Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:40 pm**

Well,as the Germans say, er war gross.

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:26 pm**

Praising Limbaugh because he "changed broadcasting" is like praising Rupert Murdoch because he "changed journalism."

Yep, the change is real. But the question is what it cost and whether it did more good or more harm.

Limbaugh did everything he could to change American political discourse by fomenting rage, normalizing a variety of bigotries, and devaluing standards of truth.

That's change, sure. Should we applaud it?

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:50 pm**

Limbaugh was a terrible person, and the world is better off with him not in it.

And I would say the same thing for someone terrible on the left, like Louis Farrakhan.

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:12 pm**

Holman wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:26 pm Praising Limbaugh because he "changed broadcasting" is like praising Rupert Murdoch because he "changed journalism."

Yep, the change is real. But the question is what it cost and whether it did more good or more harm.

Limbaugh did everything he could to change American political discourse by fomenting rage, normalizing a variety of bigotries, and devaluing standards of truth.

That's change, sure. Should we applaud it?

I always called Limbaugh the original creator of fake news. I remember when he first had his radio show and someone in my office listened to it. I could not help but hear it and I remember thinking, "man, he is really twisting the truth to fit his narrative." After some of the other stuff he said got really vile, I started cranking up my radio to drown it out.

The world is better off without him because I felt he was evil and spread too much hate, not because he was right wing. I mean I didn't like George Bush's policies but I never felt he was a racist or vile person, and was honestly doing what he thought was best for the country even if I disagreed.

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:53 pm**

Fardaza wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:45 pm

Zenn7 wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:16 am This is a tragic loss! Think of all the tax revenue the IRS won't be getting in the future!

On second thought, high income frequently does not equate to high taxes paid... maybe not such a great loss.

Just Wow! Your hypocrisy is stunning. If a famous person from the left died and some of us posted attack trash like this, you'd be outraged. I can hear it now, "He hasn't even been dead for 1 day and you're attacking him! Have you no shame? Can't you keep your politics out of it? Let his family at least bury him first, etc., etc., etc."
[/quote]

Actually, my comment was not a hypocritical political jab at a horrible conservative that I disliked, I was just adding what I hoped was a mildly humorous addition to the dog-pile for the sole purpose of trying to be funny.

If I came in, and the gang dog-piled on a lefty and I knew who the guy was well enough to add something I thought might be funny, I'd post then too.

I'm not a hypocrite, I'm just a horrible person with piss poor taste.

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:10 pm**

Interesting article by historian Heather Cox Richardson, who says that the Reagan-era abolition of the Fairness Doctrine helped Limbaugh gain a massive audience. Excerpt:

...the Movement Conservative case faced headwinds, however, since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforced a policy that, in the interests of serving the community, required any outlet that held a federal broadcast license to present issues honestly, equitably, and with balance. This “Fairness Doctrine” meant that Movement Conservatives had trouble gaining traction, since voters rejected their ideas when they were stacked up against the ideas of Democrats and traditional Republicans, who agreed that the government had a role to play in the economy (even though they squabbled about the extent of that role).

In 1985, under a chair appointed by President Ronald Reagan, the FCC stated that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest. Two years later, under another Reagan-appointed chair, the FCC abolished the rule.

With the Fairness Doctrine gone, Rush Limbaugh stepped into the role of promoting the Movement Conservative narrative. He gave it the concrete examples, color, and passion it needed to jump from think tanks and businessmen to ordinary voters who could help make it the driving force behind national policy. While politicians talked with veiled language about “welfare queens” and same-sex bathrooms, and “makers” and “takers,” Limbaugh played “Barack the Magic Negro,” talked of “femiNazis,” and said “Liberals” were “socialists,” redistributing tax dollars from hardworking white men to the undeserving.

Constantly, he hammered on the idea that the federal government threatened the freedom of white men, and he did so in a style that his listeners found entertaining and liberating.

Posted: **Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:30 pm**

Lassr wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:12 pm The world is better off without him because I felt he was evil and spread too much hate, not because he was right wing. I mean I didn't like George Bush's policies but I never felt he was a racist or vile person, and was honestly doing what he thought was best for the country even if I disagreed.

This point bears repeating.

I didn't dislike Rush because he was a conservative. I disliked him because he was a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole who had a massive following that amplified his every racist, sexist, bigoted asshole word and translated it directly into their racist, sexist, bigoted asshole behaviors and worldviews.

The fact all those things form concentric circles with "conservative" seems like it is the larger issue here.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:26 am**

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:30 pm
Lassr wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:12 pm The world is better off without him because I felt he was evil and spread too much hate, not because he was right wing. I mean I didn't like George Bush's policies but I never felt he was a racist or vile person, and was honestly doing what he thought was best for the country even if I disagreed.
This point bears repeating.

I didn't dislike Rush because he was a conservative. I disliked him because he was a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole who had a massive following that amplified his every racist, sexist, bigoted asshole word and translated it directly into their racist, sexist, bigoted asshole behaviors and worldviews.

The fact all those things form concentric circles with "conservative" seems like it is the larger issue here.

Back in the day Boston had a radio talk show host named David Brudnoy. He was a libertarian who skewed conservative, as they often do, and I disagreed with him more often than not. But I always enjoyed his show because he was erudite and his arguments compelled consideration. He was the anti-Rush, IOW. I even self-identified as libertarian for a while based on Brudnoy's example. I guess my point is that I'm open to other viewpoints when they're reasonable and without rancor. I can be convinced by facts and logic. Limbaugh was a large reason why those things no longer have a home amongst Republicans.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:36 am**

Kraken wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:26 am
Skinypupy wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:30 pm
Lassr wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:12 pm The world is better off without him because I felt he was evil and spread too much hate, not because he was right wing. I mean I didn't like George Bush's policies but I never felt he was a racist or vile person, and was honestly doing what he thought was best for the country even if I disagreed.
This point bears repeating.

I didn't dislike Rush because he was a conservative. I disliked him because he was a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole who had a massive following that amplified his every racist, sexist, bigoted asshole word and translated it directly into their racist, sexist, bigoted asshole behaviors and worldviews.

The fact all those things form concentric circles with "conservative" seems like it is the larger issue here.
Back in the day Boston had a radio talk show host named David Brudnoy. He was a libertarian who skewed conservative, as they often do, and I disagreed with him more often than not. But I always enjoyed his show because he was erudite and his arguments compelled consideration. He was the anti-Rush, IOW. I even self-identified as libertarian for a while based on Brudnoy's example. I guess my point is that I'm open to other viewpoints when they're reasonable and without rancor. I can be convinced by facts and logic. Limbaugh was a large reason why those things no longer have a home amongst Republicans.

This is a good column making similar points.

It's not like Rush was a controversial intellectual making coherent if unpopular points. He was not much more than just a bloviating racist.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:14 am**

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:30 pm
Lassr wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:12 pm The world is better off without him because I felt he was evil and spread too much hate, not because he was right wing. I mean I didn't like George Bush's policies but I never felt he was a racist or vile person, and was honestly doing what he thought was best for the country even if I disagreed.
This point bears repeating.

I didn't dislike Rush because he was a conservative. I disliked him because he was a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole who had a massive following that amplified his every racist, sexist, bigoted asshole word and translated it directly into their racist, sexist, bigoted asshole behaviors and worldviews.

The fact all those things form concentric circles with "conservative" seems like it is the larger issue here.

Right. All of that. Sadly, Bob Dole announced he has lung cancer today. That's about the only parallel he has with Limbaugh, though. I disagreed with him deeply, but he was a war hero and a good person. I will pay him all due respect when he sadly passes.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:56 am**

Fardaza wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:45 pmHave you no shame? Can't you keep your politics out of it?

I am. The man was human garbage and made a career out of spewing lies and hate, trying to wrap as many people in it as he could. He actively worked to make the world a worse place. There are very few people in the world I feel that way about. Very few. Most of them are tyrants and genocidal maniacs.

And no, I'm not the least bit shamed.

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:46 pmOnce again, please move the politics to R&P.

There's nothing political about that. Unless, of course, the common assumption is now that bigotry, racism, and lies are a political view held by one side and not another. If that's the case, then it's political. Yes.

Move my post anyway, just to be safe.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:36 am**

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:30 pm I didn't dislike Rush because he was a conservative. I disliked him because he ...

was the first and loudest spreader of disinformation and conspiracy theory and people listened and accepted his disinformation as truth and I could recognize that as a teenager.

I was libertarian conservative as a teenager, like interviewing Ron Paul for president in 88 libertarian conservative, and I could hear his snake oil clear as bells.

Kraken wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:26 am Back in the day Boston had a radio talk show host named David Brudnoy. He was a libertarian who skewed conservative, as they often do, and I disagreed with him more often than not. But I always enjoyed his show because he was erudite and his arguments compelled consideration. He was the anti-Rush, IOW. I even self-identified as libertarian for a while based on Brudnoy's example. I guess my point is that I'm open to other viewpoints when they're reasonable and without rancor. I can be convinced by facts and logic. Limbaugh was a large reason why those things no longer have a home amongst Republicans.

In Detroit, it was Mark Scott, and I wonder what he'd have been like beginning with the coming of Sarah Palin. Would he have joined this movement or would he have rejected it and if he rejected it what that would have done for his career. When Limbaugh came to the Detroit market, Scott was on right before Limguagh and there was stark contrast between them.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:45 am**

Even in my most hardcore conservative days, I didn't listen to or pay much attention to Rush. I did read one of his books that was given to me in high school, and even that I had to cringe my way through some parts. On the other hand, because I paid so little attention to him, I also didn't realize the depths of his depravity until much, much later in life.

Watching him get the Presidential Medal of Freedom was just a gut punch. That moment really put an exclamation point on the death of America as I knew it.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:26 pm**

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheOnion/sta ... 3136484353

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:32 pm**

And I thought the world had become Onion-proof.

Posted: **Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:28 pm**

Everything old is new again

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:31 am**

But the dude with the remote really sells it.

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:21 am**

What was happening in April 2014 that gave rise to the joke in the first place? Or is the joke actually about Al Qaeda rather than the USA?

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:30 am**

Mike Babcock became the “winningest” coach in NHL history.

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:11 am**

The Onion does this sometimes. Every time there is a big mass shooting they roll out the exact same article.

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:23 pm**

malchior wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:11 am The Onion does this sometimes. Every time there is a big mass shooting they roll out the exact same article.

But in that case, the repetition literally is the joke.

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:46 pm**

Holman wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:23 pm
malchior wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:11 am The Onion does this sometimes. Every time there is a big mass shooting they roll out the exact same article.
But in that case, the repetition literally is the joke.

Right - I wasn't clear enough. I am positing that they might be rolling this out every time the United States shows that it is falling apart. If so, we'll be seeing this again pretty soon.

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:25 pm**

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... across-us/

House Republicans have unveiled their plan for "boosting" broadband connectivity and competition, and one of the key planks is prohibiting states and cities from building their own networks. The proposal to ban new public networks was included in the "Boosting Broadband Connectivity Agenda" announced Tuesday by Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio), the top Republicans on the House Commerce Committee and Subcommittee for Communications and Technology, respectively.

GOP, pro Comcast. Not a popular stance in Longmont, CO, where municipal broadband is wildly popular. (Also, a city in which Comcast and other non-municipal options are offered.)

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:41 pm**

TN wont allow municipal broadband to flourish. They only allow it to stay in its own county when it could easily fill in areas missed by the so called big boys who offer less and charge more. The GOP have their hands in the pockets of AT&T and Comcast and such here. A year or so ago when municipals had bi partisan support AT&T showed up with dozens of lawyers.

The funny part is where the local municipal is they have brought billions in to that city and tons of businesses.

Posted: **Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:10 pm**

The Meal wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:25 pm https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... across-us/
House Republicans have unveiled their plan for "boosting" broadband connectivity and competition, and one of the key planks is prohibiting states and cities from building their own networks. The proposal to ban new public networks was included in the "Boosting Broadband Connectivity Agenda" announced Tuesday by Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio), the top Republicans on the House Commerce Committee and Subcommittee for Communications and Technology, respectively.
GOP, pro Comcast. Not a popular stance in Longmont, CO, where municipal broadband is wildly popular. (Also, a city in which Comcast and other non-municipal options are offered.)

I'm evangelical about our municipal utility, which offers electricity, phone, and internet service. Taxpayer-owned, nonprofit, and proudly local, it's socialism at its finest. Broadband should be a public utility. Of course Republicans hate that.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:45 am**

After four years of Trumpism and all the fear and hate spewed out by the Republican party nothing has really changed except Trump is no longer president. The Republicans are still the same.
I suppose I have become more centerist since joined the OO/GG family and become more aware of this but will this shit ever end?
I never realized what the political make up of the US was until Trump ran for president. I realized there were differences between the two parties and what I thought the differences were. But I was wrong. How could I have been so naive? And still am I guess.
I think if I had enough money I would leave this country and not pay any attention to the politics of what ever country I moved to.
I would like to think this is not the country of my youth but looking back I'm pretty sure it is.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:36 pm**

dbt1949 wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:45 am I suppose I have become more centerist since joined the OO/GG family and become more aware of this but will this shit ever end?
I never realized what the political make up of the US was until Trump ran for president. I realized there were differences between the two parties and what I thought the differences were. But I was wrong. How could I have been so naive? And still am I guess.

You and me both.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:25 am**

dbt1949 wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:45 amThe Republicans are still the same.

I would disagree. I used to feel that most Republicans were either greedy or short-sighted and just voted for their own power and gain, be damned the consequences. It was the only thing that explained the steadfast refusal to regulate to protect the environment, which is my big ticket item. Without stable temperatures, clean air, and clean water we literally have no future.

Now I'm worried that most Republicans are racist hatemongers, and what I perceived as greed or short-sightedness is simply indifference to their fellow human beings.

I know it's not the whole party and I know there are a number of people who don't agree with what's happened - but there's an alarming number of people who wanted more of the same (Florida Man brand chaos) and it's really disturbing to me. There's also an alarming number of people who may not specifically agree with the agenda, but it gets them what they want so they play along.

It's the old addage "What do you get when you've got 6 people at a table, 2 of them are Nazis and the rest are just keeping quiet and going along? You've got 6 Nazis" There is no room for "going along" with what the Republican party has become and still calling yourself a good person.

The fact that all these people are still bowing and scraping to the will of Florida Man even though he's a confirmed loser is, frankly, disgusting.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:39 pm**

Proof that the Republicans have changed. They are against "mean Tweeters"
How much more proof do you need?

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:01 pm**

stimpy wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:39 pm Proof that the Republicans have changed. They are against "mean Tweeters"
How much more proof do you need?

The Tanden stuff is so bonkers. I think the reality of it is that Manchin needs to oppose at least one of Biden's nominees so that his GOP opponent in 2024 can't include "voted to confirm 100% of Biden's appointees" in an attack ad. Biden's nominees so far are well credentialed and not especially controversial, so Tanden is the closest thing to a controversial pick so she'll have to do.

Meanwhile I suspect that Romney and Collins and the like would be ok with voting to confirm as the 51st or 52nd votes, but don't want to be the ones to put her over the top when there's at least one Democrat voting no.

Oh well. I suppose given the confirmation hell we'd be in if Democrats hadn't won both GA races, by comparison this is a minor irritant.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:23 pm**

Tanden could be a liability so maybe Biden threw her out there as a sacrificial lamb. AG is the critical confirmation.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:12 pm**

The Garland confirmation hearing today had some ridiculous moments. I'm waiting on the inevitable Aaron Rupar video clips to drop but Cotton essentially gave Garland a very hard time about the Durham investigation and the death penalty. For reference on the latter, he oversaw the prosecution against famously executed mass murderer...Timothy McVeigh. Garland has evolved against the death penalty politically but Cotton decided to essentially call him out as a hypocrite for changing his mind. Classy as always.

On the Durham investigation, Cotton challenged his commitment to it which is unsurprising to anyone with a brain because the Durham investigation looks intensely political, Garland might not be read into it, and Garland explicitly said he doesn't want to take a position on it yet without facts. Cotton pointed out that Barr wasn't so soft on it. Oy vey, really? Anyway, the next Senator up Corey Booker took a moment out of the beginning of his questioning to essentially point out Cotton's bullshit. Still my favorite Senator.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:24 pm**

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/stat ... 61288?s=20

Context: CPAC learned that scheduled speaker "Young Pharaoh" tweeted anti-Semitic posts to the effect that Judaism itself wasn't a real religion but was some sort of conspiracy to gain power (???), but they were apparently fine with all of the QAnon and Soros and New World Order weather-control posts tweeted earlier.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:33 pm**

As has been pointed out, they didn't like the horrible things he said so they cancelled him. I'm sure that lesson was lost on the GOP.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:17 pm**

Utah State Senator in a red-as-red-can-be-district complains that people keep e-mailing him about a specific bill. Says he can't be expected to know what's in every bill, and besides, he's tired.

Difficulty: It's a bill he sponsored.

https://twitter.com/BenWinslow/status/1 ... 9034748929

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:49 pm**

Super weird note on that. Any google search on 'vote no on HB 38' returns a reference to a somewhat controversial bill in PA that didn't go anywhere. The bill in Utah appears to refer to blocking porn in school. Why would people be upset that schools would have to block porn? Weird stuff all around.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:22 pm**

malchior wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:49 pm Super weird note on that. Any google search on 'vote no on HB 38' returns a reference to a somewhat controversial bill in PA that didn't go anywhere. The bill in Utah appears to refer to blocking porn in school. Why would people be upset that schools would have to block porn? Weird stuff all around.

Mainly hepcat.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:12 pm**

malchior wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:49 pm Super weird note on that. Any google search on 'vote no on HB 38' returns a reference to a somewhat controversial bill in PA that didn't go anywhere. The bill in Utah appears to refer to blocking porn in school. Why would people be upset that schools would have to block porn? Weird stuff all around.

My guess is that he was trying to make a general statement about state senators not knowing the specific contents of every bill, and made an extremely poor decision to use that specific one as an example. Or he’s just your average GOP moron.

Given what I know about him, I’m going with the latter.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:56 am**

Skinypupy wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:12 pmMy guess is that he was trying to make a general statement about state senators not knowing the specific contents of every bill

I know that it'd be a complete flop and never happen, but I sometimes wish any bill or legislature that gets introduced had to be named according to its intent and can't contain anything outside the scope of that intent.

A bill touted to "Save the whales" shouldn't contain footnotes about funding the CIA to investigate US citizens, for example. If people want to slide shitty unpopular themes into things, it shouldn't be on page 437. It should have it's own bill.

Again, I know that's a non-starter. It would mean too much honesty in politics with nowhere to hide.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:39 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:22 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:49 pm Super weird note on that. Any google search on 'vote no on HB 38' returns a reference to a somewhat controversial bill in PA that didn't go anywhere. The bill in Utah appears to refer to blocking porn in school. Why would people be upset that schools would have to block porn? Weird stuff all around.
Mainly hepcat.

www dot beaarthurnakedaerobics dot com is NOT porn!

Octopus Overlords

Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness