|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
People aren't emotionless robots that can do exhaustive research on everything they buy so marketing tries to fill in those information gaps with claims and desirable ideas, true or not.
I think it's telling that direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising is only legal in 2 countries in the world, and at least one of those has a huge issue with over-utilization of drugs that have questionable use. Why bother doing costly research/clinical trials on treatments for diseases with no cure when you can slap two generic anti-depressants together, advertise the shit out of it, and rake in the cash? Even if they don't do anything better than the last generation of drugs, people will still buy cause its a new! drug and placebo will take care of the rest.
Edit: As for an alternative to advertising (outside of pharm), I can't think of an alternative way to spread information about the quality of a product, but to deny that advertising can lead people into making inefficient decisions is very myopic.
|
On September 13 2013 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:
You can't just rail against "advertising." It's just too broad. Orchestras, Ballets, and Galleries all advertise. Community festivals advertise. Advertising isn't limited to hocking large brand names.
Isn't every facet of the entertainment industry funded by advertisers? Like that's how everyone admits that eSports is going to function, right? That gives us things like WCS and Dreamhack and stuff. All for free. In fact, with the advent of internet advertising it makes the entertainment industry a lot more free and accessible.
I think what sam is really railing against is corporate irresponsibility.
Orchestras, ballets and galleries do not advertise per se, they inform. There's a concert in the hall on friday? You get a poster or an "ad" (yeah yeah I know) promoting the concert. They usually do not say it is the best place to be on Friday, and do not imply that you're going to be a cool person if you're there, or a loser if you aren't. I imagine some might do that - but in such cases it's a practice that's just as bad as anything a corporation might do to plug their product.
Advertising in esports is also pretty awful. They do not merely show commercials and get it over with, they have commentators and players plug companies and products every chance they get during broadcasts, sing their praises and practically beg you to buy their sponsors' products under pretense of "supporting" them/event/esports. It's actually a lot worse than most of the stuff you normally see on TV or by watching different kind of events.
It's a mistake to chunk it down to corporate practices. There's a deeper underlying problem with the purpose and nature of advertising as an activity in general, and that problem's been there since the inception of mass media.
|
On September 13 2013 18:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:24 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 13:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It has nothing to do with Dove being the authority on beauty. It has to do with them being the authority of soap and beauty products. Lol man. Keep telling yourself that. I know it's a brand ad. I know it's effective. Those things are insidious. They don't just tell us what to want. They tell us how to want. And let me guess, you and the people you respect are just a cut above the rest right? You see the writing on the wall. You're too smart for those ads, but the rest of us are all just brainwashed little drones too stupid to know what's going on. We all just sit, drooling like the mindless automatons that we are, eating up every little scheme that the MAN comes up with, while you despair because we're not all as unique and super-smart as you. That's what this is really about. It's about you and the people who propagate this nonsense wanting to feel good about yourselves by convincing yourself that you're the few who see through the foggy window into the ugly truth of the world. Like I said, this shit might be impressive to someone who doesn't know better, but to the rest of us it's just the result of an inferiority complex on your part. Advertising has to be some insidious evil, because if there's no wool being pulled over the eyes of the general public then you lose your specialness. You lose that perception of intelligence that you've manufactured within yourself. If you're not one of the special ones who see the writing on the wall then you're just a normal like the rest of us, only worse because the rest of us don't need to create fantasies to make ourselves feel smarter than everyone else. This act might be cute when it's being done by a kid in middle-school, but after that it's just sad.
Do you work in advertising or something, friend? I did say "us," you know. First person plural.
|
On September 14 2013 02:51 ZeaL. wrote:
People aren't emotionless robots that can do exhaustive research on everything they buy so marketing tries to fill in those information gaps with claims and desirable ideas, true or not.
But marketing IS that research, except it's now being put on them instead of the person having the freedom/responsibility/liberty of making their own decisions. In the end you get emotionless robots from advertisement anyway.
And you're willing to accept that their claims may be false, and that this is superior to personal responsibility and freedom?
|
On September 14 2013 02:56 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:
You can't just rail against "advertising." It's just too broad. Orchestras, Ballets, and Galleries all advertise. Community festivals advertise. Advertising isn't limited to hocking large brand names.
Isn't every facet of the entertainment industry funded by advertisers? Like that's how everyone admits that eSports is going to function, right? That gives us things like WCS and Dreamhack and stuff. All for free. In fact, with the advent of internet advertising it makes the entertainment industry a lot more free and accessible.
I think what sam is really railing against is corporate irresponsibility. Orchestras, ballets and galleries do not advertise per se, they inform. There's a concert in the hall on friday? You get a poster or an "ad" (yeah yeah I know) promoting the concert. They usually do not say it is the best place to be on Friday, and do not imply that you're going to be a cool person if you're there, or a loser if you aren't. I imagine some might do that - but in such cases it's a practice that's just as bad as anything a corporation might do to plug their product. Advertising in esports is also pretty awful. They do not merely show commercials and get it over with, they have commentators and players plug companies and products every chance they get during broadcasts, sing their praises and practically beg you to buy their sponsors' products under pretense of "supporting" them/event/esports. It's actually a lot worse than most of the stuff you normally see on TV or by watching different kind of events. It's a mistake to chunk it down to corporate practices. There's a deeper underlying problem with the purpose and nature of advertising as an activity in general, and that problem's been there since the inception of mass media.
All you did was make this sound like some sort of semantic argument. That idea of 'informing' is just you trying to differentiate between 'good ads' and 'bad ads'. It's still advertising. It's still marketing.
I don't think you actually disagree with me other than language. And your language is kind of silly because you're attempting to say that ads are not advertising. There's no reason to look silly.
|
On September 13 2013 19:23 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 18:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 13 2013 13:24 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 13:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It has nothing to do with Dove being the authority on beauty. It has to do with them being the authority of soap and beauty products. Lol man. Keep telling yourself that. I know it's a brand ad. I know it's effective. Those things are insidious. They don't just tell us what to want. They tell us how to want. And let me guess, you and the people you respect are just a cut above the rest right? You see the writing on the wall. You're too smart for those ads, but the rest of us are all just brainwashed little drones too stupid to know what's going on. We all just sit, drooling like the mindless automatons that we are, eating up every little scheme that the MAN comes up with, while you despair because we're not all as unique and super-smart as you. That's what this is really about. It's about you and the people who propagate this nonsense wanting to feel good about yourselves by convincing yourself that you're the few who see through the foggy window into the ugly truth of the world. Like I said, this shit might be impressive to someone who doesn't know better, but to the rest of us it's just the result of an inferiority complex on your part. Advertising has to be some insidious evil, because if there's no wool being pulled over the eyes of the general public then you lose your specialness. You lose that perception of intelligence that you've manufactured within yourself. If you're not one of the special ones who see the writing on the wall then you're just a normal like the rest of us, only worse because the rest of us don't need to create fantasies to make ourselves feel smarter than everyone else. This act might be cute when it's being done by a kid in middle-school, but after that it's just sad. What did anyone say to deserve this kind of condescending shitty treatment from you? It's certainly not in the post you quoted. Guess what: being aware that advertising affects people doesn't somehow make people immune from it, nor justify the sort of smug self-satisfaction you've put on display here. Advertising affects even those who oppose it, even those who are fully aware of its techniques. And you aren't a god, either. You aren't some supergenius either. You're just a regular human being like me and everyone else. Stop pretending to be superior to everyone.
Where to start? First they imply that advertising is evil, basically calling out hundreds and thousands of people for being evil without any evidence other than "lol well keep telling yourself that". Then they imply that the rest of us are just too stupid to know that we're being brainwashed into buying things we don't really want. That's offensive to me. I don't like being called evil (by proxy I would be for supporting advertising), and I really don't like being called stupid by someone who doesn't know their ass from their elbow. Guess what? When you come out with overused platitudes about advertising in a cheap effort to make yourself seem smarter than everyone else, people are going to respond by pointing out what you're doing. If you're gonna call everyone an emotionless robot (all the while implying that you're the special one who sees the writing on the wall) then people will get offended. Huh? Who would've thought calling people stupid was a fucking insult?
Advertising is perfectly legitimate unless it is false advertising, which is already illegal. The techniques used in advertising don't take away human choice. People are not robots. We are rational creatures, and no amount of misinterpreting psychology is going to change that. You take a cursory knowledge of the topic at hand (psychology, behaviorism, advertising) and spin out these wild theories about the world without ever stopping and wondering why you're the one who always looks better at the end of the story you've made up.
The implication here is clearly that those who are fully aware of its techniques are more resistant to its effects, and further that they are the discerning eyes who can see the techniques and know their danger, while the rest of us are just too stupid to know better. And hilariously, when I point this shit out the conspiracy goes deeper. I must work in advertising because I'm not convinced that adverts make my choices for me!
I never called myself a god, I never called myself a super-genius. And I certainly never put myself above anyone else. Its the people who call the rest of us idiots and emotionless robots who are doing that. If you want me to be perfectly honest, though, advertising has a very small effect on me. I buy what I want and what I think I need. I don't wear name-brand shit. I've never seen a commercial or ad for the computer brand I bought. When I buy household shit or food, I buy generic because it's cheaper, and I actually look at the cents/ounce tag before I buy it. I don't watch TV (I don't even own a TV) and I don't watch blockbuster movies. I use generic brand soap and I use generic brand toothbrushes and toothpastes. My phone can call people and text and that's it. It can't go on the internet, it can't stream videos or play music. It's a phone, nothing more nothing less.
Now, you can say all you want that even all this is the result of advertising; but if computers, hygienic products, cheap, available food, telephones and instant communication, and cheap, efficient clothing are the results of advertising than advertising is the greatest force for good the world has seen in a long time. If the comforts of modern life are the result of advertising than that is certainly not a fault, but a point of praise.
And don't try using the "your desires themselves are the result of advertising" bullshit.
People wore clothes before advertising existed. People were hygienic before advertising existed. People ate food before advertising existed. People desired communication before advertising existed. People desired entertainment before advertising existed. People followed social conventions and trends before advertising existed. Advertising did not create social trends. It did not invent the urge in people to have a more comfortable lifestyle. It did not create the desire to conform to specific standards. It plays on those natural urges, and takes the place of the wealthy elite in being trendsetters (sometimes), but that's not a moral evil. That's a case of if advertising execs weren't doing it than other people would be. And other people are doing it. There are plenty of examples of trends that advertisers only caught on once the trend had already taken over. Take away all the advertisements in the world and you'll still be left with societal trends that people are desperate to conform to. Only you'll also have a shitty, localized, inefficient economy.
You can whine all you want that advertising takes away personal freedom and choice, but that betrays a complete lack of understanding of history, psychology, society, behavior, and of the advertising industry. But since attacking this idea is a direct attack on your super specialness, it's all useless anyway. You'd die before you admitted that you weren't the unique little butterfly who sees all the evil of the world and despairs at us proles and our eternal blindness. On that note, and in that knowledge, I'm done.
|
On September 13 2013 11:25 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 11:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 11:07 sam!zdat wrote:
wtf are you talking abt information? I'm a cultural critic not a busyness man. What information would you like me to give you about what I asked you to defend your position on advertising being a waste with information (facts and logical arguments) instead of insults. Sam has a deep and abiding contempt for anybody with a real job.
if jonny has a real job he's a terrible employee because he's always here arguing with me during business hours
that's that capitalist rationality and efficiency for you
(if we wanted we could bring in chapter ten of capital vol 1, on the struggle over the working day, to gain some theoretical insight into why jonny is doing this, but that's probably not a "facts and logical arguments" like jonny believes in because it doesn't come on corporate letterhead with a spreadsheet attached)
edit: if you want to understand how advertising works in capitalist economy you have to understand how when running dogs talk about "innovation" (most horrible word in english language) they are actually conflating two things: the search for absolute surplus value vs relative surplus value. capitalist competition for relative surplus value contributes to the falling rate of profits (leading to what adam smith theorized as the "hidden hand" and which is known in busyness world as "commodity hell") which leads capitalism into a hysterical search for absolute surplus value (by increasing the rate of exploitation (technical term in marxism not something meaning "meanies!") or by opening up new lines of investment in industries which did not previously exist, this is the purpose of advertising, to instill new desires in order to prevent the motor of accumulation from running down, like it would in the Smithian theorization of the market economy). but don't listen to me just go watch the fucking lectures davidharvey.org
edit: in other news, did you know that this weird guy jonny's never heard of despite his "education", adam smith, was not a theorist of capitalism, despite the fact that bourgeois scum love to justify everything with rhetoric about "hidden hands"? smith would be appalled at our economic system today, the thing he hated most in the world after the corn laws was the joint-stock corporation. for reasons similar to when I talk about about "mediation." you should all go read the book _Adam Smith in Beijing_ by Giovanni Arrighi
|
On September 14 2013 02:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +House Republican leadership is furious with ultraconservative Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) whom they see as hobbling their efforts to secure an achievable spending victory by insisting on threatening a government shutdown over the unachievable goal of defunding Obamacare.
House GOP leaders want to pass a continuing resolution that jams Senate Democrats with lower spending levels while forcing a vote — without the risk of a shutdown — on Obamacare. But Lee and Cruz are giving them heartburn by screaming that this proposal amounts to surrender on Obamacare.
“If House Republicans go along with this strategy, they will be complicit in the disaster that is Obamacare,” said Cruz, dismissing the plan as “procedural chicanery.” Lee spoke out against it earlier this week, and is now supporting an alternate GOP measure backed by 43 Republicans which threatens a shutdown over Obamacare.
The two senators have significant influence among conservative House Republicans and activists who want to destroy Obamacare at all costs. So their opposition to Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) plan quickly contributed to the headache for House leaders, who were foced to postpone consideration of the bill until next week. It remains unclear if they’ll be able to get the votes.
House Republican leaders are tired of being painted as weak on Obamacare while Cruz and Lee are seen as grassroots heroes without having to take risks or make unpopular moves. The Boehner stopgap bill would let these senators filibuster if Democrats try to fund Obamacare, House aides point out, if they have the courage to.
“Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have been demanding a fight to defund Obamacare. The House offers to give them one and they say, no, no, you guys fight it,” said a House GOP aide, venting about colleagues on condition of anonymity. “We have been. For three years.”
A House Republican aide put it more bluntly to Politico: “They’re screwing us.” Source
I can't help but agree with Cruz and Lee here. This symbolic shit is ridiculous. And this line:
"House Republican leaders are tired of being painted as weak on Obamacare while Cruz and Lee are seen as grassroots heroes without having to take risks or make unpopular moves."
Shows how goddamn inane the GOP has gotten. They all ran on getting rid of Obamacare, but then they aren't willing to actually take any risks to do it? What the fuck? If you're too cowardly to take a risk than why did you run in the first place?
|
On September 14 2013 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 11:25 ziggurat wrote:On September 13 2013 11:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 11:07 sam!zdat wrote:
wtf are you talking abt information? I'm a cultural critic not a busyness man. What information would you like me to give you about what I asked you to defend your position on advertising being a waste with information (facts and logical arguments) instead of insults. Sam has a deep and abiding contempt for anybody with a real job. if jonny has a real job he's a terrible employee because he's always here arguing with me during business hours that's that capitalist rationality and efficiency for you (if we wanted we could bring in chapter ten of capital vol 1, on the struggle over the working day, to gain some theoretical insight into why jonny is doing this, but that's probably not a "facts and logical arguments" like jonny believes in because it doesn't come on corporate letterhead with a spreadsheet attached) edit: if you want to understand how advertising works in capitalist economy you have to understand how when running dogs talk about "innovation" (most horrible word in english language) they are actually conflating two things: the search for absolute surplus value vs relative surplus value. capitalist competition for relative surplus value contributes to the falling rate of profits (leading to what adam smith theorized as the "hidden hand" and which is known in busyness world as "commodity hell") which leads capitalism into a hysterical search for absolute surplus value (by increasing the rate of exploitation (technical term in marxism not something meaning "meanies!") or by opening up new lines of investment in industries which did not previously exist, this is the purpose of advertising, to instill new desires in order to prevent the motor of accumulation from running down, like it would in the Smithian theorization of the market economy). but don't listen to me just go watch the fucking lectures davidharvey.org edit: in other news, did you know that this weird guy jonny's never heard of despite his "education", adam smith, was not a theorist of capitalism, despite the fact that bourgeois scum love to justify everything with rhetoric about "hidden hands"? smith would be appalled at our economic system today, the thing he hated most in the world after the corn laws was the joint-stock corporation. for reasons similar to when I talk about about "mediation." you should all go read the book _Adam Smith in Beijing_ by Giovanni Arrighi
Where did you get the idea that I've never heard of Adam Smith anyways? And why would it matter if I had or not? He's not some prophet of capitalism that everyone is supposed to bow down to.
You make some fair points in your fist edit, but I think you're a bit too sure of your conclusions.
Like with "commodity hell" it depends if your commodity is in demand or not. Lots of companies make plenty of money selling commodity products. Some companies try to avoid that. Competition and commoditization squeeze their profit margins and so they look elsewhere for profits.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If you have the perspective that what people are buying is artificial, that is, people don't really want what they're buying and only buy because they've been tricked, than yes, it's bad. But if what people are buying is fine, than what's happening is that society is experiencing an increase in real incomes. That's a good thing.
The problem is figuring out what stuff is good and people should be buying and what's bad. Opinions on what's good and bad abound. Is pot bad? Alcohol? Videogames? Lots of people think so! Should we listen to them? I guess all opinions are welcome, but the reality is that there's going to be a lot of disagreement over what's good and bad. If you have some method for figuring out what's real and good and what's artificial and bad I'm all ears.
|
On September 14 2013 03:57 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 02:51 ZeaL. wrote:
People aren't emotionless robots that can do exhaustive research on everything they buy so marketing tries to fill in those information gaps with claims and desirable ideas, true or not.
But marketing IS that research, except it's now being put on them instead of the person having the freedom/responsibility/liberty of making their own decisions. In the end you get emotionless robots from advertisement anyway. And you're willing to accept that their claims may be false, and that this is superior to personal responsibility and freedom?
I'm .. not really sure what you're trying to say. Do people who watch advertisements lose decision making ability? That seems pretty powerful.
|
On September 14 2013 05:53 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 03:57 Roe wrote:On September 14 2013 02:51 ZeaL. wrote:
People aren't emotionless robots that can do exhaustive research on everything they buy so marketing tries to fill in those information gaps with claims and desirable ideas, true or not.
But marketing IS that research, except it's now being put on them instead of the person having the freedom/responsibility/liberty of making their own decisions. In the end you get emotionless robots from advertisement anyway. And you're willing to accept that their claims may be false, and that this is superior to personal responsibility and freedom? I'm .. not really sure what you're trying to say. Do people who watch advertisements lose decision making ability? That seems pretty powerful.
Of course. It follows from your own premise. The process is intended to change your views by using some fundamental psychological principles, and as sc2mcsuperfan said, it works.
|
On September 14 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Where did you get the idea that I've never heard of Adam Smith anyways? And why would it matter if I had or not? He's not some prophet of capitalism that everyone is supposed to bow down to.
idk maybe it was the time you said something like "I don't know who this adam smith guy is  " not going to try to search for it but I'm positive you said this.
it matters because if you don't know about adam smith and who he was and his social context and how his ideas have been used and misused you are simply not a person who knows the first thing about political economy or economic history and your opinion about such things is worthless.
people certainly do treat him as a prophet of capitalism. They misuse his notion of the "hidden hand" and use it to justify all kinds of barbarism, despite the fact they don't know the first thing about what adam smith meant by that
|
On September 14 2013 05:56 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:53 ZeaL. wrote:On September 14 2013 03:57 Roe wrote:On September 14 2013 02:51 ZeaL. wrote:
People aren't emotionless robots that can do exhaustive research on everything they buy so marketing tries to fill in those information gaps with claims and desirable ideas, true or not.
But marketing IS that research, except it's now being put on them instead of the person having the freedom/responsibility/liberty of making their own decisions. In the end you get emotionless robots from advertisement anyway. And you're willing to accept that their claims may be false, and that this is superior to personal responsibility and freedom? I'm .. not really sure what you're trying to say. Do people who watch advertisements lose decision making ability? That seems pretty powerful. Of course. It follows from your own premise. The process is intended to change your views by using some fundamental psychological principles, and as sc2mcsuperfan said, it works.
I'd hate to quote myself but:
People wore clothes before advertising existed. People were hygienic before advertising existed. People ate food before advertising existed. People desired communication before advertising existed. People desired entertainment before advertising existed. People followed social conventions and trends before advertising existed. Advertising did not create social trends. It did not invent the urge in people to have a more comfortable lifestyle. It did not create the desire to conform to specific standards. It plays on those natural urges, and takes the place of the wealthy elite in being trendsetters (sometimes), but that's not a moral evil. That's a case of if advertising execs weren't doing it than other people would be. And other people are doing it. There are plenty of examples of trends that advertisers only caught on once the trend had already taken over. Take away all the advertisements in the world and you'll still be left with societal trends that people are desperate to conform to.
|
Great. It's like saying:
Me: X is bad
SUPERFAN: Ok but if you take away X humans still have other stuff that's bad! Therefore....
Well hell i dont know what the conclusion is that you were trying to reach. Since humanity has some evil in it, we should go on proliferating more evil? I'm the one attacking the evil.
You're only proving my point that we don't need, have never needed, and will never need ads.
|
On September 14 2013 05:56 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:53 ZeaL. wrote:On September 14 2013 03:57 Roe wrote:On September 14 2013 02:51 ZeaL. wrote:
People aren't emotionless robots that can do exhaustive research on everything they buy so marketing tries to fill in those information gaps with claims and desirable ideas, true or not.
But marketing IS that research, except it's now being put on them instead of the person having the freedom/responsibility/liberty of making their own decisions. In the end you get emotionless robots from advertisement anyway. And you're willing to accept that their claims may be false, and that this is superior to personal responsibility and freedom? I'm .. not really sure what you're trying to say. Do people who watch advertisements lose decision making ability? That seems pretty powerful. Of course. It follows from your own premise. The process is intended to change your views by using some fundamental psychological principles, and as sc2mcsuperfan said, it works.
Sure but to say that people who watch ads lose decision making ability is a bit much. The truth for most people lies somewhere in between turning into a brainless corporate buying slave sheep and being completely free from any outside influence.
Yes ads can work to change perception but the effect is not a very strong one. It might push someone who knows nothing about soap to choose Dove but it's not going to make a vegan go to Outback steakhouse.
The main problem is when people don't know anything about something, and an advertisement pushes them to pursue something they wouldn't purchase/use if they had more information about it.
|
how about just the fact that we live in a world completely plastered with advertisements and it's an aesthetic travesty? you can't escape the fucking things.
|
How about making a thread to debate the pros and cons of consumerism and get back to fucking politics.
|
i think it's ridiculous that you think there's a difference
edit: fucking forums make everyone think the world fits into neat little categories that have nothing to do with one another. #themediumisthemessage
|
On September 14 2013 04:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 02:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Republican leadership is furious with ultraconservative Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) whom they see as hobbling their efforts to secure an achievable spending victory by insisting on threatening a government shutdown over the unachievable goal of defunding Obamacare.
House GOP leaders want to pass a continuing resolution that jams Senate Democrats with lower spending levels while forcing a vote — without the risk of a shutdown — on Obamacare. But Lee and Cruz are giving them heartburn by screaming that this proposal amounts to surrender on Obamacare.
“If House Republicans go along with this strategy, they will be complicit in the disaster that is Obamacare,” said Cruz, dismissing the plan as “procedural chicanery.” Lee spoke out against it earlier this week, and is now supporting an alternate GOP measure backed by 43 Republicans which threatens a shutdown over Obamacare.
The two senators have significant influence among conservative House Republicans and activists who want to destroy Obamacare at all costs. So their opposition to Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) plan quickly contributed to the headache for House leaders, who were foced to postpone consideration of the bill until next week. It remains unclear if they’ll be able to get the votes.
House Republican leaders are tired of being painted as weak on Obamacare while Cruz and Lee are seen as grassroots heroes without having to take risks or make unpopular moves. The Boehner stopgap bill would let these senators filibuster if Democrats try to fund Obamacare, House aides point out, if they have the courage to.
“Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have been demanding a fight to defund Obamacare. The House offers to give them one and they say, no, no, you guys fight it,” said a House GOP aide, venting about colleagues on condition of anonymity. “We have been. For three years.”
A House Republican aide put it more bluntly to Politico: “They’re screwing us.” Source I can't help but agree with Cruz and Lee here. This symbolic shit is ridiculous. And this line: "House Republican leaders are tired of being painted as weak on Obamacare while Cruz and Lee are seen as grassroots heroes without having to take risks or make unpopular moves." Shows how goddamn inane the GOP has gotten. They all ran on getting rid of Obamacare, but then they aren't willing to actually take any risks to do it? What the fuck? If you're too cowardly to take a risk than why did you run in the first place?
GOP leaders are tired of these ultraconservatives because they are fucking idiots.
You are NOT going to win on repealing/completely defunding Obamacare. It just ain't gonna happen with the current set-up of Congress. And yet, Tea Party conservatives choose to act like 6-year-old children throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way instead of actually DOING THEIR FUCKING JOBS. Congressmen are already some of the laziest and overpaid individuals in society, and to have them sitting around, bitching and trying to get bills repealed when it's a foregone conclusion that it won't happen in the near future just adds insult to injury.
I'll at least give some of the GOP a hand for trying to get the rest of their party to do something for once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
