[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
Ever since 2003, I've been an avid visitor of the website Freerepublic.com. Never joined but I lurked there and they put my fears to rest back in 2004 when the exit polls all showed John Kerry winning at first.

Now I'm over there and most of them are all harping on the fact that Obama is ahead in today's Rassmussen poll, I think 2 points ahead of Romney (although the internals don't make sense in that they're saying Romney is ahead with women while Obama is ahead with men; plus he's assuming Dems will have a bigger turnout this time... huh?). They're all saying what an awful candidate Romney is, that he'll be just like McCain and Dole in the debates, that this country is too busy loving their new "Obamaphones" and want government to take care of them and they'll all just reelect him.

This is seriously freaking me out. I just cannot think of 4 more years of Obama considering how bad things are. I know the media likes to demoralize us into not voting, a lot of the polls oversample Democrats, etc.

Yes, I know this country is vastly different now from the way it was even 20 years ago. And I know that the die-hard Obama fans will stick with him. But I'd like to think that the average Joe is a little concerned about the way things are going to want change.

I'm really worried for my future and that of my family and friends if this guy ends up being reelected. Someone please calm my fears before I slit my wrists. :(
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com

Anyone have any flisters mentioning/bitching about this?

I have a liberal flister who is usually a very respectful person. We've agreed to disagree on a bit. But she wrote a long rant in her LJ yesterday about it. She thought it was "cruel" of Romney to say that remark about 47% of Americans wanting to be treated like victims, etc. To be honest, I scrolled right past it because I didn't feel like getting into an argument. I'd had a long day and wasn't in the mood.

Last night a British friend-of-a-friend had to make a snide remark about it though. One of my British flisters was complaining about fanfiction, and how it's annoying when people "Americanise" their characters, and what's the big deal if someone writes a fic using British spelling or colloquialisms. Her friend commented:

"And criticism because someone isn't using the proper "American" words. Well, newsflash all Americans, your language is just a worse version of "proper English" i.e BRITISH ENGLISH. So shut up!"

I seriously hate when they throw that card around, that our English is a "dumbed-down" version of their "proper" English. My friend herself challenged her a little, saying it wasn't just Americans who do it. I finally had to say something and asked her not to generalize like that. I personally don't care if I'm reading fic and it's in British English. I mean, yeah, if you're reading a published novel about American characters *in* America getting something out of the boot of their car, or giving someone a "five note", it might feel a little out of place, but that's just me. My friend later assured me that this girl was just kidding. Maybe I'm clueless, but usually when people kid on the net, they'll put something like "LOL" or ";)" or whatever.

Anyway, to get back to the whole thing about Romney's statement, that friend-of-a-friend replies to my comment with:

"Okay... I'm not doing a Mitt Romney "47% of all Americans" if that's what you're referring to, no."

Is this not a big deal at all and she's just trying to tell me she's not generalizing? Was Romney really generalizing when he made this statement? Personally I didn't really find anything wrong with it, although a few people told me there are people who are actually struggling and are part of that percentage. It's obvious what she thinks of him, but I could have done without that I think.

[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
I've been a subscriber on and off since the early 90s. I received a gift subscription about a year ago, which was fine because I like reading about some of my fave shows. Just received this week's issue and it really pissed me off.

They have an article in their "In the News" section entitled "The Conventions' Winners and Losers." For "winners", they include the speeches of both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney (must've really pained them to include her), the "partisan cable networks" (MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned for getting the most viewers during the DNC and RNC, respectively), and Bill Clinton, natch.

For the "losers", they pick everyone on the right: "The convention bounce", as in the lack of bounce for Romney following his convention; Clint Eastwood, and Sarah Palin.

I shouldn't have been surprised, but it just pisses me off how they perpetrate this garbage to prop up Obama. Romney actually did receive a small bounce after the RNC. Most polls I saw, including Reuters/Ipsos (which has been known to tilt left) and Rassmussen, showed him with a bounce between 4 and 6 points at least. But of course the media wouldn't make any mention of it. Meanwhile, according to pollsters, Obama did receive a bounce (though some of those polls I saw were pretty suspect based on the questions asked and oversampling Democrats... in one, Romney trailed by 5 points, but was leading by double digits with Independents) but it's already fading pretty quickly. Of course they don't want us to know this either. I fired off an email to them. They'll probably laugh and delete it, but I don't care. Had to let them know that not all of their readers appreciate this.

I know, you're thinking, "Well, what do you expect from them?" I do like TV Guide for info on my shows. But again, I'm just so sick and tired of them bending over backwards to show how slanted they are and to prop up this President. *shakes head*
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
I guess most of you guys either don't talk about politics much on your LJs or you have mostly conservatives on your flist. But for those of you who have liberal flisters, have you experienced any provoking comments yet?

I have an flister who I've met in person a few times. She's a really nice girl but a very strong-minded liberal. Despite our very different political views, we get along well and don't really discuss politics. Today she made a post showing off a button a friend gave her that said "Dogs Against Romney" on it. She told us she was voting for Obama, how strongly held her beliefs are, and five reasons that she's a liberal. She said at the end that she's fine with agreeing to disagree. I told her that's what I love about her, that she can at least be respectful of opposing views. But one of her friends (who isn't on my flist) decides to say "If you have a vagina and are voting the Ronney/Ryan ticket, I judge you. I judge you hard."

It's comments like this that annoy me because they seem like they're looking for a fight. I'm sure this person thinks that not everyone on my friend's flist has the same exact beliefs. And I'm sure there are some out there, but none of the conservatives or libertarians on my flist say things like this. It always seems to be the liberals. More than four years ago a former (thank goodness) flister was ranting "I HATE THE ASSHOLES WHO VOTED FOR BUSH!"

99% of my flist are liberals, so I have a filter for political posts that includes like-minded friends. I know it's my LJ and I should be able to say whatever I want, but I don't feel like slinging mud back and forth with people I otherwise get along with. Has anyone else had to deal with such provoking garbage before? Hoping I'm not alone, lol. I have a feeling it's going to get worse as the weeks go by. *sigh*
[identity profile] litlover12.livejournal.com

Just venting here. I wrote a little AU fic about Finch and Grace on Person of Interest. (For the uninitiated, Finch and Reese are the crimefighting heroes on the show; Grace is the fiancee from whom Finch was tragically separated. I got them back together and married them off.) From one reader, I get this review:

"I am a staunch Finch/Reese person. With their experiences & personalities, a normal boy/girl relationship for more than a night isn't likely - sort of PTSD for soldiers or the way long term police are..it's hard to get close to them."

Though she signed with her screenname, she used the anon review function, so I was able to delete this. But had I published it and responded, here are a couple of things I'd have pointed out:

1. As the daughter of a Vietnam vet who's soon to celebrate his 46th wedding anniversary, I can tell you firsthand that her characterization of soldiers and their relationships is so much horse hockey. My dad had his share of traumatic experiences, and it was really hard on both my parents, but by the grace of God (as they both put it) they made it. So have millions of other military couples. And police couples, for that matter. It's an insult to say it's not possible.

2. Is she saying that damaged people are destined to turn gay? Is that supposed to be complimentary to gays? It's been made very clear that both Finch and Reese have had heterosexual relationships in the past, and in fact, they're both still carrying a torch for the women they lost. So if they're gay now, in her formulation, that could only mean the trauma of their lives did it to them.

3. And finally, what is with people who aren't just content to make up their own slash, but have to go around telling writers of relationships established by the show that they're wrong?? (Don't even get me started on all the fic writers who got mad at this show for not following the Finch/Reese template they wanted!)

Honestly . . . the mind reels.

Shameful

Jun. 21st, 2012 11:09 pm
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
During today's press briefing at the White House regarding Obama's refusal to disclose documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, Jake Tapper posed a question to WH Press Secretary Jay Carney and his response (in my opinion) was gut-wrenching.

Q Jay, just one last question. The family of Brian Terry, the slain Border Patrol agent at whose murder scene at least two of these guns were found, they disagree with your characterization about these investigations. They say that the Attorney General’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth. That’s a statement from the Terry family lawyer.

MR. CARNEY: Look, we absolutely agree with the need to find out the truth about why Fast and Furious happened, why the tactic that, again, was employed in the previous administration in different operations and was stopped by this Attorney General -- why it came about. And that’s why the Attorney General referred it to the Inspector General. That is why we have provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself that is at issue here when you talk about the family that you referred to. And --

Q The Terry family.

MR. CARNEY: The Terry family. And that is separate from an attempt by members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, to try to score political points -- as Senator Grassley referred to his desire for a “political scalp” -- that is separate from trying to find out the truth about what happened in this operation, which this administration has been pursuing since the Attorney General discovered it.
"The family that you referred to" - because, let's face it, the Obama administration doesn't even care. Not a single person is bothered by the fact that they're trying to spin this and once again pin blame on the Bush administration (or other previous administrations) and they fail to remember, as Carney so perfectly proved, that a U.S. citizen (and more than one, to be honest) died at the hands of Mexican drug runners using guns put in their hands by the U.S. government. Not Holder. Not Obama. Not Carney. There's just no excuse for this bull!
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
Many times I've felt like posting about this in my own LJ, but can never work up the courage as 99% of my flist are liberal. So I figured I'd post where people understand.


Read more... )
[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
In reading the news articles lately, I would almost say that a good portion of the left side of the nation is shocked--shocked, they tell us--that the Supreme Court has any kind of power at all. Most of us are content to await the Supreme Court to finish doing precisely the job they Constitutionally exist for, but apparently the idea that the High Court exists to determine the constitutionality of one statute or another--as opposed to creating new ones out of whole cloth when somebody couldn't get something through Congress--comes as news to some people.

First there's Obama himself, who claimed that "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," and that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example [of judicial activism] and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step." (Ums, ers, pauses, and filler words removed.) As if a seven-vote passage in the House is a "strong majority" or something. And since is grasp of recent history is so shaky, I suppose it's unsurprising that his comprehension of the Constitution--which must, on such a scale, be considered as old as dirt--and the history of the Supreme Court, is even worse. Apparently someone got with him later, as he did try to walk back from some of the more outrageous bits.

Then there's this article from The Atlantic urging Obama to run "against the Supreme Court." The article makes cases against two potential objections to this, neither of which--interestingly--are "What could he possibly accomplish by running against the only branch that doesn't get elected whist trying to be elected to the only branch that is uninvolved in amending the Constitution?" While I agree with the author in their conclusion that the Supreme Court is not above criticism or politics, they seem to think that Obama has any kind of ability to do anything to them.

But that's not all. The Atlantic also reminds us "You're confusing the poor Europeans!" The Daily Beast wants us to know that "Obama didn't really say anything that remarkable." Not to mention Media Matters helpfully pointing out to everyone, "There's no precedent for striking down legislation under the commerce clause for the last seventy-five years, and that's ages ago so it doesn't count!" And this is just the tip of the enormous hysterical iceberg. There's lots more.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has read the Constitution at all.

cross-posted to right-angles on DW
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
On his show tonight, Bill O'Reilly busted the doors wide open as to what's REALLY going on with Sandra Fluke. How is a Georgetown law student able to go all over the place to do interviews and who is scheduling them? Turns out it's someone with connections to the White House!

Mediate tells the full story (with video): http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-asks-who-is-running-sandra-fluke-it-all-goes-back-to-white-house/

It turns out SKDKnickerbocker, a PR agency, is representing Fluke (with most of her interview requests going through someone named "Mike"). Who happens to be managing editor? None other than Anita "Mao Tse" Dunn, Barack Obama's former communications director. Dunn is also currently a contributor for NBC News/MSNBC/CNBC. This is the same woman who claimed that Fox News was an arm of the Republican Party. As if MSNBC isn't an arm of the Democratic Party?

So now we know what's really going on here - former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge for a mock hearing, invited the press to cover it, and then hired professional activist Sandra Fluke to testify. I doubt their intent was to sink Limbaugh or anyone else, but it was definitely an opportunity to drudge up press for the Obama administration any way they could get it. Now Dunn's taken Fluke under her wing.

I'm getting so disgusted with this administration and their misuse and abuse of the media and free speech. I feel what Limbaugh said was wrong, but to use it to attempt to sink him while Fluke herself is a fraud is inexcusable. This is another reason why the Obama administration needs to be out of the White House!
[identity profile] elizabethb.livejournal.com
This is a awesome rant by Adam Carolla, most well know from MTV's "Loveline" show and also "Loveline" on the radio.  Be aware this is explicit.

Self Entitled Monster's via Mediaite
[identity profile] nerca-beyul.livejournal.com
First post here. Been lurking around some, not to sure about posting. But today, I got so pissed off and have been fuming ALL DAY to anyone who will listen.

So, recently we've been talking in this comm about the pains of being a conservative college student. I got a really acute example of that today.

One, I'm a journalism student. It's super tough every day because as you guys well know, journalism is one of the most leftward-leaning professions out there. I get to hear my viewpoints mocked almost all the time at work and in classes.

Last semester I had one professor that I thought was exceptional in keeping politics out of class. Then I have an ethics class with him this semester. He's started making here-and-there liberal comments.

Today, I got walloped in the face.

We were discussing whether or not we would publish the name of an illegal immigrant mother if she gave birth to the first baby of the new year.

Somehow, he effectively went into a 15-minute rant in which he said:
-"You may not believe it, but what do most people believe about immigrants? That they're taking jobs away from Americans and that they're all criminals, especially Mexicans, which seems to be synonymous with drug-runners." (Nevermind the fact that, by definition, being an ILLEGAL immigrant DOES mean you're a criminal.)
-anyone who supports strict immigration laws is racist against Hispanics and abhors Mexicans and is thus completely backward
-the Arizona law is the epitome of racism because it means cops can ask any random person of brown skin for papers and deport them if they don't have them; and that "some crazy lawmakers" want to make the same thing happen in Florida
-"People who support immigration laws are making it very difficult to be a brown person. It's a sad reality, but it's a tough time to be brown in America right now." (what the hell does he think about Marco Rubio, I wonder?)
-everyone "outside the liberal multicultural haven of a university" (i.e. conservatives) thinks all Muslims are terrorists



This greatly offended me because I am a die-hard conservative and believe very strongly in strict immigration laws, but I: am obsessed Hispanic cultures and especially Mexicans, the first guy I dated (also a friend) is a legal resident alien from Mexico, had a roommate and close friend who is Cuban refugee turned naturalized citizen, and have an aunt who's adopting two young Guatemalan girls whose birth mother is being deported. Additionally, I'm very much a conservative Christian but my favorite actor is a Muslim.

Clearly I am the COMPLETE opposite of what he said! How DARE he stand up there and preach to me about how wrong "my" stereotypes are when he's obviously stereotyping me?!

So now my dilemma is whether I go to his office and TELL HIM that he offended me, or sit down and take it because as much as I'd like to believe he's above messing with my grades, I also believed he was above using politics in the classroom.

Because I don't want to blow this out of proportion, but at the same time I'm entirely sick of sitting down and taking insults right to my face.

EDIT:

The following is an e-mail I sent to my professor:
Hi professor L,

(some questions about our upcoming midterm)

Also, I wanted to let you know that some of your comments in lecture yesterday about immigration offended me. As someone who has family who work for Border Patrol and someone who supports immigration laws (including Arizona’s), I resent the implication that my beliefs are “making it hard to be a brown person in America right now.” Just because I believe in immigration laws and deporting illegal immigrants does not mean I dislike Hispanics or Mexicans. I have many Hispanic friends that I love dearly, including a friend who is a legal resident alien from Mexico and a roommate and close friend who is a naturalized citizen originally from Cuba.

Additionally, as someone who considers herself outside of the “liberal multicultural setting of the university,” I resent the assumption that I am a member of that community and the implication that “most of America” outside of that community is prejudiced against Hispanics and Muslims.

I don’t understand how an argument in favor of writing stories that break stereotypes can be based on a generalization about the beliefs of “most of America” or most of America “outside of the liberal multicultural setting of the university.” Forgive me if I’m wrong, but that seems fairly stereotypical to me.

EDIT TWO:

For all of that, this was his response:
"Caitlin,

Thanks for the comments. I apologize."
[identity profile] mynuet.livejournal.com
(I posted this on my journal earlier and [livejournal.com profile] foxfire74 told me I should cross-post it here. I do drop the f-bomb fairly liberally, so should I warn for language?)


There's very little guaranteed to make a small spike in my blood pressure than a random political swipe in my entertainment choices. Seriously, liberals, you can feel me here if you imagine that, at any point where you're watching tv, surfing the web, watching a movie, and all of a sudden you get a screed about how anyone who supports gay marriage is advocating the destruction of religion. It's one thing if I was seeking out politicized content, but if I just want to watch shit get blown up, can't I do that without having to be told I'm stupid?

The worst is when the person doing the mocking is themselves basing their entire premise on sheer, mindless idiocy. See ANY random snickering over "teabagging" for an example. Yeah, I said it. On the one side, you've got people saying, "High taxes are a bad economic model, contrary to the principles on which this country was founded, and we'd like to actually keep some of our own money, thank you. We don't get to spend more than twice what we make, why should the government? A tea party was integral to making this point once already, so we'll look back to 1773 and throw some more to try to get people's attention."

On the other side? Beavis and Butthead snickering about "They said teabag. Heh heh heh."

You want to argue that the American colonists actually paid relatively low taxes compared to the people back in England, that high taxes are a necessary evil, that deficit spending is justified? Hey, knock yourself out. You want to snicker like a twelve year old because you made a connection to sexual slang? It's a free country. You don't, though, get to simultaneously act like a twelve year old AND make fun of the other side for being stupid. That finger points straight back at you, my friend.

As for what set this off: a webcomic I read decided to have a cartoon cat argue with a strawman on the topic of global warming. Script )

Just, seriously, GAH. Support your arguments or realize you're the stupid one. That's all I ask.
[identity profile] x-1013-x.livejournal.com
I've probably complained before about this kind of thing, but I work at a non-profit religious organization. In our large-group meetings, there is an overwhelming liberal slant. So much so at times that they blatantly mock conservative views. I've heard all the jokes, had to sit quiet while some elder or pastor in a higher position than myself made fun of me in a round-about way. Well, today in our meeting, a few people in front of me had a small jovial exchange about one of last year's buzzwords. Yep, adult, Christian elders, pastors, and educators had a laugh about the word 'teabagging'. I've heard a lot of things, but that was just abhorrent. I realize the 'journalists' they most likely follow use the word freely, hell, even NPR has picked it up like it's as normal and unoffensive as the word tree, but come on, that word is disgusting. Would they stand for it if someone used an equally gross word to refer to what they believed? I think not. Today I am sad for this country and I am sad for my faith. People suck.

Profile

therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
789 10 111213
14 15 1617181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 06:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios