Jump to content

US Politics: 1950's edition


Recommended Posts

Here's a fun little article compiling some of the language from the left regarding women that, for some odd reason, didn't seem to garner nearly as much outrage as Limbaugh. Quite the collection, including money quotes from folks like Matt Taibbi, etc.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

I've read a lot of people lauding and quoting Taibbi here, but I don't recall anyone quoting any of this:

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.)

Now, switch that around to Limbaugh talking about a female writer with a "big, hairy set of balls in her mouth", and imagine a similar lack of reaction from the left. Funny, that.

The winner is apparently Bill Maher, who among other comments, called Palin a "dumb twat" and

a "cunt".

What's interesting to me is that you'd figure that folks on the left are far more likely to watch/listen to left-leaning programming than Rush Limbaugh, so they would tend to be a lot more familiar with the mysogynistic comments made by leftists. But curiously, the outrage seems to be just a touch muted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

FLOW, I do think, FTR, that the ACA increases government spending. Not sure when you throw projected Medicare costs into the equation, but I think we'd be seeing cuts to Medicare without the ACA, so that's moot for me.

But I also think having employers bear the burden of healthcare chokes economic growth in the US compared to other countries so it's worth it to me. Additionally, health care has gotten so out of control that some amount of brakes from the top down has unfortunately become necessary. I want single payer government insurance + private supplemental insurance and I'll keep pushing for more government funding of health care until that happens. I am willing to see big cuts to social security to see this happen.

Regarding a conversation, I don't expect Republicans to come around on health care. You're still trying to privatize social security half a century later - some things are core values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, the question is how much that scenario gets discussed between the June SCOTUS decision and the election. But if I'm a Republican candidate, I absolutely hammer that. It could be the Harry and Louise commercials that killed HillaryCare and gave the GOP the 1994 majority all over gain.

The problem being that the likely Republican nominee is the guy who introduced "Obamacare" to Massachusetts. I'm not sure Romney is very credible on this issue...but then again, it hasn't hurt him too much so far, so what do I know?

Edited to add: I am perpetually amazed that Romney has managed to somehow elude conservative wrath over the ACA, given that he himself signed a smaller version into law in MA. So I don't bet against Multiple Choice Mitt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW - the comments are reprehensible, no matter who says them (glad Taibbi, who I don't care for at all, got called on it), and the fact that there are some troglodytes on the left doesn't excuse sexist comments on the right, either.

As has been pointed out in thread after thread here, current US culture is suffused with latent sexism. It's pervasive, and the sad fact is that if you call people on it (particularly if you are a woman) you then open yourself to all sorts of criticism and name calling (a la Erica Jong).

The husband person used to get New York Magazine. It is fairly left-leaning. We stopped getting it because we started to notice (and once we noticed, it started to be obvious and annoying) how many articles were extremely sexist, but couched in the smug self-assuredness that it was "liberal" and therefore ok to be "provocative" (meaning sexist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I also think having employers bear the burden of healthcare chokes economic growth in the US compared to other countries so it's worth it to me. Additionally, health care has gotten so out of control that some amount of brakes from the top down has unfortunately become necessary. I want single payer government insurance + private supplemental insurance and I'll keep pushing for more government funding of health care until that happens.

FLOW, I do think, FTR, that the ACA increases government spending. Not sure when you throw projected Medicare costs into the equation, but I think we'd be seeing cuts to Medicare without the ACA, so that's moot for me.

Well, about 1/3 of the funding for the ACA comes from future, unspecified cuts in Medicare. That's why it is a bit of an accounting trick, because you can't count those Medicare cuts as helping the bottom line of Medicare, while also counting on those same funds to pay for the ACA. The reality is that if those cuts occur, and you say they improve Medicare's outlook, then you're really saying that the ACA is adding hundreds of billions to the deficit.

I don't think those cuts will happen anyway, because (as the CBO itself noted) the political reality of finding completely new cuts in Medicare every year that Congress won't stop is unlikely. It's the same reason for the doc fix. Reimbursement rates are supposed to be much lower than they are now due to supposed automatic cuts, but each year, Congress passes legislation to stop them. Cost savings that require members of Congress to touch that third rail every year won't happen, which is why real savings must be in the form of a major piece of structural reform that is effective when passed, and doesn't need to be revisited every year.

But I also think having employers bear the burden of healthcare chokes economic growth in the US compared to other countries so it's worth it to me. Additionally, health care has gotten so out of control that some amount of brakes from the top down has unfortunately become necessary. I want single payer government insurance + private supplemental insurance and I'll keep pushing for more government funding of health care until that happens.

Assuming this is true, then the ACA is the worst possible solution. At least, if you believe the Administration's projections. Because according to the Administration, only 7% of employers will drop coverage. The rest will all maintain coverage, and will pay significantly more for that coverage than they did before because of the cost of the additional mandates -- no lifetime caps, no preexisting conditions, etc. etc. etc. That makes for an increased burden on American businesses, and more choking of economic growth than under the current system.

And then you have the ACA's effect on all those employers who do not currently offer insurance. They'll all be slapped with a brand new, $2000/employee fine. Wouldn't that also have a negative effect on economic growth by making them less competitive?

So the only way you get what you desire -- moving insurance away from the employment relationship -- is if the Administration's projections are wrong, and large numbers of employers ditch coverage and pay the $2000 fine instead. And you're right -- that would lower employment costs, and arguably would make those businesses more competitive. But, that would blow the alleged fiscal integrity of the ACA all to hell, because the budgeting of subsidy dollars is based on subsidizing a much smaller number of employees. Having to pay out subsidies as high as $7500 per employee, and having that paid for by fines of only $2000/employee, simply does not work.

Regarding a conversation, I don't expect Republicans to come around on health care. You're still trying to privatize social security half a century later - some things are core values.

Well, that's sort of my point, and even more so with respect to Medicare. The passage of the ACA and creation of a brand new health care entitlement program means that there cannot be agreement on a structural reform of Medicare that reduces the level of entitlement under that program. As you say, it is a collision of core values, where one side is willing to pay whatever is required to guarantee health care for all, and the other side isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*stuff about Rush Limbaugh as if he wasn't a purely bombastic tool*

zzzzzzzzz....

The winner is apparently Bill Maher, who among other comments, called Palin a "dumb twat" and

a "cunt".

What we should note here folks, is that some seem to think that the Libertarian asshole comedian Bill Maher is a shining example of "what people on the left are like (please ignore that he is an entertainer please.)"

Also, he was apparently the first person to correctly identify Sarah Palin as a "dumb twat."

What's interesting to me is that you'd figure that folks on the left are far more likely to watch/listen to left-leaning programming than Rush Limbaugh, so they would tend to be a lot more familiar with the mysogynistic comments made by leftists. But curiously, the outrage seems to be just a touch muted.

What's interesting to me is that you'd figure that folks on the perpendicular are far more likely to touch/taste parallel programming than Bozo the Clown, so they would tend to be a lot more familiar with the antidisestablishmentarianists.

But non-curiously, there is no outrage as nothing posted or quoted here makes any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW - the comments are reprehensible, no matter who says them (glad Taibbi, who I don't care for at all, got called on it), and the fact that there are some troglodytes on the left doesn't excuse sexist comments on the right, either.

That's true. What Taibbi and others have said doesn't excuse or mitigate what Limbaugh said. On the other hand, it does make those on the left who jumped Limbaugh's shit but love Taibbi look like it's not sexism/misogynism that really bothers them at all.

In other words, I'm not calling out Taibbi. I'm calling out his fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Limbaugh's comments are beyond insults, because they insinuate that Fluke should, because of her opinions, make herself available in some form or another to any man that comes along.

All the stuff by Taibbi and Maher is sexist as well, but it doesn't go so far as to suggest the person owes others some kind of sexual gratification because of monetary responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Limbaugh's comments are beyond insults, because they insinuate that Fluke should, because of her opinions, make herself available in some form or another to any man that comes along.

No they don't insinuate that at all. They were a tasteless, sexist joke about someone else paying for her birth control. Nobody actually believes he was saying that she really was a prostiture.

All the stuff by Taibbi and Maher is sexist as well, but it doesn't go so far as to suggest the person owes others some kind of sexual gratification because of monetary responsibility.

If you see a difference in levels of misogyny between "hairy balls in mouth", "cunt", and "twat", on the one hand, and "prostitute" on the other, I think you're being guided by politics rather than the language being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, I'm not calling out Taibbi. I'm calling out his fans.

I'm afraid to tell you, but you aren't calling out a fucking thing. Unless:

1. There is some contingent here comprised of raging Taibbi fans that I just completely spaced on noticing or

2. This post is just one insignificant part of your 'asmuchastheinternetwillallow' plan to talk smack to Taibbi fans across the whole of the internets and hope that they meet you at the bike rack after school for some 5 finger litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we should note here folks, is that some seem to think that the Libertarian asshole comedian Bill Maher is a shining example of "what people on the left are like (please ignore that he is an entertainer please.)"

Oh, so it is okay because he is just an entertainer, not a real journalist? What's Taibbi's excuse? There are plenty of folks here who laud the guy precisely because of his serious journalism.

I'm afraid to tell you, but you aren't calling out a fucking thing. Unless:

1. There is some contingent here comprised of raging Taibbi fans that I just completely spaced on noticing or

You spaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so it is okay because he is just an entertainer, not a real journalist? What's Taibbi's excuse? There are plenty of folks here who laud the guy precisely because of his serious journalism.

Is what ok?

That you claim he is an example of the left when he clearly isn't?

This is like apples to an orange colored basketball.

But for the sake of argument, who here lauds this Taibbi guy of whom I've barely even heard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This * 10^27. I also worry about Dems spending like crazy, and their amnesty for illegals leaves a funny taste in my mouth, but so far I can't bring myself to vote for a party whose platform is filled with such rife prejudice.

Since our residential GOP cheerleaders are slow in their response, let me help. Here are the points that address your concerns:

1. Those are fringe elements within the party, and do not accurately reflect the party as a whole. And by "fringe" we do not mean isolated in power from party identity, but instead we mean that we are generally embarassed by them and yet we are unable to jettison them because we need their votes to win elections.

2. They are largely ineffectual in affecting "real" policies. And please ignore their consistent success in setting the talking points for the party, from saving Schiavo to enshrining rights of personhood for unborn babies to stem cell research.

3. They are not really prejudiced or biased -- they just want the federal government to stop regulating people's lives. For instance, opposing Roe v Wade is not _really_ about limiting women's right to control her own body, but about returning the right for each state's right to make their own laws. So state government intrusions are okay, but federal intrusions are bad.

4. Economic issues are more important than social issues, any way. Wouldn't you want to see a trim federal budget rather than normalizing LGBT prople's serving openly in the U.S. armed force? I mean it is money in your pocket!

You are welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since our residential GOP cheerleaders are slow in their response, let me help.

There wasn't a question or request for an explanation to which to respond. If you want to take it as a question, I'd say that Santorum's slide wihtin the GOP electorate is due to his emphasis on the type of policies you deplore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for the sake of argument, who here lauds this Taibbi guy of whom I've barely even heard?

Honestly have never heard of him.

To FLoW's point, Limbaugh does not equal Maher or even some liberal journalist (just typing that phrase is painful). Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP. He has more influence over the modern right than any other single figure. To get that much influence on the left side, you'd have to combine Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Clooney, and I'd still give the edge of Limbaugh.

Edit: But I'm not excusing sexism from the left either. Just trying to explain why Rush is getting the level of ire that he is. Oh, and Limbaugh trying to portray himself as the poor victim now..? He's a lowlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maher sucks. That's horrible. If you have a similar set of advertisers for him, I'd be happy to tell them off too.

I do think that singling out people who are not particularly news is not the same league as singling out presidential candidates as far as vitriol goes. I also think that Limbaugh's comments were a bit more than just misogyny. But that doesn't excuse or make good Maher's comments, and those are absolutely misogynistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see nothing really wrong with belittling a man by referring to him as a dick?
let's try a thought experiment, TrueMetis. I know this'll be hard for you, but just go along with it.

Picture in your mind calling a man a dick. Okay? got that? Good.

Now, picture in your mind calling a woman a dick. Was that much harder? Probably not.

Okay, next one. Picture in your mind calling a woman a twat. Not so hard for you, is it?

Now, here's the kicker - picture in your mind calling a man a twat. Huh. That's a bit tougher, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...