I know that almost all politicians these days, D and R, are self serving assholes and I would never try and defend any of them, but isnt shit like this just propaganda? How in the world does anyone know what they were fist bumping about, let alone saying as fact that it was about blocking aid to vets?

Maybe it was a congratulatory bump over finding out that lesion on his dick wasnt herpes.
Maybe it was secret code for "I'll see you in the locker room in 10".
Maybe it was to celebrate booking a trip together to Mexico.

You can take the optics and make them whatever you want.
Was it "Yay.....fuck them vets"? Maybe. But honestly, who really knows except those in the little circle jerk.
I'd kind of think you guys are smart enough to not get sucked into media manipulation such as this.
While I somewhat agree with your point, I do have to mention you chastising anyone for jumping to conclusions over social media stuff is hypocritical.
stimpy wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 1:17 pm
malchior wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:56 pm
It's nice to know that with all the issues going on, this is important enough to be something that's planned and discussed in White House meetings.
Bravo.
P.S. just the first one i found of you doing what you yell at others for. :wink:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:36 pm
by LordMortis
So either they were fist bumping just after voting down vet bennies or they were fist bumping because they just voted down vet bennies. Either way their assholes, rotten at being people, and they lost the benefit of the doubt from me around 2014.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:40 pm
by stimpy
It was actually malchior that posted that, but I get your point......

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:41 pm
by hepcat
While I agree we shouldn’t assume it was the veterans losing benefits they were fist bumping over, I do think it’s safe to assume it was because they defeated their arch enemy the Democrats. Cruz has an illustrious and long history of being such a petty asshole that I believe it’s a fairly safe assumption.

Also, Jon Stewart is absolutely destroying Cruz over his attempts to lie and say the bill was changed at the last minute. He’s just brutal. And deservedly so.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:52 pm
by stimpy
Jon Stewart should really run for office.
And bring 534 friends with him.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:49 pm
by malchior

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:24 pm
by Daehawk
Oh those poor republicans having to do the right thing. Wont someone think of their lobbyists.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:31 pm
by Kurth
Jon Stewart is a national treasure. So much of this is his doing.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:58 pm
by gbasden
Kurth wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:31 pm Jon Stewart is a national treasure. So much of this is his doing.
Agreed. He's amazing.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:28 pm
by dbt1949
As good as he was as a comedian he's just as good as a lobbyist.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:30 pm
by Smoove_B
It's always nice when celebrities use their power for good and not being total shitbirds.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 pm
by Smoove_B

The Senate has passed the PACT Act, the bill to expand benefits for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits, 86-11.
Here are the 11 NO voters: Crapo, Lankford, Lee, Lummis, Paul, Risch, Romney, Shelby, Tillis, Toomey, Tuberville

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:13 pm
by Octavious
Sometimes I think Romney isn't that bad and then.... :P

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:18 pm
by Smoove_B
Can't really find specifics, but I'm guessing it is related to comments he made earlier when it was being discussed.
In a statement, Romney called the scope and cost of the bill “astronomical and unjustified.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would cost $667 billion over the next nine years.
Rand Paul voted against it because he said they can't prove they are sick because of serving in the military. Also, because Rand Paul is a douche.



It's awesome how the CDC's data is acceptable now, but for COVID-19? No, they're criminals funding gain-of-function research in China.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:32 pm
by hepcat

Rand Paul voted against it because he said they can't prove they are sick because of serving in the military. Also, because Rand Paul is a douche.
To the Neighbormobile! This country needs me!

Image

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:44 pm
by Daehawk
Hey Rand...its a well known fact that 100% of the GOP in DC are evil stupid greedy repugnant assholes.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:14 pm
by Kraken
$667B over nine years is 10% of the DoD budget ($777B this year). That seems like a lot.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:12 am
by LawBeefaroni
Kraken wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:14 pm $667B over nine years is 10% of the DoD budget ($777B this year). That seems like a lot.
In 9 years when the budget is double, it will be more like 5%.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:39 am
by malchior
FWIW I get Romney's concern. However, that was something to think about before he supported (as a business leader and Presidential candidate) or voted on budgets that spent way, way, way more than that to put them in harm's way in the first place.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:58 am
by Kraken
LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:12 am
Kraken wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:14 pm $667B over nine years is 10% of the DoD budget ($777B this year). That seems like a lot.
In 9 years when the budget is double, it will be more like 5%.
A story I read today put the price tag at $230B which, while not exactly bargain-bin stuff, seems more realistic to me.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:15 am
by Isgrimnur

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:46 pm
by malchior
Rick Scott says that the militant left are the modern day book burners. Guess he didn't see the actual book burning encouraged by his party. It's always projection with these assholes.


Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:30 pm
by El Guapo
Is there such a thing as a non-bonkers speech at CPAC?

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:19 pm
by Alefroth
Jeebus, didn't we just have a CPAC?

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:34 am
by Daehawk
malchior wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:39 am FWIW I get Romney's concern. However, that was something to think about before he supported (as a business leader and Presidential candidate) or voted on budgets that spent way, way, way more than that to put them in harm's way in the first place.

I think in a vote like this and this important and what its for you have to kinda weigh what not voting for it means even if you try to pretend you are against something else in it. Vote it through and fix what you didn't like about it later if its not that serious a deal compared to what the main bill is for.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:30 pm
by Pyperkub
An interesting look at how Fox and what its audience want has changed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-loyal ... 2c19ef33b4
Hannity’s inability to evolve with the changing right-wing media landscape—one that has long moved into darker ideological terrain after decades of loyally defending and touting the Republican Party above all else.

“The fundamental thing about Hannity is that he’s not an ideas guy. He’s a cheerleader,”...

... Lawrence similarly suggested that Watters et al better fit the network’s current business model largely revolving around “ginning up outrage cycles” and stoking culture-war controversy.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:56 pm
by $iljanus
Alefroth wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:19 pm Jeebus, didn't we just have a CPAC?
Don’t worry, when they establish their version of the Republic of Giliad every day can have a CPAC. And participation will be highly encouraged…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:15 pm
by LordMortis
$iljanus wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:56 pm And participation will be highly encouraged…
Then we actually have nothing to worry about. I'm about the only guy masking in areas where masking is highly encouraged. So highly encouraged seems to mean: "be the only doofus to participate and have people look at you funny."

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:03 am
by malchior
The next battleground for the Republicans? Might be anti-depressants - Slate
There’s a familiar rhythm to the responses to mass shootings. From those who oppose gun control, among the calls for thoughts and prayers are often allegations that the perpetrator was taking antidepressants—typically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, like Lexapro and Prozac—with the insinuation that the medication made them do it. We saw it after Uvalde; we saw it after Highland Park. Most prominently, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and right-wing social media influencer Jack Posobiec have directly blamed shootings on the increase in prescriptions for SSRIs. They based this on an utterance from the Highland Park shooter that he was a “depressed drug user,” but (as with most of these cases) there is no information on whether he had a prescription for SSRIs or any other psychopharmacological intervention. When a U.K. newspaper recently covered an academic umbrella analysis disputing the role of serotonin imbalances in depression, the comments ran over with anti-psychiatric responses to the story, including pharmaceutical conspiracy theories.

These claims stem from an area of scientific discussion in the early ’00s. In a somewhat infamous early case, a patient taking Prozac (fluoxetine) went on a rampage killing eight people and then himself in 1989; his family blamed the incident on the antidepressant. In the years that followed, SSRIs became a major psychopharmacological treatment, and several public health analyses in the early- to mid-d’00s raised concerns about the prescription of SSRIs, particularly about side-effects including violence and suicidality (especially in patients under 25). As a result, the FDA adding a black-box suicide warning to SSRIs and shifting guidance within the psychiatric community on their prescription.

...

But as with many such conspiracy theories, the politicians trying to blame people taking SSRIs for mass shootings are misunderstanding of the issue. Recent partisan endorsement of conspiracy theories and outright attacks on psychopharmacology (and SSRIs in particular) is roughly analogous to the problem we have seen around coronavirus vaccination. When basic standards of care are seen as a political partisan issue, people who are on the anti-medical side of the partisan divide are significantly less likely to get treatment and less likely to trust their own doctors and health care providers. But it is not just about trust between providers and patients.

Now we need to worry anti-SSRI positions becoming policy.

Adverse events for medical interventions are common. There’s a reason why prescription medications should be used with the supervision of a medical professional who keeps up with the literature on possible side effects. When used consistently with best practices, SSRIs are an effective tool in treating a range of psychiatric conditions, especially in combination with therapy (which provides the requisite oversight to address adverse events). There are reasonable concerns within the medical community about how and when to prescribe SSRIs, especially to patients under 25. But certain members of the GOP want to turn those discussions into fear mongering about the historical recognition of side-effects and turn shifts in labeling into a reason to defund and even actively disrupt the best standard of care available in mental health.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:44 am
by LawBeefaroni
This resurfaced after Aurora and I remember taking to a psychiatrist at work about it back then. There were compelling links but in his opinion, SSRIs were not the cause of the increase in shootings.

I haven read any recent literature but it's certainly comforting to think that there would be an identifiable cause and fairly simplebto implement solution. Unfortunately, don't think that's the case.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:54 am
by malchior
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:44 am This resurfaced after Aurora and I remember taking to a psychiatrist at work about it back then. There were compelling links but in his opinion, SSRIs were not the cause of the increase in shootings.

I haven read any recent literature but it's certainly comforting to think that there would be an identifiable cause and fairly simplebto implement solution. Unfortunately, don't think that's the case.
Well except the clear link to widely, cheaply available guns designed for military applications but that ship has sailed. I know not easily to implement a solution but it's the constant elephant in the room.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:19 am
by LordMortis
Are we suggesting it's mentally ill people that go out and acquire firearms for the sole purpose of murdering helpless unsuspecting people they have no connection with en masse in a convoluted suicide by cop plan? No. That doesn't sound right.

Does the GOP address the ones shooting up religious sites and gay bars? What do they want to ban in lieu of unmitigated access to firearms in those cases?

All that said, I won't go back on SSRIs and most especially not with wellbutrin. They have turned me off to the idea of treating "anxiety" issues entirely. I'm not sure which was worse. Being on them or the withdraw from saying "No way. No more." While paranoia and crawling out my own skin did enter the picture, violence never was in my thoughts, praise pancake.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:22 am
by malchior
LordMortis wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:19 am Are we suggesting it's mentally ill people that go out and acquire firearms for the sole purpose of murdering helpless unsuspecting people they have no connection with en masse in a convoluted suicide by cop plan? No. That doesn't sound right.

Does the GOP address the ones shooting up religious sites and gay bars? What do they want to ban in lieu of unmitigated access to firearms in those cases?
Of course not, all their discourse is to distract from the real issue. The problem is they embrace a conspiracy theory, brand it as an idea, repeat it ad nauseum until their idiotic base is chanting it out loud, and then use the media to loudspeaker the 'controversy'. Over and over. And it works.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:59 am
by Kurth
I’m not sure this fits under the “conspiracy theory” umbrella. My understanding is that there are, in fact, links between SSRIs and suicidal/violent thought in some patients, including those who commit acts of violence to themselves and others. To look at over-prescription of SSRIs as a contributing factor to mass shootings may be dumb in light of all the other, more significant and obvious contributing factors, but it doesn’t qualify as a conspiracy. It’s not tin foil-hat wearing, Pizza Gate, Venezuelan election interference type stuff.

Just pointing this out because I hate to see labels get tossed around and over-applied to the point that they lose all meaning. Words matter. It’s important we say what we mean and mean what we say.