Wow.
I just noticed that the 'Delusions of Grandeur' post is up to 311 comments.
And no: I haven't read them all yet. But that's a record. And it's more than 100 comments more that the runner up.
Consinder the *ahem* profound nature of that post, I find this to be downright hilarious.
Yeah: Wow.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Back from the road...
I’ve been out of town for the past two weeks. First I was down in the Phoenix area on business, and then this past week (of the 4th) I was down in Fort Myers on Vacation. And it’s THAT experience, or part of it, that I would like to share with you. Because OMFG… the level of Right Wing indoctrination that I witnessed down there… Holy crap. It was downright CREEPY. I had no idea it was that bad ANYWHERE.
The first incident happened before we were even home from the airport. My mother is always good for some political “gems,” but it’s usually at least a DAY OR TWO before she really gets going. Not this time. We’re driving home from the airport, talking about my sister, who happens to be an MD. Now, even at age 33, she’s still at the point in her career where she’s working 80-hour weeks and getting paid shit for it. Oh: she’s done with her residency! Apparently, for Doctors, the fun continues LONG after that! Anyway, my Mother tells me that she’s in the final year of her Fellowship, and FINALLY, next year she’ll be making some decent money…
“…Unless this Obamacare screws it all up.”
Now, I’ve mentioned this before: I don’t argue politics with my parents. There’s no point. They’re both completely indoctrinated, and they’re also pretty much top 2%’ers anyway, so… whatever works for you. (Plus if I did bother to argue politics with them, there would be little time left in the day for anything ELSE between the all the Fox News, RW Emails, Wall Street Journal, Phone Calls, bad Jokes etc… The cavalcade of RW Propaganda and misinformation pretty much never stops.) But I’ll admit I was a little bit curious how she thought “Obamacare” was going to “screw everything up” for my sister in terms of “making decent money.”
Fortunately for me, I didn’t even have to ask. (When people have no idea how stupid what they’re saying truly is, they do tend to KEEP TALKING, you see!)
“They’re going to make these hospitals take three times as many patients, and the doctors won’t be able to spend ANY time with them at all!”
OK…
Putting aside that the lack of time Doctors have to spend with patients is an issue NOW, and is driven entirely by the need to MAKE MORE MONEY…
And even if I were to accept that “Obamacare,” (which, BTW, has become the go-to, RW catch-all for everything that’s wrong with our health care system, even though basically NONE of it has even been implemented yet) even if I were to accept that “Obamacare” would magically triple my sister’s patient load (she’s a cardiologist with a concentration in imaging, BTW), even were I to accept that everything she was saying about “Obamacare” was actually TRUE…
Can someone explain to me how a hospital with three times the patients coming in, with 99% of them now carrying health insurance mind you, makes LESS MONEY?
Think about that.
This just shows you how warped the Right-Wing Brain can get: The problem of having TOO MANY patients, 99% now insured – and I can’t stress that point enough – magically transmogrifies into a problem of REVENUE GENERATION. I don’t care what you think of Obamacare, or where you fall on the Economic or Political spectrum, the fact is that there is not a business or industry on earth that can TRIPLE ITS CUSTOMER BASE and go from [whatever percentage is paying now] to almost EVERYONE paying, and LOSE MONEY.
And that ain’t a ‘Liberal talking point’: IT’S MATH.
And that’s before you even take into account that only about 20%, if that, of this our population currently goes without ANY form of coverage. How does increasing the insured population by about 20% TRIPLE any hospital’s case load? Especially that of a specialist! I don’t know how you can multiply “X” by 1.2 and get 3X, but then… that’s the conservative brain for you!
A couple of days later, I had the pleasure of attending the 4th of July Parade in Naples. (Florida, not Italy!) Now granted… the last time I’ve been to a 4th of July Parade was in 1991, and I was IN the god damned thing! (1st Percussion.) So I know things have changed a bit in the last 20+ years, but this was a rather bizarre spectacle.
First of all… No marching bands. And that’s fine. It’s July. School’s out, and it’s a majority retiree population anyway, so no big surprise there. I get that. And yeah, they had the first trucks, and the sherrif’s dept., and the VFW, and the Shriners and the Boy and Girl Scouts… All of the usual fair. Oh, and they had the National Guard firing blanks from a machine gun on the back of a jeep! That was pretty cool! But despite all that… I would say about eighty percent (4 out of 5 at least) of the vehicles were for POLITICIANS. Senate this, State Representative that, Sherriff, Judge, Clerk, County Executive, District Attorney… TAX COLLECTOR, for Pete’s sake! TAX COLLECTOR! Now… Like I said, it’s been 20+ years since I’d been to one of these, but I have NO MEMORY of ANY parade I’ve ever been to being politicized to the extent that everyone right down to the fucking Dog Catcher is driving his car in it, and handing out everything from baseball hats to balloons, to hand-fans to fridge magnets, saying “Vote for Dick Sellout – Sewage Manager!”
At what point does the Right’s co-opting of our National Pride and Patriotism become… I don’t know… tacky, even to their fellow flag-fellaters-wavers?
And it probably goes without saying, but with only a SINGLE EXCEPTION, every one of these mobile Political billboards in this Independence-Day-parade-for-the-1%’ers was for a REPUBLICAN. OK, TWO Exceptions. There was ONE Libertarian, who’s brochure I’d like to share with you all in a later post because I’m hard pressed to see the difference between HIS platform and that of the GOP. And let’s face it: The GOP treats their Libertarian wing about as well as the Democrats threat their Liberal wing. So you’d think if the guy was going to go “Independent” he’d be offering at least SOMETHING different!
The other exception was not for any particular candidate, but there was a car for the “Collier County Democratic Party.” It was a car followed by people hold signed reading “Alternative Energy,” “Worker’s Rights,” “Equality,” “No Unnecessary Wars,” and other basically common sense stuff. Nothing particularly controversial, that I can remember. (No Pro-Choice signs, for example.)
They were BOOED. My father actually started it, I’m rather ashamed to say, and the crowd immediately joined in.
Because, yeah: Who’s wants clean energy anyway? It's 100+ degrees for a week strait in Michigan, but no: There’s no global warming going. Worker’s rights? Fuck ‘em. If they want rights, they should get rich or die trying, right? It’s pretty sickening that a group that isn’t even presenting a CANDIDATE can say “We’re for equality” and get BOOED. The rest of Florida must be very different from these folks, because if it were all like the Naples-Fort Myers Area, I don’t think Al Gore would have gotten a single vote in 2000, let alone win the State. (Which we all know he did!) And Florida’s been in play for the last five or six elections or thereabouts. Not in Naples though, apparently.
Whatever. I get creeped out by group-think in general, so THIS PLACE was downright creepy all around.
Finally, sitting on the beach later that night, watching the fireworks, I heard some people in the row behind us talking politics. Admittedly I couldn’t hear everything they were saying – and I was more interested in paying attention to my children and the fireworks than listening to these assholes – but the JIST of what they were saying was “The Democrats are trying to implement socialism and we’ve got to stop them.”
Now… If you’re a literate, educated adult… and you’re actually talking about SOCIALISM like it’s an ACTUAL THING in this country? You’re a moron. You’re an idiot. Plain and simple. And if you’re voting Republican because you’re trying to stop SOCIALISM? You’re DELUSIONAL. You should not only lose your right to vote, but you should be declared incompetent and committed to a mental institution and heavily medicated until you have regained your grasp on REALITY. I don’t care who any one person wants to vote for. I really don't: It’s their right, after all. But if you’re voting Republican because Fox News and the Wall Street Journal told you some vague thing about SOCIALISM? (1) You should definitely expand your information sources beyond Rupert Murdoch’s TELEVISED propaganda and Rupert Murdoch’s PRINTED propaganda. You know… like maybe trying out an ACTUAL NEWS SOURCE? And (2) you should be hit in the head repeatedly until either your body goes limp or your brain conjures up an ACTUAL REASON for you to vote the way you do. Preferably something that is FACTUALLY ACCURATE, BASED IN REALITY and actually IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.
I used to wonder why the Right was so opposed to teaching about Socialism in the Public Schools. You might think it's simply because they're afraid that young people might actually find the idea more attractive. And them getting them OFF of the idea of Socialism might require PAYING THEM more, you know: Letting more than just the top 1% actually BENEFIT from this great Capitalist system we keep hearing about? But that’s not it.
The REAL reason they don’t want young people (or anyone) learning about Socialism is that once people actually knew what Socialism WAS?
THEY’D REALIZE JUST HOW FULL OF SHIT THE REPUBLICANS ARE FOR TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE IT WAS AN ACTUAL THING!
(But then… the vast majority of Republicans think the GRADEN OF EDEN was an ACTUAL THING as well, so why am I not surprised?)
Now these are just a few isolated example that stuck in my memory, but it was like this EVERYWHERE WE WENT, pretty much all week. It was unbelievable.
Anyway, happy belated fourth. The portion of the week I DIDN’T spend listen to Right Wing Jackasses was rather enjoyable. Plus the kids had a good time, and that’s important.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Vagina!
In the weekly contest between Texas and Florida to show who can be the most backwards State, Michigan has apparently chosen to vie for some recognition. Last week, during the public debate on the Republican's latest attempt to outlaw all abortions, without exception, State Representative Lisa Brown (D-Commerce Twp., West Bloomfield) told the Republican led, Male dominated Legislator that "[She was] flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no."
For her use of the medically appropriate term for the particular part of the female anatomy that the Republican Men in the legislature were seeking to regulate, she and Barb Byrum, (D-Onondaga) who also sought to remind the petulant children on the Right side of the aisle what they were, in fact, TALKING ABOUT REGULATING, were censured and banned from speaking on the floor of the State House, indefinitely, regarding ANY Bills, at all. And indeed when these ladies tried to chime in on proposed spending bills, completely unrelated to abortion, they were barred from being able to speak.
...Barred from being able to DO THEIR JOBS.
...Barred from being able to REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENCIES!
To speaker Majoity Leader Jim Stamas (R) and House Speaker Jase Bolger (R), I ask if they've ever read the U.S. Constitution and understand the Freedom of Speech was put in their SPECIFICALLY to protect speech in POLITICAL DEBATES. I wonder if thay are familiar with the way a Representative Democracy works, and I wonder if he is familiar with the Michigan State Constitution and how it apportions and guarentees Representation to the Citizens he is now silencing. (Shit, I wonder if they even know where babies come from!)
In the on going war on women, women are apparently baned from serving.
The bill, BTW, which puts the health of Michigan women at stake, after just 20 minutes of debate.
Majoity Leader Stamas? Speaker Bolger? You are now fascists. Congratulations.
You have stood up for censorship, for silencing debate, for silencing opposition, for curtailing freedom, for destroying the fair representation of the citizenship, and for your Party's absurd war against women.
I don't know if you remember, but the #1 concern on everyone's mind right now is the ECONOMY and JOBS. You mind telling me where you radical anti-choice agenda, which callously disregards the health of the women you claim to represent fits in?
Oh, and, uh... BTW, since you seem to have a problem with the word VAGINA, and I'm pretty sure you will NEVER be able to silence me:
VAGINA!
VAGINA!
VAGINA!
What are you going to do about that, House Fascist?
Here's what VAGINA looks like, italicized!
Here's what it looks like when you say VAGINA boldly!
You got a problem with that, you misogynistic fuckwad?
And while were on the subject:
Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina!
That's a lot of vaginas!
In fact, it 52 - one for every Republican PUSSY, every Republican CUNTRAG, every Republican mewling quim in the Michigan House and State Senate who wants to help "Childbirth" improve it's ranking on the list of 'causes of death' amongst women.
For some more detailed, and reverent, debate and infomration on this Right-Wing attrocity, I refer you to Think Progress, and HuffPo.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Housekeeping
I didn't notice until just now that I hadn't updated my Hall of Fame bar, on the right hand side of the blog, ALL YEAR. So I've updated it, and condensed it a bit, getting rid of the all the superfluous baseball stuff. (It was getting WAAAAAY too long in the old format!)
And now seeing the whole, updated list? I'm like... Wow. Now THAT'S what I had in mind when I started that, years ago.
For those who haven't figured out the code yet, here's how they're sorted:
Read the Gold Star sites and you'll be well informed.
Read the Silver Star sites and you'll be entertained.
Read the Dog Shit sites and you'llgrow up to be like William, get a headache, get a sense of how the other half thynks.
So check them out.
And tell 'em Niceguy Eddie sent you!
LOL
And now seeing the whole, updated list? I'm like... Wow. Now THAT'S what I had in mind when I started that, years ago.
For those who haven't figured out the code yet, here's how they're sorted:
Read the Gold Star sites and you'll be well informed.
Read the Silver Star sites and you'll be entertained.
Read the Dog Shit sites and you'll
So check them out.
And tell 'em Niceguy Eddie sent you!
LOL
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Delusions of grandeur
Well, my "personal stalker," as one of the regulars here once so aptly named him, certainly has been busy. Not that most of his drivel deserves consideration, but there were a few points that, to be fair, deserve an answer. Since the replies would get lost, and not be nearly as much fun, if I tried to post them in their respective comments sections, I'm just going to answer his 'greatest hits' here in one post and... well, I'd say "Hopefully be done with it," but some people aren't looking to be convinced, or even to 'win.' They just love shovelling shit, and do it with such a passionate glee that very little will ever dissuade them.
BTW, these are in no particular order save for how I feel like answering them, and could be considered "out of context" were it not for the fact that hyperlinking makes it pretty easy to go back and read the full text, if you're so inclined, provided you have a few aspirin handy.
notice how I changed the subject so many times? Well, it's because I get to without anyone interrupting me, since you have abandoned your own blog site. Maybe you'll come out with a series of "jokes" so that all these lies that you've made will get off the main site easily visible to everyone. Like you did the last time I called you on your lies and misinformation.
Wow. I've abandoned my own site! Yep, mean ol' Willie sure had me running for cover, didn't he?
Will: I have a life. I have a wife, a house, two kids, a dog, and a job. I've been to the gym four nights a week for the past month (7 pounds down, TYMV) and do enjoy playing the occasional video game. I've been busy. It happens. And as for... *sniff*, *cry* all my friends abandoning me? I'm sure they have better things to do with their lives than to constantly check up on a blog that's not being updated, save for some belligerent jackass who thinks it's his personal stage. I don't take their ignoring you anymore personally than I do your wiping your ass all over my blog.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you try setting up your own blog? Then everyone can ignore the verbal diarrhea you shit out over there as well!
"pursuit of happines." [...] Will Smith would be mad at you.
OK. I could be a joyless shitpale and point out that, in fact, it's CHRIS GARDNER who would be mad at me, BUT... credit where it's due. This DID make me laugh. Touche'.
Bull-crap! You have freedom of religion but you failed to mention that you cannot lead a prayer in school. What part of that is harmful to ANYONE?
Um... Actually I could lead a prayer in school anytime I want: I'm not a teacher or school administrator. In fact, under the very doctrine of the separation of church and state, ALL STUDENTS have the right to pray in school. As for "what harm" is done by a TEACHER leading a school prayer? Hmmm.... I wonder how YOU of all people would feel about that if the teacher in question was Muslim. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or Jewish. Or Wiccan. Or Taoist. Or Shinto. Or Siek. But hey: I'm sure you would feel it was any kind of indoctrination if you're child's teacher was having them pray to Allah or Ganesha, for example, right?
[Niceguy Eddie] "Looks like I was born strait. [...] [William] "Interesting statement. You say it turns you off, but cannot back up that statement with anything other than "the THOUGHT of being with another man".
Yeah, as opposed to the ACT, dipshit. If I've never done it - precisely because it DOES turn me off - on what other basis can I make a comment on the matter? What else could I possibly have to go with? Well... I have a THOUGHT. That might be unfamiliar territory to YOU, but it's pretty much where I LIVE.
I see why you stopped posting at this site. I would too if all my statements and ideals turned out to be based on lies and misinformation.
Well, I've already mentioned why I "stopped" (???) posting: I have a life. Sad that a seldom updated blog should be such a large part of YOURS. As for that second statement? If that were true you'd have stopped after your first post.
So, you admit you have to think about it before you act? If you were truly born straight there would be no thought process involved. However, you need to think about it before you make (made) your decision. How does that fit into your proclamations that people are born gay or straight? This isn't rocket science, you know. If you are truly born straight (or gay) then you would not have to think about who you want as a partner. But, since you DO have to think about it, that shows your stance that you are born gay or straight is based on nothing factual ... again. So, you have no proof you are born gay/straight and you have no belief that you are born gay/straight, yet you seek to garner civil rights for the choice of being gay. REALLY ?!?
First of all, regarding Civil Rights: It is not I who wishes to grant them. It is YOU who wished to continue to deny them on that basis. Even if one's orientation WAS a choice, the only justification to punnish them on that basis is your own medieval superstitions about it.
They both are sins against nature.
Yeah, THAT one. You know what else is, according to religious doctrine and state laws, some of which were only overturned in the past decade? Inter-racial marriage and oral sex. Condoms too, at one point. While we're at it, and as long as were talking about NATURE, I might point out that so is modern medicine, aviation, the Internet, democracy and fat-free frozen yogurt. By I digress.
SECONDLY, getting back to the previous quote, if you do nothing else with the inevitable waste of time you're going to grace us all with, I would ask you to do me one simple favor. PLEASE, for the love of God, and for our understanding, describe the THOUGHT PROCESS you went though in CHOOSING to be strait. I really want to understand this. Because for all your absurd word-twisting, I am left with one simple truth about myself: I was born strait. Period. There was never any doubt in my mind that women were attractive creatures. And I'd bet my left nut that every poster here - who's not named "William" or who's not actually gay themselves - would say the same. (Although they'd say it about BEING GAY.)
[READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY!]
So I really need to understand the process YOU went through, because Will? If you had to actually tangle this out and made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to pursue women instead of men? If that was not instinctual for you?
You're gay.
(Or Bi-Sexual, I suppose.)
And if it WAS instinctual for you? If there was never any conflict in your mind?
I'm right.
Take your pick.
And they're not mutually exclusive: Both can in fact be true, but they cannot both be false. (Logic, FTW!) Also? A gay man (by MY definition) who marries a woman and live the heterosexual lifestyle? Is still gay. Behavior doesn't change desire. There are terms to describe such men. "In the closet" and "beard" come to mind.
[Niceguy Eddie] "The difference between you and me? Is that I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do on their own time." [...] [William] Fully understandable and acknowledged. You know WHY you don't care what consenting adults do on their own time? Because it is there CHOICE to do whatever they want ... as long as no one gets harmed, right(?), including giving each other AIDS/HIV? No, I guess you don't mean THAT kind of harm. You just mean 'other' kinds of harm, not the deadly and un-curable kind of harm. You mean psychological harm, not physical harm, right?
Harm, I define harm very specifically. (See my 'Doctrine of Choice.') But the short answer? Mental, emotional and physical harm, are ALL in fact harm. But you see... Having sex with another man, in and of itself, doesn't give you HIV. See... If I'm with an infected PERSON - male OR female, dumbass - I can get HIV. Not infected? I can ass-fuck them 'til the cows come home and all I'm going to get is calluses. Now if they have it, know it, and don't tell me? Yeah - THAT'S doing me harm. Duh. But that not a function of their gender or orientation. It's about without holding information that would inform my own choice.
OK. That's enough of the gay stuff. As rewarding as that was, There are two other things I need to address.
Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?) [...] http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-matters-writer-apologizes-after-accusing-drudge-of-posting-fake-trayvon-martin-photo/ [...] http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html [...] http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/29/media-matters-lies-again-this-time-about-obama-intimidating-supreme-court/ [...] http://blog.heartland.org/2011/08/media-matters-lies-about-the-heartland-institute-again/
How this ends up in a post about homosexuality, I'll never know. Anyway, let's say I concede these points. (Not yet, but lets say.) Since 2003, MMFA has posted well over 50,000 items. You're taking issue with four of them. Well done. *clap, clap*
Don't worry, Eddie, I already know what your defense of these lies and misinformation brought by Mediamatters will be: "they're not as bad as the ones conservatives make". Is that the correct defense you'll make of Mediamatters?
No, I won't presume to compare the value of one lie to another. Although, as I mentioned, I might take issue with the FREQUENCY of them. But, in any case, nonse of that is necessary. This is all utter bullshit.
The first one is easy: "Media matters writer apologizes." OK, great. Good for him. A sincere apology is a sign of character. Seems like this is to his credit. If Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or O'Rielly had the character to muster up a sincere apology they would be such malodorous scumbags. So he got it wrong and apologized for it. That's how things ARE SUPPOSED to work.
The second one is complete load of crap. Bill O'Rielly's full audio WAS included. I can't see any "context" that would make, "No one was shouting 'gimme my m-f'ing iced tea!'" a reasonable observation. (And Juan Williams' comments are irrelevant to the MMFA piece. If he has an opinion, fine. That's his business. MMFA isn't under any obligation to post it.) Whatever. This is just crap. The typical "taken out of context" whine that all RW'ers do whenever they just say something ignorant - as if ANY context would make it make sense. (In my experience? These things are WORSE in context.)
The third one is, itself, a blatant lie. They say MMFA is "lying" because the fail to prove their hypothesis. Fist of all, that's not a lie - that's just a poorly written argument. Second of all, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK. MMFA provides PLENTY of previous Presidents criticizing the Supreme Court! Hypothesis proven.
Where the fuck do you find this trash? And WHY do you READ it?!
Finally, MMFA is accused of "lying" about the Heartland Institute by... THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. Now... remember the last site, that claimed that failing to prove the hypothesis = lying? Well, you see... MMFA's claim, per the Heartland Institute, was that
"The Heartland Institute is a libertarian think tank that hosts regular conferences disputing mainstream climate science and received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006, including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Let's see: (1) They ARE a Libertarian think tank. Agreed? (2) They host conferences disputing mainstream climate science, yes? (3) received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006: They don't actually dispute this. They point out that it's only 5% of their funding, but they don't even SAY it's wrong. and (4) including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Now they do SAY that ExxonMobil STOPPED funding them in 2006. Um... Yeah: So does MMFA! They then say something about how this was before the conferences started. Here's the thing. If you go to the MMFA piece, and go down to the quote in question, you can click on the words "specifically for." These will hyperlink you to ExxonMobil's 990-PF, filed for 2006. Scroll WAAAAY down to page 206 and read the third item. If Heartland has a problem with what MMFA reported, they should take it up with ExxonMobil. (And you should do YOUR OWN research, doofus.)
So... Heartland failed to prove their hypothesis... I guess THEY'RE the liars.
Any other softballs you'd like to lob my way / waste my time with? (Not that it took that long. I only spent about 5 minutes pouring over ExxonMobil's tax form.)
FINALLY...
P.S. Still waiting on a comment about your false/misleading 80% number you used.
For those who have a life and don't comb through posts from two months ago, 80% is the number of sub-prime loans issued by banks not governed by the CRA. And I'm done 'commenting' on it, so I'll simply give him a citation. It comes from University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr's testimony before congress:
He's one of many who have studied it, and you can find several of his papers online rather easily. I've read portions of many of them myself, but I'm done doing your research for you. And, in any case, MMFA was kind enough to link to many of their own sources.
Now this DID take a bit of effort on my part, so I would appreciate it if you'd actually read the whole thing. (And I'll know from your comments if you did.) And I'l say up front that I don't plan to reply to your comments on this: You can have the last word, unless there's something truly eggregious in what you say. I'm confident that anyone who reads my work and yours side by side will see the truth of the matter.
BTW, these are in no particular order save for how I feel like answering them, and could be considered "out of context" were it not for the fact that hyperlinking makes it pretty easy to go back and read the full text, if you're so inclined, provided you have a few aspirin handy.
notice how I changed the subject so many times? Well, it's because I get to without anyone interrupting me, since you have abandoned your own blog site. Maybe you'll come out with a series of "jokes" so that all these lies that you've made will get off the main site easily visible to everyone. Like you did the last time I called you on your lies and misinformation.
Wow. I've abandoned my own site! Yep, mean ol' Willie sure had me running for cover, didn't he?
Will: I have a life. I have a wife, a house, two kids, a dog, and a job. I've been to the gym four nights a week for the past month (7 pounds down, TYMV) and do enjoy playing the occasional video game. I've been busy. It happens. And as for... *sniff*, *cry* all my friends abandoning me? I'm sure they have better things to do with their lives than to constantly check up on a blog that's not being updated, save for some belligerent jackass who thinks it's his personal stage. I don't take their ignoring you anymore personally than I do your wiping your ass all over my blog.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you try setting up your own blog? Then everyone can ignore the verbal diarrhea you shit out over there as well!
"pursuit of happines." [...] Will Smith would be mad at you.
OK. I could be a joyless shitpale and point out that, in fact, it's CHRIS GARDNER who would be mad at me, BUT... credit where it's due. This DID make me laugh. Touche'.
Bull-crap! You have freedom of religion but you failed to mention that you cannot lead a prayer in school. What part of that is harmful to ANYONE?
Um... Actually I could lead a prayer in school anytime I want: I'm not a teacher or school administrator. In fact, under the very doctrine of the separation of church and state, ALL STUDENTS have the right to pray in school. As for "what harm" is done by a TEACHER leading a school prayer? Hmmm.... I wonder how YOU of all people would feel about that if the teacher in question was Muslim. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or Jewish. Or Wiccan. Or Taoist. Or Shinto. Or Siek. But hey: I'm sure you would feel it was any kind of indoctrination if you're child's teacher was having them pray to Allah or Ganesha, for example, right?
[Niceguy Eddie] "Looks like I was born strait. [...] [William] "Interesting statement. You say it turns you off, but cannot back up that statement with anything other than "the THOUGHT of being with another man".
Yeah, as opposed to the ACT, dipshit. If I've never done it - precisely because it DOES turn me off - on what other basis can I make a comment on the matter? What else could I possibly have to go with? Well... I have a THOUGHT. That might be unfamiliar territory to YOU, but it's pretty much where I LIVE.
I see why you stopped posting at this site. I would too if all my statements and ideals turned out to be based on lies and misinformation.
Well, I've already mentioned why I "stopped" (???) posting: I have a life. Sad that a seldom updated blog should be such a large part of YOURS. As for that second statement? If that were true you'd have stopped after your first post.
So, you admit you have to think about it before you act? If you were truly born straight there would be no thought process involved. However, you need to think about it before you make (made) your decision. How does that fit into your proclamations that people are born gay or straight? This isn't rocket science, you know. If you are truly born straight (or gay) then you would not have to think about who you want as a partner. But, since you DO have to think about it, that shows your stance that you are born gay or straight is based on nothing factual ... again. So, you have no proof you are born gay/straight and you have no belief that you are born gay/straight, yet you seek to garner civil rights for the choice of being gay. REALLY ?!?
First of all, regarding Civil Rights: It is not I who wishes to grant them. It is YOU who wished to continue to deny them on that basis. Even if one's orientation WAS a choice, the only justification to punnish them on that basis is your own medieval superstitions about it.
They both are sins against nature.
Yeah, THAT one. You know what else is, according to religious doctrine and state laws, some of which were only overturned in the past decade? Inter-racial marriage and oral sex. Condoms too, at one point. While we're at it, and as long as were talking about NATURE, I might point out that so is modern medicine, aviation, the Internet, democracy and fat-free frozen yogurt. By I digress.
SECONDLY, getting back to the previous quote, if you do nothing else with the inevitable waste of time you're going to grace us all with, I would ask you to do me one simple favor. PLEASE, for the love of God, and for our understanding, describe the THOUGHT PROCESS you went though in CHOOSING to be strait. I really want to understand this. Because for all your absurd word-twisting, I am left with one simple truth about myself: I was born strait. Period. There was never any doubt in my mind that women were attractive creatures. And I'd bet my left nut that every poster here - who's not named "William" or who's not actually gay themselves - would say the same. (Although they'd say it about BEING GAY.)
[READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY!]
So I really need to understand the process YOU went through, because Will? If you had to actually tangle this out and made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to pursue women instead of men? If that was not instinctual for you?
You're gay.
(Or Bi-Sexual, I suppose.)
And if it WAS instinctual for you? If there was never any conflict in your mind?
I'm right.
Take your pick.
And they're not mutually exclusive: Both can in fact be true, but they cannot both be false. (Logic, FTW!) Also? A gay man (by MY definition) who marries a woman and live the heterosexual lifestyle? Is still gay. Behavior doesn't change desire. There are terms to describe such men. "In the closet" and "beard" come to mind.
[Niceguy Eddie] "The difference between you and me? Is that I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do on their own time." [...] [William] Fully understandable and acknowledged. You know WHY you don't care what consenting adults do on their own time? Because it is there CHOICE to do whatever they want ... as long as no one gets harmed, right(?), including giving each other AIDS/HIV? No, I guess you don't mean THAT kind of harm. You just mean 'other' kinds of harm, not the deadly and un-curable kind of harm. You mean psychological harm, not physical harm, right?
Harm, I define harm very specifically. (See my 'Doctrine of Choice.') But the short answer? Mental, emotional and physical harm, are ALL in fact harm. But you see... Having sex with another man, in and of itself, doesn't give you HIV. See... If I'm with an infected PERSON - male OR female, dumbass - I can get HIV. Not infected? I can ass-fuck them 'til the cows come home and all I'm going to get is calluses. Now if they have it, know it, and don't tell me? Yeah - THAT'S doing me harm. Duh. But that not a function of their gender or orientation. It's about without holding information that would inform my own choice.
OK. That's enough of the gay stuff. As rewarding as that was, There are two other things I need to address.
Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?) [...] http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-matters-writer-apologizes-after-accusing-drudge-of-posting-fake-trayvon-martin-photo/ [...] http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20070926121225/index.html [...] http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/29/media-matters-lies-again-this-time-about-obama-intimidating-supreme-court/ [...] http://blog.heartland.org/2011/08/media-matters-lies-about-the-heartland-institute-again/
How this ends up in a post about homosexuality, I'll never know. Anyway, let's say I concede these points. (Not yet, but lets say.) Since 2003, MMFA has posted well over 50,000 items. You're taking issue with four of them. Well done. *clap, clap*
Don't worry, Eddie, I already know what your defense of these lies and misinformation brought by Mediamatters will be: "they're not as bad as the ones conservatives make". Is that the correct defense you'll make of Mediamatters?
No, I won't presume to compare the value of one lie to another. Although, as I mentioned, I might take issue with the FREQUENCY of them. But, in any case, nonse of that is necessary. This is all utter bullshit.
The first one is easy: "Media matters writer apologizes." OK, great. Good for him. A sincere apology is a sign of character. Seems like this is to his credit. If Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or O'Rielly had the character to muster up a sincere apology they would be such malodorous scumbags. So he got it wrong and apologized for it. That's how things ARE SUPPOSED to work.
The second one is complete load of crap. Bill O'Rielly's full audio WAS included. I can't see any "context" that would make, "No one was shouting 'gimme my m-f'ing iced tea!'" a reasonable observation. (And Juan Williams' comments are irrelevant to the MMFA piece. If he has an opinion, fine. That's his business. MMFA isn't under any obligation to post it.) Whatever. This is just crap. The typical "taken out of context" whine that all RW'ers do whenever they just say something ignorant - as if ANY context would make it make sense. (In my experience? These things are WORSE in context.)
The third one is, itself, a blatant lie. They say MMFA is "lying" because the fail to prove their hypothesis. Fist of all, that's not a lie - that's just a poorly written argument. Second of all, CLICK THE FUCKING LINK. MMFA provides PLENTY of previous Presidents criticizing the Supreme Court! Hypothesis proven.
Where the fuck do you find this trash? And WHY do you READ it?!
Finally, MMFA is accused of "lying" about the Heartland Institute by... THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. Now... remember the last site, that claimed that failing to prove the hypothesis = lying? Well, you see... MMFA's claim, per the Heartland Institute, was that
"The Heartland Institute is a libertarian think tank that hosts regular conferences disputing mainstream climate science and received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006, including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Let's see: (1) They ARE a Libertarian think tank. Agreed? (2) They host conferences disputing mainstream climate science, yes? (3) received $676,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006: They don't actually dispute this. They point out that it's only 5% of their funding, but they don't even SAY it's wrong. and (4) including $90,000 specifically for ”General Operating Support — Climate Change.”
Now they do SAY that ExxonMobil STOPPED funding them in 2006. Um... Yeah: So does MMFA! They then say something about how this was before the conferences started. Here's the thing. If you go to the MMFA piece, and go down to the quote in question, you can click on the words "specifically for." These will hyperlink you to ExxonMobil's 990-PF, filed for 2006. Scroll WAAAAY down to page 206 and read the third item. If Heartland has a problem with what MMFA reported, they should take it up with ExxonMobil. (And you should do YOUR OWN research, doofus.)
So... Heartland failed to prove their hypothesis... I guess THEY'RE the liars.
Any other softballs you'd like to lob my way / waste my time with? (Not that it took that long. I only spent about 5 minutes pouring over ExxonMobil's tax form.)
FINALLY...
P.S. Still waiting on a comment about your false/misleading 80% number you used.
For those who have a life and don't comb through posts from two months ago, 80% is the number of sub-prime loans issued by banks not governed by the CRA. And I'm done 'commenting' on it, so I'll simply give him a citation. It comes from University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr's testimony before congress:
Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts.
He's one of many who have studied it, and you can find several of his papers online rather easily. I've read portions of many of them myself, but I'm done doing your research for you. And, in any case, MMFA was kind enough to link to many of their own sources.
Now this DID take a bit of effort on my part, so I would appreciate it if you'd actually read the whole thing. (And I'll know from your comments if you did.) And I'l say up front that I don't plan to reply to your comments on this: You can have the last word, unless there's something truly eggregious in what you say. I'm confident that anyone who reads my work and yours side by side will see the truth of the matter.
Monday, June 11, 2012
New Comic Launched!
If you listened to the 'personal message' I posted back on April 24th (and judging from the lack of comments, you didn't!) you may remember that I mentioned something about stating a comic.
Well, it's started.
It's called "Political Symmetry" and, per the description, "Revel[s] in the simple, universally understood truth that 'both sides do it.'"
There's only one strip posted so far, but I'm going to try and keep at least a weekly update schedule. Hopefully more, possibly less.
Anyway, check it out. We'll see how it goes. Eventually I'll probably have a link to it somewhere on the blog, and maybe link both up with 'Utopia' as well. Please feel free to leave comments, although I'm thinking that I may leave the comments on Poli-sym unanswered. (Which is unusual for me, but I'd like to keep that blog free of TEXT, and just use the comics to express my feelings and ideas. But, like I said before, we'll see how it goes.
And of course, even if I do not reply, comments will always be read and appreciated.
Well, it's started.
It's called "Political Symmetry" and, per the description, "Revel[s] in the simple, universally understood truth that 'both sides do it.'"
There's only one strip posted so far, but I'm going to try and keep at least a weekly update schedule. Hopefully more, possibly less.
Anyway, check it out. We'll see how it goes. Eventually I'll probably have a link to it somewhere on the blog, and maybe link both up with 'Utopia' as well. Please feel free to leave comments, although I'm thinking that I may leave the comments on Poli-sym unanswered. (Which is unusual for me, but I'd like to keep that blog free of TEXT, and just use the comics to express my feelings and ideas. But, like I said before, we'll see how it goes.
And of course, even if I do not reply, comments will always be read and appreciated.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The Case for Obama, part 2: Foreign Policy
Yeah, I had planned to go after "these high gas prices" next, but the hot-button issue in the Romney campaign right now (besides spell-checking their campaign materials) seems to Foreign Policy. So I'll do that instead.
OK… First? The easy stuff:
Iraq War: Over. Mission Accomplished. Finally.
Bin Laden. Gone. Dead. Characterize it however you want, but Obama succeeded where Bush failed.
Gaddaffi. Gone. Dead. Characterize it however you want, but Obama succeeded where Reagan failed.
And as frustrating as Libya was, our involvement was precisely what it needed to be. Any MORE and the rebels would risk being seen as pro-West, and nothing would evaporate their support faster than that. And while everybody can Monday-morning quarterback it to death, the bottom line is: We had regime change their WITHOUT having to destroy the entire country, wreck their infrastructure, kill 100,000 people and then spend a trillion dollars to rebuild it. The rebels may have wanted more, in the immediate sense art various times, but they given exactly what they needed to succeed, and not a bit more. Libya serves as a SHINING EXAMPLE of how a popular rebellion should be supported, and how regime change should be brought about, absent a Liberal Democracy with free and open elections.
(For examples of how it SHOULD NOT be done, see Vietnam, Iraq.)
Now… The Romney campaign is hitting Obama hard for not being “tough enough” or showing “real leadership” with Syria. They’ve characterized his policies as “hiding” behind the Kofa Anan plan, and playing “mother may i?” with the Russian and the Chinese, who continue to support the Asad regime.
OK. First off, when it comes to invading Syria, I was making the case for that YEARS ago. So I’m certainly no dove when it comes to this horrible, oppressive regime. But What EXACTLY would a President Romney do differently? What is their BRILLIANT IDEA to solve this problem – namely to stop the bloodshed and slaughter of Syrian Protesters and Rebels.
Well… I heard the Romney campaign claim that Obama has shown “no leadership.” But absent any real ideas, coming from a Republican “real leadership” just means “arrogant swagger.” Basically they apparently want Obama to struck around like a Cowboy, reminding the world that America can do whatever the hell it wants, because we can kick more ass than anyone else. Because you know… that worked out pretty well for Bush, right?
And then... He really didn't seem to offer anything! Nothing! Nada. Zilch. Zero. Just that Obama should "lead more" with nary a though as to WHERE he should be leading people!
But let's humor the nay-sayers, and look at some of the "obvious solutions" Obama should be pursuing.
Maybe we should push for SANCTIONS. I’m not a huge fan of this. First of all, they basically NEVER WORK. (see Cuba.) Second, it is always the PEOPLE who end up suffering the most from this. And finally, since most of these Governments control the Media in their countries, the story that gets told always ends up being “look at what the West is doing to us!” And after eight years of George W. Bush, I’m tired of writing their propaganda for them. But perhaps most importantly, sanctions would depend entirely on the cooperation of… duh-da-daaaaaa: RUSSIA and CHINA! So without playing “mother may i?” with the Russian and the Chinese…” OK. You get the point.
Well, then… SCREW THE U.N.! Let’s get NATO to enforce a no-fly zone unilaterally then! Sure. Great. That actually DID work in both Iraq for many years and in Libya. But what would it accomplish in Syria? Syria is a TINY COUNTRY. You don’t need PLANES to cross it! And most of the killing has been by soldiers who WALKED there and TANKS that DROVE there. Syria has no NEED for planes within their borders. So a no-fly zone would be little more than a very expensive symbolic gesture.
Perhaps AIR STRIKES then! Yeah… Except that Syria is 1/10 the size of Libya, with three times the population. And the rebels hold exactly DICK in the form of territory. So what would you HIT? The rebels are all in the CITIES! There is not a single target in Syria that you could hit and NOT kill dozens of the very people who we’re trying to HELP! Who’s LIVES we want to SAVE!
INVADE! Um… No. (see, Iraq.) And to be fair, nobody on either side is really suggesting this.
OK, OK. What about the very simple measure of Arming the Rebels? Arm the populace, so that they have the tools to stand up to this oppressive regime.
Now… I could resort to satire and simply say, “Yeah – typical Republican answer: Try to solve the problem of violence by adding more guns to the equation.” But in my HEART? I would do this. I really would. My spirit? My sense of righteousness? My wrath? All tell me that this is a good idea, and what’s more: That it’s RIGHT.
But my HEAD? (You know… The part of the body that we SHOULD be using to make decisions with?) Tell me a different story. It tells me that the only possible outcome of doing this would be to increase the death toll by an order of magnitude, AT LEAST. Any last vestige of restraint being shown by the Syrian Army would be swept away and what is currently a huge travesty of human rights violations would be transformed into a wholesale slaughter the moment the first shot was fired. Dozens, even hundreds being killed in peaceful protests would become thousands, if not tens of thousands being killed in full scale battles.
If you are motivated to action by the LOSS of human life, you should not be so quick to take actions that would result in the FAR GREATER loss of human life, no matter how angry you are.
So if Obama is proceeding cautiously? Even tentatively perhaps?
I say that there is simply no better way to proceed.
Because Syria is, as I once heard North Korea described, “The Land of Lousy Options.”
As for Iran...?
This is actually fairly easy, because it's simply a question (once again) of the Right going apeshit over a non-existent threat without getting their facts strait. (See: Iraq.)
It comes down to this:
Iran has no nuclear weapons. The CIA, M-I5 and Mossad all agree on this point.
Iran has no actual nuclear weapons program. The CIA, M-I5 and Mossad all agree on this point.
Iran has no delivery system for a nuclear warhead: Their longest range missile with the potential to carry a nuclear warhead is the Shehab-3b with a range of only 2000 km. And the Zelzal and the Fateh missiles are only short range, 300km or less. And as small a threat as that represents, even THAT relies on the assumption that Iran would use a nuclear missile for ANYTHING other than a deterrent. (Kind of like EVERY SINGLE OTHER NUCLEAR ARMED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.)
On every front? I just don't see the problem.
OK… First? The easy stuff:
Iraq War: Over. Mission Accomplished. Finally.
Bin Laden. Gone. Dead. Characterize it however you want, but Obama succeeded where Bush failed.
Gaddaffi. Gone. Dead. Characterize it however you want, but Obama succeeded where Reagan failed.
And as frustrating as Libya was, our involvement was precisely what it needed to be. Any MORE and the rebels would risk being seen as pro-West, and nothing would evaporate their support faster than that. And while everybody can Monday-morning quarterback it to death, the bottom line is: We had regime change their WITHOUT having to destroy the entire country, wreck their infrastructure, kill 100,000 people and then spend a trillion dollars to rebuild it. The rebels may have wanted more, in the immediate sense art various times, but they given exactly what they needed to succeed, and not a bit more. Libya serves as a SHINING EXAMPLE of how a popular rebellion should be supported, and how regime change should be brought about, absent a Liberal Democracy with free and open elections.
(For examples of how it SHOULD NOT be done, see Vietnam, Iraq.)
Now… The Romney campaign is hitting Obama hard for not being “tough enough” or showing “real leadership” with Syria. They’ve characterized his policies as “hiding” behind the Kofa Anan plan, and playing “mother may i?” with the Russian and the Chinese, who continue to support the Asad regime.
OK. First off, when it comes to invading Syria, I was making the case for that YEARS ago. So I’m certainly no dove when it comes to this horrible, oppressive regime. But What EXACTLY would a President Romney do differently? What is their BRILLIANT IDEA to solve this problem – namely to stop the bloodshed and slaughter of Syrian Protesters and Rebels.
Well… I heard the Romney campaign claim that Obama has shown “no leadership.” But absent any real ideas, coming from a Republican “real leadership” just means “arrogant swagger.” Basically they apparently want Obama to struck around like a Cowboy, reminding the world that America can do whatever the hell it wants, because we can kick more ass than anyone else. Because you know… that worked out pretty well for Bush, right?
And then... He really didn't seem to offer anything! Nothing! Nada. Zilch. Zero. Just that Obama should "lead more" with nary a though as to WHERE he should be leading people!
But let's humor the nay-sayers, and look at some of the "obvious solutions" Obama should be pursuing.
Maybe we should push for SANCTIONS. I’m not a huge fan of this. First of all, they basically NEVER WORK. (see Cuba.) Second, it is always the PEOPLE who end up suffering the most from this. And finally, since most of these Governments control the Media in their countries, the story that gets told always ends up being “look at what the West is doing to us!” And after eight years of George W. Bush, I’m tired of writing their propaganda for them. But perhaps most importantly, sanctions would depend entirely on the cooperation of… duh-da-daaaaaa: RUSSIA and CHINA! So without playing “mother may i?” with the Russian and the Chinese…” OK. You get the point.
Well, then… SCREW THE U.N.! Let’s get NATO to enforce a no-fly zone unilaterally then! Sure. Great. That actually DID work in both Iraq for many years and in Libya. But what would it accomplish in Syria? Syria is a TINY COUNTRY. You don’t need PLANES to cross it! And most of the killing has been by soldiers who WALKED there and TANKS that DROVE there. Syria has no NEED for planes within their borders. So a no-fly zone would be little more than a very expensive symbolic gesture.
Perhaps AIR STRIKES then! Yeah… Except that Syria is 1/10 the size of Libya, with three times the population. And the rebels hold exactly DICK in the form of territory. So what would you HIT? The rebels are all in the CITIES! There is not a single target in Syria that you could hit and NOT kill dozens of the very people who we’re trying to HELP! Who’s LIVES we want to SAVE!
INVADE! Um… No. (see, Iraq.) And to be fair, nobody on either side is really suggesting this.
OK, OK. What about the very simple measure of Arming the Rebels? Arm the populace, so that they have the tools to stand up to this oppressive regime.
Now… I could resort to satire and simply say, “Yeah – typical Republican answer: Try to solve the problem of violence by adding more guns to the equation.” But in my HEART? I would do this. I really would. My spirit? My sense of righteousness? My wrath? All tell me that this is a good idea, and what’s more: That it’s RIGHT.
But my HEAD? (You know… The part of the body that we SHOULD be using to make decisions with?) Tell me a different story. It tells me that the only possible outcome of doing this would be to increase the death toll by an order of magnitude, AT LEAST. Any last vestige of restraint being shown by the Syrian Army would be swept away and what is currently a huge travesty of human rights violations would be transformed into a wholesale slaughter the moment the first shot was fired. Dozens, even hundreds being killed in peaceful protests would become thousands, if not tens of thousands being killed in full scale battles.
If you are motivated to action by the LOSS of human life, you should not be so quick to take actions that would result in the FAR GREATER loss of human life, no matter how angry you are.
So if Obama is proceeding cautiously? Even tentatively perhaps?
I say that there is simply no better way to proceed.
Because Syria is, as I once heard North Korea described, “The Land of Lousy Options.”
As for Iran...?
This is actually fairly easy, because it's simply a question (once again) of the Right going apeshit over a non-existent threat without getting their facts strait. (See: Iraq.)
It comes down to this:
Iran has no nuclear weapons. The CIA, M-I5 and Mossad all agree on this point.
Iran has no actual nuclear weapons program. The CIA, M-I5 and Mossad all agree on this point.
Iran has no delivery system for a nuclear warhead: Their longest range missile with the potential to carry a nuclear warhead is the Shehab-3b with a range of only 2000 km. And the Zelzal and the Fateh missiles are only short range, 300km or less. And as small a threat as that represents, even THAT relies on the assumption that Iran would use a nuclear missile for ANYTHING other than a deterrent. (Kind of like EVERY SINGLE OTHER NUCLEAR ARMED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.)
On every front? I just don't see the problem.
GOLD STAR AWARDS, May, 2012
And here are May's. The Year is 1975. One from the BWAA, two from the Vet’s
The RALPH KINER Gold Star #51: Freepress
Working to strengthen journalism and fight media consolidation. Change the media, and you change the world. Freepress is a a non-paritsan media watchdog and advocacy groups dealing primarily with issues relevant to the freedom of the press, corporate media monoploies, and the deterioration of the news media and the decaying state of journalism in general. Check these guys out. Great people doing great work.
The BILLY HERMAN Silver Star #48: Amazing Superpowers
This is just a really twisted web-comic with an irreverent and often dark sense of humor. I love it.
The EARL AVERILL Silver Star #49: Chuckle-a-Duck
This is truly amazing, high quality web-comic. With the style and quality of the art work, and its fairly mainstream, usually moderately political sense of humor, I do not understand why this hasn’t been picked up for national syndication. This is in the style of the 1-panels that you would see in the New Yorker, only they’re… you know… ACTUALLY FUNNY. Great stuff. A tremendous talent. Check it out.
The RALPH KINER Gold Star #51: Freepress
Working to strengthen journalism and fight media consolidation. Change the media, and you change the world. Freepress is a a non-paritsan media watchdog and advocacy groups dealing primarily with issues relevant to the freedom of the press, corporate media monoploies, and the deterioration of the news media and the decaying state of journalism in general. Check these guys out. Great people doing great work.
The BILLY HERMAN Silver Star #48: Amazing Superpowers
This is just a really twisted web-comic with an irreverent and often dark sense of humor. I love it.
The EARL AVERILL Silver Star #49: Chuckle-a-Duck
This is truly amazing, high quality web-comic. With the style and quality of the art work, and its fairly mainstream, usually moderately political sense of humor, I do not understand why this hasn’t been picked up for national syndication. This is in the style of the 1-panels that you would see in the New Yorker, only they’re… you know… ACTUALLY FUNNY. Great stuff. A tremendous talent. Check it out.
GOLD STAR AWARDS, April, 2012
Damn. I’ve been busy this month. But I’ve yet to fall more that two months behind on my Hall of Fame awards, so here are April’s, and I’m going to follow up with May’s on this, the last day of May.
The Year is 1974 - Two BWAA inductees and two from the Veteran’s committee.
The MICKEY MANTLE Gold Star #49: Armchair Subversive
OMG! I'm so psyched! They’re back! This fine collection was originally in my inaugural HoF class, but I bumped them out in favor of Cracked.com when their website went defunct. Now they’re back, and hopefully will show Williams once and for all what the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles: Homosexuals tend to be Democrats, whilst Pedophiles tend to be Republican!
The WHITEY FORD Gold Star #50: A Blog of Dorain
Although infrequently updated, and from Canada, this crazy cannuck has a better understanding of U.S. policy than most Americans. It’s also a great collection of political cartoons, including critiques of some coming from the opposition. He posts in fits and spurts, being quiet for awhile and then posting a lot for a couple of weeks. Very insightful when he does though, and his blog makes for a fun read.
The JIM BOTTOMLEY Silver Star #46: The Princess and Eve’s Apple
Two web-comics by Christine Smith. Both feature transgendered protagonists, portraying both in a positive light, while at the same time addressing the social hardships they face. Eve’s Apple (which seems to have gone on hiatus) is drawn in a noir style and deals with the complex relationships between the Transgendered and Homosexual communities. The Princess is drawn in a more cutesy, cartoonish style, and deals with transgendered youth though it’s protagonist Sarah; who made her first appearance in Eve’s Apple, and whose mother is Lucy’s sister. (One of the reasons I’m combining these is that both take place in the same universe, so I consider them two parts of the same thing.) Superficially, The Princess appears more light hearted, but in truth is considerably darker, considering that the events are happening to, and being dealt with by, a child. I recommend reading both from the beginning, and the beginning.
The SAM THOMPSON Silver Star #47: Power Nap
“The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.”
A newer web-comic with an infrequent update schedule, Power Nap presents a dystopian world in which people no longer have to sleep, thanks to Z-Tabs, and the struggles of one man to survive in this world who’s allergic to them, and thus… still needs to sleep. It’s still in its infancy, but I see a lot of promise with it, and can’t wait to see where it goes. It’s been a real trip so far. Read it from the beginning.
The Year is 1974 - Two BWAA inductees and two from the Veteran’s committee.
The MICKEY MANTLE Gold Star #49: Armchair Subversive
OMG! I'm so psyched! They’re back! This fine collection was originally in my inaugural HoF class, but I bumped them out in favor of Cracked.com when their website went defunct. Now they’re back, and hopefully will show Williams once and for all what the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles: Homosexuals tend to be Democrats, whilst Pedophiles tend to be Republican!
The WHITEY FORD Gold Star #50: A Blog of Dorain
Although infrequently updated, and from Canada, this crazy cannuck has a better understanding of U.S. policy than most Americans. It’s also a great collection of political cartoons, including critiques of some coming from the opposition. He posts in fits and spurts, being quiet for awhile and then posting a lot for a couple of weeks. Very insightful when he does though, and his blog makes for a fun read.
The JIM BOTTOMLEY Silver Star #46: The Princess and Eve’s Apple
Two web-comics by Christine Smith. Both feature transgendered protagonists, portraying both in a positive light, while at the same time addressing the social hardships they face. Eve’s Apple (which seems to have gone on hiatus) is drawn in a noir style and deals with the complex relationships between the Transgendered and Homosexual communities. The Princess is drawn in a more cutesy, cartoonish style, and deals with transgendered youth though it’s protagonist Sarah; who made her first appearance in Eve’s Apple, and whose mother is Lucy’s sister. (One of the reasons I’m combining these is that both take place in the same universe, so I consider them two parts of the same thing.) Superficially, The Princess appears more light hearted, but in truth is considerably darker, considering that the events are happening to, and being dealt with by, a child. I recommend reading both from the beginning, and the beginning.
The SAM THOMPSON Silver Star #47: Power Nap
“The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.”
A newer web-comic with an infrequent update schedule, Power Nap presents a dystopian world in which people no longer have to sleep, thanks to Z-Tabs, and the struggles of one man to survive in this world who’s allergic to them, and thus… still needs to sleep. It’s still in its infancy, but I see a lot of promise with it, and can’t wait to see where it goes. It’s been a real trip so far. Read it from the beginning.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Gayer?
Rand Paul Says He Didn't Think Obama's Views 'Could Get Any Gayer'
And I didn't think Rand Paul's views on anything could get any stupider.
Two things... President Obama finally coming out an saying he's OK with Gay marriage? Is really the first INKLING in his entire Presidency that he's show ANY evidence of having any balls at all. (And seeing as how he's the last person in his administration to 'come out' so to speak, it's pretty scant even so.) But hey: It's the RIGHT position, it's common sense, it's American, and it's about damned time. Good on you, Barry!
As for the Right Honorable Redneck from Kentucky? Um... using "gay" as a pejorative...
(1) Stopped being funny after the 3rd grade. So grow up.
(2) Is bigoted and homophobic
You wouldn't say Obama's views couldn't get any blacker, would you?
Well, OK, YOU might...
But I wouldn't say, "And just when I though Justice Scalia's view couldn't get anymore Sicilian..."
Because there is no reason that 'Sicilian' can be used in that context and it NOT be racist. Likewise, there is no context to use "gay" as a pejorative that isn't hurtful, and that doesn't encourage the continued mistreatment of so many freedom loving Americans.
So... FUCK YOU, YOU HOPELESSLY WITLESS SCUMBAG.
And reading over your budget, man... I didn't think I'd ever see something so Kentucky in my entire life.
(How do you like it, you fucking inbreed?)
And I didn't think Rand Paul's views on anything could get any stupider.
Two things... President Obama finally coming out an saying he's OK with Gay marriage? Is really the first INKLING in his entire Presidency that he's show ANY evidence of having any balls at all. (And seeing as how he's the last person in his administration to 'come out' so to speak, it's pretty scant even so.) But hey: It's the RIGHT position, it's common sense, it's American, and it's about damned time. Good on you, Barry!
As for the Right Honorable Redneck from Kentucky? Um... using "gay" as a pejorative...
(1) Stopped being funny after the 3rd grade. So grow up.
(2) Is bigoted and homophobic
You wouldn't say Obama's views couldn't get any blacker, would you?
Well, OK, YOU might...
But I wouldn't say, "And just when I though Justice Scalia's view couldn't get anymore Sicilian..."
Because there is no reason that 'Sicilian' can be used in that context and it NOT be racist. Likewise, there is no context to use "gay" as a pejorative that isn't hurtful, and that doesn't encourage the continued mistreatment of so many freedom loving Americans.
So... FUCK YOU, YOU HOPELESSLY WITLESS SCUMBAG.
And reading over your budget, man... I didn't think I'd ever see something so Kentucky in my entire life.
(How do you like it, you fucking inbreed?)
Idiotic
There's so little I can add on to this stupidity, other than to say that to say that I'm sure there a certain Conservative poster that will probably LOVE this new law, and spend 57 posts defending it. Once again, Conservatives have chosen suppression over discussion, ignorance over information, and have gotten Government off your back... but in your pants.
On Thursday, State Rep. Jon Lundberg told NBC station WCYB-TV that a focus on abstinence is needed because Tennessee has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation.
This is particularly relevant, because Tennessee already HAS Abstinence-only sex education in theirs school system:
proponents say the new law helps define the existing abstinence-only sex-education policy.
Though, to be fair... the laws "proponents" are mostly rednecks Conservatives from Tennessee. What the EVIDENCE has shown, as acknowledged by State Rep. Jon Lundberg is that their abstinence only sex education curriculum has been one of the least effective in the country, and has not brought about the desired results.
Liberal solution: DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Conservative Solution: DO MORE OF THE SAME THING, ON STEROIDS.
I don't know... Maybe having the seventh-highest teen birth rate isn't enough... Maybe they want to be number one. The only way they rank any higher five years from know would be is Mississippi, Alabama and other States where fear, ignorance and ideology routinely trump common sense also double down on their stupidity, and manage to do more harm to themselves than Tennessee will do.
Hey: Maybe they can just ban contraception altogether. Why not? As EVERYONE KNOWS, if you keep contraception away from teenagers, they'll stop having sex, right?
This is textbook stupidity.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
What deficit?
I'd almost make this into another "case for Obama" post, but that would, of course, be absurdly presumptive.
OTOH, to hear the liars on the Right tell it, the defict was so huge (TRILLIONS!) and so historically out of proportion (THREE TIMES WHAT IS WAS UNDER BUSH!) that we would be sacrficing our children's very lives if we did destroy the economy RIGHT NOW in an effort to fix it!
Well, just as with the TARP "cost," which is now projected to turn a profit for the American Taxpayers, it seems that their abusrdly apocolyptic rhetoric (or, as Liberals prefer to call it, "LIES") is just that. Because this month? Obama is sitting on a buget surplus.
And in a no doubt vain attempt to cut off the idiot who no doubt is going to mock me for exagerating the importance of one month's worth of data, despite what I said, quite plainly in my opening line,let me ble clear: The point is NOT that the deficit problem is fixed. It isn't. And neither me nor anyone else said it was. The POINT is that if anyone was to actually believe the LIES told by the Right about the defict, debt or our economic recovery, the last thing one would expect is a month of budget surplus.
It's the kind of thing that takes the wind out of that argment's sails.
OTOH, to hear the liars on the Right tell it, the defict was so huge (TRILLIONS!) and so historically out of proportion (THREE TIMES WHAT IS WAS UNDER BUSH!) that we would be sacrficing our children's very lives if we did destroy the economy RIGHT NOW in an effort to fix it!
Well, just as with the TARP "cost," which is now projected to turn a profit for the American Taxpayers, it seems that their abusrdly apocolyptic rhetoric (or, as Liberals prefer to call it, "LIES") is just that. Because this month? Obama is sitting on a buget surplus.
And in a no doubt vain attempt to cut off the idiot who no doubt is going to mock me for exagerating the importance of one month's worth of data, despite what I said, quite plainly in my opening line,let me ble clear: The point is NOT that the deficit problem is fixed. It isn't. And neither me nor anyone else said it was. The POINT is that if anyone was to actually believe the LIES told by the Right about the defict, debt or our economic recovery, the last thing one would expect is a month of budget surplus.
It's the kind of thing that takes the wind out of that argment's sails.
RIP Maurice Sendak
...And Max, the king of all wild thing was lonely
and wanted to be where someone loved him best of all.
Then from far away across the world
he smelled good things to eat
so he gave up being king of where the wild things are.
But the wild things cried, "Oh please don't go -
we'll eat you up - we love you so!"
And Max said, "No!"
The wild things roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth
and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws
but Max stepped into hi private boat and waved good bye
and sailed back over a year
and in and out of weeks
and through a day
and into the night of his very own own room
where he found his supper waiting for him
and it was still hot.
At what point did I reach the age when I started to notice how all of the good one's keep dying?
and wanted to be where someone loved him best of all.
Then from far away across the world
he smelled good things to eat
so he gave up being king of where the wild things are.
But the wild things cried, "Oh please don't go -
we'll eat you up - we love you so!"
And Max said, "No!"
The wild things roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth
and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws
but Max stepped into hi private boat and waved good bye
and sailed back over a year
and in and out of weeks
and through a day
and into the night of his very own own room
where he found his supper waiting for him
and it was still hot.
At what point did I reach the age when I started to notice how all of the good one's keep dying?
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Right on so many levels...
I'll try to respond to some of the comments tomorrow night. Gotta get posting again too. Too tired right now. The kids and I moved a bunch of rocks (sandstones / flagstones?) from the back yard to the front yard today and built a sweet rock wall with it, bordering up the dirt aoround our cherry tree. Wife is happy with it, but I am very tired right now. Good night.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
King Gets It!
Although I honestly believe IT to be among the greatest books every written, and to date it is the only one that has actually, truly scared me, I must say that it's been awhile since I've given any consideration one way of the other to Stehen King. Until now.
I wish I could sum it all up, but I can't. Check out his column for the Daily Beast, entitled, "Tax Me, For Fuck's Sake!"
It's great stuff.
I wish I could sum it all up, but I can't. Check out his column for the Daily Beast, entitled, "Tax Me, For Fuck's Sake!"
It's great stuff.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
The Case for Obama, Part 1: These "hard" economic times
There are two things I'm sick and tired of hearing about. The first is that Obama and the Democrats are strong with voters on social issues, whilst Romney and the Republicans have the edge on economic and fiscal matters. In a word? BALONEY SAUSAGE. I've written plenty of posts in the past showing just how mush better things are under Democrats on purely economic terms, and [and this is the other thing I'm sick of hearing] "these hard economic times" are no different. And don't expect the mainstream media to tell you any of this, but the fact is? Times ain't so bad. In fact, well... I'll let the data do the talking.
Exhibit A: The Dow Jones Industrial Average. Generally considered one of the best indicators of overall economic health in this country. Now, to put in context just what a wet, steaming pile of bullshit it is that people are talking about Obama like (1) he's done anything wrong, (2) that there IS actually anything wrong, and (3) that [even though it isn't wrong] it's all his fault, I want to start back a bit, to when George W. Bush took office, just to remind everyone what a shitty stock market REALLY looks like. This is the DJIA from Inauguration day, 2001 to Election Day, 2004 (From Yahoo Finance):
Bottom line? DOWN 5.13%. DOWN. Over FOUR YEARS! And that asshole got re-elected despite that! Of course we all know how his second term fared. Here's Election day, 2004 to Election day 2008:
Down 13.9%! And Conservatives wonder why Obama got elected? Conservatives are still trying to argue that OBAMA destroyed the economy?! The DOW was down 13.9% in the four years since we reelected the guy under whom it had all ready fallen 5.13%! Here's Bush's eight year term, Inauguration Day, 2001 to Inauguration Day, 2009:
Wow. DOWN 24.23%. Way to go, Georgie! Here's what's happened since Obama took office:
BOOM! UP! UP! UP! 66.4%! Wow! Now... I don't want anyone to get the idea that I think the President is directly, 100% responsible for the stock market, but... Let's not forget that the guys who are whining about "these hard economic times" are the guys who (1) got re-election after a 5% decline, and (2) were down over 24% by the time they were done. And we're up 66% right now and I'm supposed to believe that it's THE OTHER GUYS who have the economic wherewithal? Bullshit. According to the DJIA, Obama's done roughly three times the good in under four years than the amount of harm down by George W. Bush in EIGHT.
Well, maybe the DJIA has a Liberal bias or something. I wonder what the S & P 500 looked like during Bush's first term:
Whoa. Down 13.16%. How the hell did that redneck get re-elected?! Is anyone goimng to seriously tell me that there's Liberal Bias in the media?! Where was it in 2004? Oh, and uh... How's things go the second time around?
Up... One-Hundred... and... Thirteen... Percent. Holy... Fucking... Shit... (I should have bought more!) And really, to show how skull-fuckingly stupid (or just plain screwed) the Republicans are here, they keep trying to disappear George W. Bush's UTTER ECONOMIC FAILURES, every time Obama reminds people how bad things were under Bush. Thing is? The main reason that Obama's stock market has been as good as it was, is because it started in such a deep, dark hole! Saying that he came in essentially just at the right time, would be the easiest way for the Republicans to poo-poo his success. But, of course, they can't say THAT, because (1) they'd have to actually ACKNOWLEDGE his success, and admit that he also did the right things, and (2) they'd have to acknowledge Bush's FAILURE.
Speaking of which, unemployment is becoming so much NOT A PROBLEM, that Fox News has gone so far as to allege a conspiracy over the numbers! Sarah Palin even questioned their accuracy! Eric Bolling again accused the BLS of being partisan! Imagine the gall it takes, for a guy on FOX NEWS to accuse the BLS of partisan bias! There should have been a quantum singularity forming in his crotch due to the gravity created by his massively HUGE BALLS.
Here's an unemployment chart that ought to get Obama re-elected:
Wow. Again what do we see? Things getting worse and worse and worse under Bush... And things getting better and better and batter, and the staying in the green under Obama.
Now, I'm going to look at energy and gas prices next, and I've never been shy about delving into social issues myself, but on a purely economic basis? Everything got worse under Bush, and everything has gotten better under Obama. That not my opinion: That's what the data says. It's not a "liberal talking point" either: It's MATH.
If anyone needs a quick reference here you go:
As of 4/29/2012:
DJIA:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -5.13%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -24.23%
Under Obama: UP, 66.4%
S&P 500:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -13.16%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -38.6%
Under Obama: UP, 74.28%
NASDAQ:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -28.03%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -46.88%
Under Obama: UP, 113.05%
I'm still stunned by this. Can you imagine what they'd be saying about Obama's economy if his markets had George Bush's returns? Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy.
One final note, regarding the millions of people still trying to find work. In no way is my post here implying that your plight is not real. You're out of work. And no amount of economic data is going to put food on your table. (Of course... the Republicans want to kill anything that WILL do that as well.) The point here is WHY. WHY are there are so many unemployed people? And WHO, WHO is going to make things better and who will make them worst? History says the Republicans will make it worse. They're the ones who MADE IT BAD in the first place. And AUSTERITY won't fix anything. Obama has been embracing Austerity at an astounding rate, mainly to appease the Right, and it is the number one thing HAMPERING our economic recovery. The Right will only give you more of he only thing Obama actually IS doing wrong economically. And that's not my opinion, or mere conjecture. I KNOW this because they've promised as much. That's what massive SPENDING CUTS will do folks: Kill the economy. DO NOT give the Republicans this chance!
Exhibit A: The Dow Jones Industrial Average. Generally considered one of the best indicators of overall economic health in this country. Now, to put in context just what a wet, steaming pile of bullshit it is that people are talking about Obama like (1) he's done anything wrong, (2) that there IS actually anything wrong, and (3) that [even though it isn't wrong] it's all his fault, I want to start back a bit, to when George W. Bush took office, just to remind everyone what a shitty stock market REALLY looks like. This is the DJIA from Inauguration day, 2001 to Election Day, 2004 (From Yahoo Finance):
Well, maybe the DJIA has a Liberal bias or something. I wonder what the S & P 500 looked like during Bush's first term:
Whoa. Down 13.16%. How the hell did that redneck get re-elected?! Is anyone goimng to seriously tell me that there's Liberal Bias in the media?! Where was it in 2004? Oh, and uh... How's things go the second time around?
Oh my God! DOWN 21.38%! Almost as bad as the DOW. And people say Obama's presiding over a bad economy?! Here was Shrub's eight year performance on the S & P:
Down 38.6%. Holy. Fucking. Shit. And since Obama took office?
And BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! UP SEVENTY FOUR POINT TWO-EIGHT PERCENT! Oh, yeah: Let's get rid of this guy!
The NASDAQ tells the same story:
Down 28.03%. That in just his first term folks! Can someone PLEASE tell me how John Kerry didn't beat this ass-clown in a LANDSLIDE? Liberal Media, my hairy, unwashed ass!
Second time around:
Down another 19.2%. And they wonder why the lost. Must have been that Liberally biased STOCK MARKET.
Overall, our roughly fifth worst President of all time managed to take a whopping 46.88% out of the NASDAQ during his tenure. Remember: This was the guy who mocked Al Gore's legislation that created the Internet. OK, so how's the NASDAQ doing under Obama?
And... it's just easier for them to lie about it. None of the Conservatively biased Mainstream Media is going to break from the narrative that the Right's strength is economics, (note: it isn't. they have no strengths) nor call out Fox News for going above and beyond in the field of outright deceit and propaganda.
OK, so admittedly the Stock Market MIGHT not be the best measure. (That sure was FUN for me to go through though, let me tell you!) How about the GDP? Well, here's a chart:
It's from this article. My favorite part of which is the following line:
The average growth rate in private real quarterly GDP since 2000 has been 1.76%, so the private sector of the U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter of 2012 at twice the average rate over the last 12 yearsI keep hearing about how slow, and sluggish and disappointing that 2.2% rate is, but "double the rate of the last twelve years?!" Seems like we're doing just fine in that regard as well. BTW, you see those RED LINES? Well, the Conservative Toadies in the Mainstream media won't tell you this, but... those are REDUCTIONS in Government Spending. And contrary to what the Macroeconomic Failures who drew up the Paul Ryan Budget will tell you: That's a drag on the economy. So, if you think Obama should be doing more (meaning SPENDING more?) I'd agree with you 100%. But that criticism sure as hell isn't a reason to vote Republican! And if you think he should cut more? Then you're either a Billionaire or an idiot who doesn't understand how economics works and will be out a job sooner than he thinks.
Speaking of which, unemployment is becoming so much NOT A PROBLEM, that Fox News has gone so far as to allege a conspiracy over the numbers! Sarah Palin even questioned their accuracy! Eric Bolling again accused the BLS of being partisan! Imagine the gall it takes, for a guy on FOX NEWS to accuse the BLS of partisan bias! There should have been a quantum singularity forming in his crotch due to the gravity created by his massively HUGE BALLS.
Here's an unemployment chart that ought to get Obama re-elected:
Wow. Again what do we see? Things getting worse and worse and worse under Bush... And things getting better and better and batter, and the staying in the green under Obama.
Now, I'm going to look at energy and gas prices next, and I've never been shy about delving into social issues myself, but on a purely economic basis? Everything got worse under Bush, and everything has gotten better under Obama. That not my opinion: That's what the data says. It's not a "liberal talking point" either: It's MATH.
If anyone needs a quick reference here you go:
As of 4/29/2012:
DJIA:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -5.13%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -24.23%
Under Obama: UP, 66.4%
S&P 500:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -13.16%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -38.6%
Under Obama: UP, 74.28%
NASDAQ:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -28.03%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -46.88%
Under Obama: UP, 113.05%
I'm still stunned by this. Can you imagine what they'd be saying about Obama's economy if his markets had George Bush's returns? Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy.
One final note, regarding the millions of people still trying to find work. In no way is my post here implying that your plight is not real. You're out of work. And no amount of economic data is going to put food on your table. (Of course... the Republicans want to kill anything that WILL do that as well.) The point here is WHY. WHY are there are so many unemployed people? And WHO, WHO is going to make things better and who will make them worst? History says the Republicans will make it worse. They're the ones who MADE IT BAD in the first place. And AUSTERITY won't fix anything. Obama has been embracing Austerity at an astounding rate, mainly to appease the Right, and it is the number one thing HAMPERING our economic recovery. The Right will only give you more of he only thing Obama actually IS doing wrong economically. And that's not my opinion, or mere conjecture. I KNOW this because they've promised as much. That's what massive SPENDING CUTS will do folks: Kill the economy. DO NOT give the Republicans this chance!
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
I'm back / Personal message
Unlike the other audios, this one's not a joke or anything. I just resorting to that becasue I can't type very easily right now rigth now. (I explain why in the audio.)
Also, some of my future posts may be in audio format as well, IDK. We'll see.
Also, some of my future posts may be in audio format as well, IDK. We'll see.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)