Fox News Slowly Loses It Over The Course of Election Night
Watch as FoxNews goes from giddy to grieving during the course of election night, including Karl Rove versus the Fox Decision Desk.
Found on nymag.com
Showerbench rules, why is it fez can be offended but normal people should not be allowed to be offended by the queers pushing their sick agenda on the world
Of course people are going to bring up the gay thing Fez, it's all you bring to the table these days. Quit wearing your sexual preference on your sleeve and maybe people will stop giving you so much shit about it.
Because: This guy is the fall guy for a gun running operation to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria gone bad. Putin put a hit on Ambassador Stevens in retaliation for the USA sending left over arms from Lybia to Turkey to smuggle into Syria. Obama knew what the attack was all about and could not send aid for fear that his entire illegal scheme would be revealed. Instead he sacrificed 4 lives and came up with this YouTube lie to cover his ass.
Bill O'Reilly is a pompous douche, but he's by far the smartest guy they have working over there...it's not even close
Great news for the non workers. Now the government will take more from the workers and give it to the non workers!
This is why I am running away from the Republican Party. its just a bunch of Bible thumping pasty faced old motherfuckers. Am I a democrat now? Shit No! My new slogan GIVE ME NO FUCKING CHOICE AND YOU GET NO FUCKING VOTE!!
Can't say I'm really surprised...More dumber people than smart in this country. More takers than makers..Stock market plunged today....if Ronmey got elected you think that happens? Just a forecast for future...we are fucked!
Well, the Dow Jones average dropped in October 2008 down to around 8000, before the election. In .2009, it was steady at 9000. 2010 was a good year for the stock market. It is now at 13228. The stock market did well under Obama, considering we are in a slowdown. Look at Apple and Google, Ford is up. SIRIUS radio stock I bought at 1.32(2 years ago) it is now at 2.74... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!... I didn't vote for Obama by the way, just bringing the facts
And now Fezzie can sit back and watch four years of Obama doing abso-fucking-lutley nothing for gay marriage. Being a one issue voter is stupid to begin with but being a one issue voter for a candidate who has already said he plans to do nothing about your issue and that it should be handled at a state level is weapons grade retarded. Fezzie's problem isn't that gay marriage is illegal where he lives (it's not) but that nobody would ever marry him and voting Obama isn't going to change that. Enjoy higher taxes and unemployment so you can feel good about yourself. The ObamaBang!?
@MoeSzyslak01 Only about 10 states don't have some level of prohibition of gay marriage and over 30 have recently passed constitutional amendments banning it. Fez isn't dumb so he knows nothing changed materially between today and last week. Except that he's assured of paying tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes in the next several years under Obama that he could have spent wining and dining some twink and hiring a bodyguard for when he brought him home. That was a very expensive spitefest Fez enjoyed today for zero return -- he has no kids to worry about the future for (and it's irrational for an atheist to worry about what happens to humanity when he's dead), and no one is stopping him from marrying where he lives. But it almost sounded like it was worth it to him, which only means he still needs to learn to accept himself independently instead of relying on something else (like 51% of the electorate) to "permit" him to. Fez needs a huge number of people - maybe every person on earth - to join him in rejecting Jesus because he's not yet convinced.
"it's irrational for an atheist to worry about what happens to humanity when he's dead". What a fucking scumbag thing to say. People have empathy whether they believe in God or not. I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't bring children into this horrible world, because I think the future is too grim. Is that what keeps you from stealing and killing, a punishment/reward system after you die? How utterly childish. Also, if you're really concerned about the future like you say, worry more about what we are doing to the environment of this planet rather than debt. Debt is absolutely temporary and meaningless compared to the mass extinction happening right now, along with climate change, which is absolutely happening and probably caused in large part by people.
@BadNewsJeff @ShowerBench @MoeSzyslak01 I believe religion has been misconstrued. Religion allowed people a way to deal with the great uncertainties present in life. For example, religion could help quell fears when there was no understanding of what thunder was or why there was a drought. Since has reduced many of these uncertainties, but with questions like "Why do we die", "Why is she addicted to drugs", "Why did he get cancer" religion provides some peace of mind by way of a narrative wherein deity X has plan Y which Z people fit into.
@ShowerBench @BadNewsJeff @MoeSzyslak01 Self sacrifice might make you a dupe, but it also may not. Evolution is statistical in nature, so there is nothing that is certain, only probable. There are, however some good arguments made by proponents of "Kin Selection" that refute your point.
Neoatheism is a very unfortunate monstrosity. Science has nothing to do with proving or disproving phenomena that cannot be subjected to the scientific method. SCIENCE IS CONDUCTED BY DISPROVING HYPOTHESES. All of the evidence in the world WILL NEVER prove a hypothesis. (If you meet a scientist who claims otherwise then you are not dealing with a scientist.)
1. The Selfish Gene hypothesis popularized by Dawkins is just that, a hypothesis. It explains cooperation/altruism very well in some situations, but there is a great deal left unexplained.
2. Why do we care about the sick, weak and poor? First, there are many levels of selection in the evolutionary sense. With this in mind, the ability to "take care" of a sick, weak or poor person may demonstrate a sign of fitness since giving help is often conditional upon the "helper" being in a financial/emotional position to do so. The fitness signal can then be translated into greater probability of reproduction with a mate. It could also send a fitness signal to observers that allows the helper to access new mates.
3. Your survival is not necessarily more probable after the extermination of a rival. Do not forget that there are MANY costs associated with attacking another individual and the conflict could easily result in a fitness reduction due to injury, being murdered or an injury that ultimately becomes infected and kills you to name a few. Take a look at studies in ecological game theory. The experimental evidence is very strong for this observation across a plethora of species. I will post if you folks are interested.
4. There is not very much in the way of Naziism and Stalinism. In fact, individualism and the desire to decide one's own fate seem to be very common amongst those who opposed these institutions. The group mentality tends to foster extremism, which is repeated fairly often in the forms of genocide, ethnic cleansing, gang violence.
Very interesting discussion!
@OllieInChicago Humans enslave humans. Ants enslave other ants.
@BadNewsJeff @MoeSzyslak01 My point is...You're a 20-year-old throughout the rise of Hitler and you are close to the Aryan ideal. You'd do more than fine living within a Nazi regime. There is every reason including passing along your genes that you would join the movement, and all it requires is participation in eliminating "that" group over there who you've been convinced will not assist in promoting your group's survival, and you've accepted that at least theoretically undermines your group's survival. Acute empathy might be present but you risk at least a lifestyle advancement and at worst your life by resisting. Why would you accept a high risk of sacrificing yourself in this way unless you've conceived of and bowed to a "greater purpose" than yourself, your group, and the rules of evolution? If science/passing along your genes is the (only) name of the game, self sacrifice makes you a dupe who cut short your fantastic life for no reason, no matter how many people think well of you after your consciousness and therefore "you" end. You'd have to conceive of and at least accept the real possibility of something greater than yourself that consciously designated you, your capacity for empathy, your humanity as important beyond its own earthly existence in order for it to make sense. What do you do when there is a conflict between doing what your instincts, genetics and evolution dictate versus bowing to a moral ideal you conceive of, give some credence to because it enters your consciousness for reasons you can't be certain of, all without any non-debatable evidence to prove it (faith)? If you're a hardcore atheist who has closed the door of possibility, why would you do the right thing?
I agree with that whole post, but a quick look at human history shows that it's been full of killing, enslaving, etc. when it serves a group's purpose. Maybe religions were made up to try and put an end to that tendency 3-4 thousand years ago, but a quick look at the last 3000 years shows that it did not succeed. Time to try something new? Either way, great discussions.
@BadNewsJeff @MoeSzyslak01 "It makes perfect sense, without a creator, that an animal (not just humans) would want its offspring to survive because they share genes. It would also make sense that a species community would necessarily look out for each other if it means more of the community can then pass on their genes"...Right, animals and humans are programmed to "want" to survive and pass on their genes. But when you get to the "why" of the importance of caring about the sick, weak, poor, etc. genes dictate NOT caring if they are not members of your own family, group. You have to allow for something bigger than our species' nonremarkable programmed tendency to replicate itself to find a reasoned basis for not killing, enslaving, etc. when it serves your own or your group's purposes. A reason to respond to your empathy, otherwise it is easily dismissed with a perfectly logical and reasoned argument that YOUR survival is better served by eliminating THAT person or group. I think the door left open by enough people to that possibility is the only thing that ultimately stands in the way of very "rational" movements like Nazism, Stalinism, etc.
@OllieInChicago It's not a criticism of atheism, just pointing out that if you remove the possibility of an objective intelligence that assigned humans empathy for a purpose and are certain no such being or purpose exists, you are left with the scientific explanation for all behaviors and motivators, adaptation for survival advantage
@OllieInChicago Humans don't enslave other humans?
I understand you're in character, but your argument is asinine. Primates do not enslave other primates. Also, your interpretation of an atheist's empathy is unsubstantiated.
The answer you are looking for is genetics. Why should an atheist (me for example) care what happens to my children after I die? It's because the kids have half of my genes (and the other half from my wife). Genes, for whatever reason (and this is where my spirituality comes in-I'm actually more agnostic than atheist) want to keep surviving, generation after generation. I like to think there is some greater goal from the constant mixing and matching they do throughout the generations. Genes are the driving force behind our desire to survive and eventually mate. It makes perfect sense, without a creator, that an animal (not just humans) would want its offspring to survive because they share genes. It would also make sense that a species community would necessarily look out for each other if it means more of the community can then pass on their genes. I would recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins, which answers a lot of your points. You seem very intelligent, so I can't imagine you take all of what's written in the Bible as fact. The reason we humans seem so different from all other animals is that we have conquered nature's law- the survival of the fittest. If some people need religion to give them a reason to care for the sick and the weak, then more power to them. I don't. And keep that religion out of the government that we ALL share.
@BadNewsJeff @MoeSzyslak01 But an atheist would dismiss empathy as an evolutionary adaptation, a programmed physiological response that is about survival of the self, not a meaningful connection to another person. All science supports that the earth will cease to exist at some point. Why would an atheist worry about preserving it given that it really makes no difference, once you're dead, whether it happens in five years or billions. Why is it inherently important that the human race can replicate itself for X time period once your consciousness ends? The possibility of an intelligent creator who designated humans as particularly significant offers a reason to assign greater importance to humanity and the planet. Human/primate nature is to kill, oppress, enslave others. Yes, the ONLY reason many individuals and leaders would resist all of those is the idea that our empathy exists for a more significant reason than giving us an advantage over other humans and species. Protecting and valuing the weakest is irrational if there is no objective morality that imposes "equality"on people. Nazis and other eugenicists make VERY empathetic and rational "greater good" arguments for ridding the world of the sick, weak, mentally ill/challenged (oh, and gay). Ethicists now put forth entirely rational arguments that a newborn human can be morally killed because its personhood is no better established than a fetus's and so it is not entitled to protection. There is a moral problem with that practice only if one accepts a possibility that humans are designated as particularly "important" by an objective intelligence/morality. It is less moral to experiment on an intelligent chimpanzee than on a severely compromised human of lesser intelligence and awareness ONLY if there is an objective morality. Etc.
@ShowerBench @MoeSzyslak01 I don't need 51% of anyone to accept me. I was thrilled that this country wasn't fooled by fear tactics from the religious right that somehow two people of the same sex getting married will destroy the country. Victoria Jackson says "America died". Last night was the very thing that makes America. There would be outrage in this country if two heterosexuals wanted to get married, but couldn't unless countless strangers decided it was okay first. If this is the process, then so be it. But no one is trying to convince people to reject Jesus. No one is asking to get married in your churches. Sad sour grapes. And maybe I don't mind paying more, if it helps people not making it in this country get some help. Can't be as cold as the "christian" conservatives.
@Fez Whatley @MoeSzyslak01 "I made that bet knowing I completely correct". First, there is no way you could "know" that. Second, you cried when you talked about how you would feel IF it didn't happen so you did know it was a possibility. Finally, when you and PaulO get married, if you travel to any number of states at least half of the populations will not recognize that as "legitimate." The same number as last week and the same number in some areas as 10 years from now. SO? It's important for you that those people are outnumbered by at least 1% because you would not be confident in your and your husband PaulO's personal commitment - even legal commitment in NY. You are gratified by the fact that a slight majority did not care about the issue only because you still require a government and a majority to rubber stamp your personal relationship even though that translates into nothing more than inviting government in to decide what happens if you break up. It's great if you think this week's election provided that rubber stamp, but you'll be consumed with the 35+ states that didn't soon enough because you've decided you require acceptance of strangers, and that belief is never healthy.
@Fez Whatley @MoeSzyslak01 Don't be ridiculous, Fez. I had already figured out marriage equality when you were fighting to defeat Clinton and later get George W. Bush elected (but none of your liberal friends turned on you back then over your ideology because it's just not important). Here's how the conversation went in those days...Your (Republican) side: "Clinton is letting gays in the military. What's next, gay marriage?" Democrats: "hahaha the right wing is being crazy again - who ever heard of two men getting married? Gays just want to visit each other in the hospital!" Subset of Democrats that included me: "Why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to get married? There should be equality or no government involvement at all in marriage." So Fez, stop being dishonest. You were way behind the curve here. I defend the other side because they make a STRONG argument based on "society" opposing your argument based on the individual. And if you put aside your feelings of persecution and examine the reasoning you will find out it has very little to do with trying to hurt you as opposed to fortifying an institution that stabilizes society and theoretically reduces all kinds of misery for its members. And as an aside, I have no idea why a group would fight to invite lawyers and government into their personal lives just so they can resemble another group that has always done it in response to social pressure based solely on the fact that they may produce children together.
@ShowerBench @MoeSzyslak01 According to that, then we all have to follow Catholicism. That's real freedom. And my saying that I would leave the country came from my confidence in Obama's re-election. I was asked if I was confident that the President would be elected again and what would I do if I was wrong. I made that bet knowing I completely correct. Not because you and half of America think you should get to decide how everyone lives their lives.
@ShowerBench @Fez Whatley If a gun had a bayonet lug (not even bayonet but just the lug to attach one) and a pistol grip it was illegal to sell a new one. When's the last time you heard about a drive by bayonet lugging murder with a pistol gripped weapon? Again it was nothing more than feel good liberal nonsense.
@ShowerBench @Fez Whatley Because it's a political loser. Ask Clinton. The democrats lost the house and senate over that nonsense. Let's outlaw scarier looking guns that aren't any more deadly!!!!!! Look at the stats, it changed nothing crime rate wise. There was no such thing as an "assault weapon" until that legislation made that term up. It's nothing more that a list of scary looking features that don't effect the guns lethality but if a gun has two or more of those features it's illegal to sell new one. It didn't even take into account the millions of scary looking guns already in circulation.
@ShowerBench Of course not. It's on Nagin for not evacuating and Blanco for sitting on her thumbs. Bush approved federal help as soon as it was asked for. The fact it took the federal help so long to get there after being approved has more to do with geography than anything. The city sits in an under sea level bowl and to pretend the responders deliberately took there time is ridiculous. Now I will agree that W saying "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" was monumentally stupid. But if it wasn't a federal agency Brown never would have been in charge.
I don't think an Obama response to Katrina were he president at that time would have been much better than Bush's
@Fez Whatley @MoeSzyslak01 But before election day you were saying you would leave the country if you didn't get the outcome you wanted and became distraught at the idea. Why would you leave a decision like where you will live up to yesterday's voters? HALF of them voted against Obama. Many states already have bans on gay marriage in their constitutions. Yet if the electoral college didn't vote for one presidential candidate you had already decided that would devastate you - and my point was there is no reason you should turn your emotional well being over to "voters" or anyone else. WOULD there be outrage if two heteros wanted to get married but couldn't? It's really an unanswerable question in a certain respect because the institution only exists in the first place in law to order society and was necessitated by the fact that two heteros produce offspring. It wasn't established to give a couple a means to show the world their love - but to provide punitive remedies in the event a family "fails" - the main reason being that without these penalties parents would abandon responsibility for their children and those children and society at large would have to deal with that burden. Two siblings can't get married even if sterile because of purposes and intents the secular government had in mind when instituting marriage. The Catholic Church will not marry two heteros who declare they intend to prevent themselves from having children, because that is seen as weakening the real purpose of marriage by making it about those two individuals. Do heteros in love but who don't want children feel hated and discriminated against? Only if they misunderstand the rationale: that if marriage is defined as being about "love" it will fail as an ordering mechanism. So if a secular government decides it thinks it can strengthen the nuclear family through "discriminating" by prohibiting marriage of certain pairs, members of those pairs really have no reason to be offended because no offense has taken place. Having said all that, the "equality" argument seems stronger to me than the "may cause social instability" argument (because it may be true more marriages of any type only strengthen the institution)..but both are legitimate and I have no idea why you would take it personally that people would oppose gay marriage on the basis that gays will not produce offspring together. How is that offensive?
@Fez Whatley@ShowerBench "On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco, speaking about Hurricane Katrina, told the media in Jefferson Parish, "I believe we are prepared. That's the one thing that I've always been able to brag about." Later that day she issued a request for federal assistance and USD $9 million in aid to President George W. Bush, which stated, "...I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal." Also in the requesting letter, the governor stated: "In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan."
FEMA issued a statement dated August 27, that President Bush authorized the allocation of federal resources, "following a review of FEMA's analysis of the state's request for federal assistance. A White House statement of the same date also acknowledges this authorization of aid by President Bush. On August 28, Governor Blanco sent a letter to President Bush, which increased the amount of aid requested to US $130 million."
You claim Bush gave her "the run around" but the same day she asked for help she told reporters that they didn't need any federal help. You'll also noticed that Bush approved the federal help the same day she asked for it which also happens to be the same day she said she didn't need it. Again like I said revisionist history.
@MoeSzyslak01 @ShowerBench How fast the federal government reacts to a natural disaster depends on the President. Ask GOP governor Chris Christie. He praised Obama for getting a Major Disaster Declaration that provided assistance for people in New Jersey. Or of course there was plenty of red tape with Katrina because the Bush administration was giving Gov. Blanco the run around. She had trouble even getting to speak to the President. So yes, in that case you're right plenty of red tape.
@Fez Whatley @ShowerBench Roe vs. Wade didn't go anywhere under 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr., and 8 years of Bush Jr. and it wouldn't have gone anywhere under Romney. It's nothing more than a wedge issue meant to whip up people on the far ends of both sides.
Companies restructuring and working out their debts in a bankruptcy court is not going out of business. Companies go into and come out of bankruptcy all the time. Also if you read what Mitt actually wrote you'd see he suggested government intervention if all other avenues failed.Thing is we didn't try any other avenues.
As far as FEMA goes he was saying that having in run at a national level only adds more layers of red tape and seeing as how the feds can only step in after a state asks for help (a fact thrown entirely by the wayside with revisionist Katrina) what sense does it make to have that extra level of bureaucracy. Who better knows what a state needs, State level leaders or bureaucrats in D.C.? Allocating resources from the fed to the states shouldn't affect the support disaster victims receive, only who's calling the shots. As for the Private sector, if they are capable of getting certain things done quicker and cheaper than the government then why not let them be involved? You'd be amazed at how many things can be done for profit cheaper than having the government do them. Case in point schools. Most private children's schools cost about half of what each child is allotted by the government yearly in the same district's public schools and the figures show the private school kids are receiving a much better education.
@Fez Whatley Well fake Obama played by Ronnie B said he would take anthony's guns back in 2008.
@MoeSzyslak01 @ShowerBench How is it grossly out of context when the guy said all those things?? He said he would support overturning Roe vs. Wade. And if he got in the White House, he would have been able to pick Supreme Court justices that thought that way. He said he wanted the car companies to bankrupt. When he started losing michigan and ohio, then he changed his mind. He said get rid of FEMA and let the states handle it or the private sector. It's not the same as Obama will take all the guns away. Obama never said that.
@Fez Whatley @ShowerBench For the record I have no problem with gay marriage, if gays want to get married more power to them and I haven't been in a church in over twenty years. But you want to talk about fear tactics? If Romney wins Jim Crowe will come back, abortion will be illegal, birth control and tampons will be outlawed, he'll put women back in the kitchen, middle class and poor people's taxes will go up, we'll go to war with Iran, Muppets that make a half a billion dollars will be taken off the air, disaster victims will be fucked and left to fend for themselves, Mitt wanted GM and Chrysler to go out of business etc. All either made up entirely or statements he made taken GROSSLY OUT OF CONTEXT. It's no different than when people on the right say "Obama's gonna take all are guns" because he said he's for tighter regulations. There's plenty of fear to go around.