American Fascism

(Catching up...)

In this episode, Brynn Tannehill returns to talk about her chilling new book, American Fascism: How the GOP Is Subverting Democracy.

Do you think we could all criticize Ann Coulter...

...WITHOUT denigrating Trans People, please?  Is that possible?

 

 Please feel free to use the meme below if you'd like to. I very rarely pick fights over "Political Correctness," but this IS a hill I'm willing to die on.

(Facebook) Trolls... and William

(Hopefully that'll get him to watch this!)



First thread, from a Liberal Page:

So... Calls first poster a cunt, says "U R Dumb" to me about a dozen times, fails to come up with even a single example when asked, tells the PAGE'S OWNER (Mark Smith)to STFU, and then says he wants to talk about "pussay" instead.

BEHOLD: The Republican base!

Since he seemed to appreciate that Mr. Smith welcomes all opinions, I almost wanted to point out that we welcome (or at least respond in kind) to differing opinions HERE as well, if only because I though t it would be extremely amusing to have a Conservative that even William couldn't stand . LOL. But no - ain't nobody got for that!

And here is the second example, including the header graphic, from a Conservative Page:






































At the time of ths posting? STILL no examples.

Civil Disobedience?

No, not really.

I was looking at some of my blogs numbers, to try and find where my recent uptick in readership was coming from, and I noticed something interesting:

4/8/2015 to 4/15/2015

Apparently, behind the United States, I'm getting the next highest number of page-views from RUSSIA.  

Now, in light of their "Law" prohibiting "pro-Gay" or "Homosexual Propaganda," and in consideration of the many pro-Gay Rights and LGBT+ positive posts I've made over the years, it would appear that I'm helping people break that particular law, or am breaking it myself. (Yeah, I know: Assuming they can even SEE all of my blog, and the State isn't managing to block it.)

All the same, that really amuses me.  It pleases me greatly that I might be playing some nanoscopic role in helping people thumb their nose at Vladimir Putin and his absurd little scum-puddle of a censorship law. I certainly hope so, anyway!

So, in short, if you or your comrades are reading this: Fuck you, Putin! 

:P

Dear RW Christians,

I present to you, the Law of Unintended Consequences:



...OR, we could just allow the Separation of Church and State to become the residing principle by which we protect everyone's Religious Freedom.  You know, that way NO ONE will end up saying, "Why are you exposing MY KIDS to this nonsense?" no matter which religion they follow, or don't.

This insanity can end any time you want it to, Christians. What's it gonna be?

Two in one...

Two points in one video - The Conservative Bubble Grows *and* How Vacant and Amoral is the Libertarian Ideology?

Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)

Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies".  Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce.  (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.)  And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths.  I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them.  There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...

1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!


2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!

TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
 
 
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!

TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico.  As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
 
 
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!

TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11!  Big picture? They never really were.  And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.)  But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
 
 
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!

TRUTH: See Iran.  Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.  He's got a pretty good gig going.  A decent little lifestyle for himself.  There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
 
 
6) The World Hates America!

TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
 
 
So... what do I see as the trend here?
 
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding.  That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
 
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone!  But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub?  Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us?  Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides.  We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it!   But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments.  Except that, no, we really DON'T.  OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him.  But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form.  Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them!  So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell.  Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED.  And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy?  (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)


So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear.  In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive.  Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists.  He is (as usual) SPOT ON.  The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.

Now... as for #6...

Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:

The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.

Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda.  But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...

THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things. 


WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things! 

Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case?  At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World!  And at BEST?  They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy!  I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us.  Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully?  And eventually?

They will.

Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"

Oki?

Anyone?

Bueller? 

Bueller?

Two Republicans

You know what's really frustrating? One - someone like Obama who seems to be full of good ideas, but would rather give in to his opposition at the first opportunity.  But even more so?  Hard-Right Conservative Republicans who make sense just often enough to make you think they don't have their heads up their asses.  (I say "often enough" because it usually only takes a few minutes before they prove this wrong, but still...) This started out as a "top X Republicans I like" kind of post, but it was really triggered by recent comments by the whopping total of TWO.  And that's not a list.  All the same, I'd like to tip my cap to a couple of guys who are absolutely hard-core Right Wingers, but who, on many occasions, GET IT RIGHT just often enough to frustrate the hell out of you: Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham.

Ron Paul is always an interesting guy to listen to.  For one thing - as he'll gladly tell you - he really the only TRUE Conservative in Politics today.  And I think there's a lot of truth to that.  And his conviction to stick to his principles, even when it would be unpopular with "conservatives" was on full display recently when he, along with the ACLU, condemned the killing of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yep: One more example of Ron Paul getting it right, while his party and the masses of ignorant Red Necks who support it, CELEBRATE getting it WRONG.  Now I am a true-blue supporter of all that the ACLU does, including those times when the DEFEND Churches and Right-Wing Talk Show Hosts in court.  Because MY OWN principles regareding Civil Liberties are also neither negotiable, nor partisan.  Classic Liberal had a great write up on this a while back too, so check it out! 

How can anyone think that the RIGHT and the AMERICAN thing to do was ANYTHING other that (1) arrest him, (2) extradite him, (3) try him, and (4, most likely) Execute him?  (OK... I know, I know... We've already debated #4. I just threw that in to aggravate you.)

Now... Don't get me wrong: RON PAUL IS A KOOK.  One of my thresholds for Right-Wing / Libertarian / John Birch / Kook is anyone who argues for the ABOLITION of the Federal Reserve.   It's one thing to disagree with a specirfic Fed policy or practice, but to argue for the outright abolition? That's kook territory. And if you don't agree with me, then you've never passed a college-level economics or history of economic course.  (Glenn Beck? I'm looking at you!)  But hey - I will ALWAYS give credit where it's due, and Ron Paul makes too much sense, too often, for me to reconcile that with the fact that he's goes off the la-la land deep end as often as he does as well.  It's to bad he's not electable ("conservatives" hate him) though, because of ALL the Republicans out there right now? I honestly think he'd be one of the better choices. (And before all you crazy liberals start flaming me over that, please consider how low I'm setting the bar with that statement!) ;)

The other guy who makes me nod and say "Now see? THAT GUY gets it!" too often for the level of Right -Wing kook that HE is, is Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans to recently come out in favor of trade sanctions against China for their unfair currency manipulation:

"The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce, who is having their clock cleaned by a communist dictatorship who cheats."
~Lindsey Graham

BOOM!

You go, Lindsey!

And this happens A LOT!  There are so many times that I find myself nodded my head and rhetorically high fiving this very Conservative, Southern, Republican Senator!  And yet...  Get him talking about Abortion, Gay Rights, or any other of the Right's pet anti-causes and suddenly he's an ignorant Redneck again!

And please, don't for a minute think that I'm suggesting that OBAMA is somehow winning over some Republicans. No way.  I've been watching these guys for YEARS, vacillating between loving them and laughing at them.  What I DO think is happening, in the case of Graham, is that he's looking at inherently good legislation and, once again, sees his party opposing it on the basis of it still being Obama's watch and he's saying "Fuck You" to his party and their four year plan to screw America for the sake of sinking Obama.

Anyway, as far as Republicans go, I do like these guys...

...But I'd still never vote for them.

(OTOH, I'm still registered as Republican in Michigan, so if there's ever a Paul/Graham ticket, I WILL give them some love in the Primary! LOL.)

(Never happen.) XD

Do the Right’s Thing

A couple posts ago, I mentioned how I felt that the best parallel to what President Obama has done in the past two years with regards to his negotiations on economic policy, health care and other issues was Henry Clay, brokering compromises with the Slave States to preserve the Nation at the expense of preserving a great evil. And, of course, as history went on to show, this is impossible. It’s a contradiction. And the ability to compromise is only to your credit if your opposite’s position has some merit and both sides give something up and both sides gain something. I suppose it could be argued that Clay’s compromises failed only the first test, but it beyond any doubt that Obama’s have failed both. And this is evidence of a larger trend that goes way beyond merely Obama, as I would include both Clintons, Reid, Bauchus, Nelson and possibly quite a few other Democrats, and the Party as a whole, in the following statements:

As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.

And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:

RONALD W. REAGAN.

It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.

The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.

Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!

See how that works?

The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.

For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.

She’s OPPOSED to that.

Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.

She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”

Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.

Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.

Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”

See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!

How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?

And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?

A few facts to consider:

1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.

2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.

Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?

Well gee…

I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:

1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care

2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes

3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements

4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection

5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy

And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?

Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!

And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.

Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!

(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)

I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…

Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?

Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!

Before there’s nothing Left!

Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.

Hot Coffee and Frivolous Lawsuits

I heard an interesting story this morning on NPR about an upcoming documentary called “Hot Coffee.” It documents the facts surrounding a certain “frivolous lawsuit” that I’m sure we’re all familiar with. I’m sure you “know” what I’m talking about: Some lady was driving along, spilled her coffee, got some burns, sued McDonalds and was awarded Millions in a case of “jackpot justice.” There’s only one problem with that:

IT’S ALL BULLSHIT

Some of the FACTS about the case include:

1) She was, in fact, a PASSENGER in a PARKED car.

2) She received THIRD DEGREE BURNS. (Would you put something in your mouth hot enough to cause third degree burns to your LEGS?!)

3) McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180 °F, which can cause  a third-degree burn in under seven seconds.

4)  From 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burned by thier coffee, and had settled claims for more than $500,000. (Remember: A big part of tort is that you (a) KNOW about the problem, and (b) DO NOTHING to fix it. This is TEXTBOOK, people!)

5) She was incapacitated and underwent medical treatment for TWO YEARS.

6) In the end, she did not see MILLIONS of dollars - less than $600,000 actually, roughly $160,000 of which was just her own medical expense.

And the following is a FACT, but one who’s importance and relevance is a matter of DEBATE; one for the COURT to decide. (And thus: NOT a point of frivolity):

7) [McDonald’s] handed someone a liquid, that they prepared to a temperature that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, in a container that was not strong enough, or with a lid steady enough, to contain it – the properties of which were specified by McDonalds. Think about that. Would YOU do that?! Not to someone you LIKED! (And remember: Better cup = More $$$!)

Now... I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I haven’t seen the film yet, and recommend that EVERYONE see this. And that you tell your friends about it. Because it brings up broader points about our society, and its system of justice, or the lack thereof. Let me ask you a question…

WHY does “everyone know” so much about this case that is complete bullshit? Why is everyone such an “expert” on this case despite mostly not knowing shit, and going almost entirely on misinformation?

Well… Do you remember that LIBERAL MEDIA we always hear about?

They’re the ones that origionally TOLD THE STORY. They're the one we were getting our fakts (not facts) from.  Sure, they didn’t come right out and SAY it was a “frivolous law suit.” But the fakts presented were done so entirely from McDonald’s point of view.

Hmmmmm….

Do you think that MIGHT have anything to do with the fact that for most of the past half-century, McDonalds was not only one of the largest corporations in the United States, but also one of the single largest sources of TELEVISION ADVIRTISING REVENUE? Think back to when you were a kid. How many times did you see Ronald McDonald on TV? (Mayor McCheese was always my favorite!) But hey: I’m sure the news media wasn’t being biased in their presentation of this story just because the it cast on of their corporate shareholder’s largest sources of income in a bad light. Don’t you agree?

Behold: Your LIBERAL media!

And this was almost a SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! This was 1994!

Do you know what DIDN’T exist in 1994?

The Fox News Channel, the Tea Party, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush, a Republican Majority in the House, Glenn Beck’s radio program, Sean Hannity’s radio program, Ann Coulter’s bi-weekly column…

Yeah, I’m sure that our media hasn’t leaned any farther to the Right since 1994!

The bigger picture here is that when we complain about these so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” we are in fact promoting corporatism, taking the corporation’s side and voluntarily, even enthusiastically sacrificing our rights. Try reading the fine print on your phone bill or credit card statement some time. Do you see that little bit about “binding arbitration?” Do you know what this means?

It means that if you have any dispute with that company, you agree to binding arbitration where:

1) They pick the venue for the court.

2) They pick the judge.

3) They PAY for the judge.

4) The Judge is not required to provide ANY rational for his ruling. (!!!)

5) YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OR RIGHT TO APPEAL.

And we sign more and more of this kind of fascist bullshit EVERY SINGLE DAY.

But hey, why should we complain? I mean: It’s not like you HAVE to have a cell phone. Or a credit card.

…or access to the internet.

…or the ability to buy a plane ticket.

…or the ability to rent a car.

…or the ability to build a credit history.

Yeah. That seems like a reasonable trade off: They make a profit. I have no power if they screw me. (Which, of course, NEVER HAPPENS!) And if I exercise my rights to OPT-OUT of having my rights taken away from me…?

I LOSE THAT MANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS!

And there is simply NO GOOD REASON we need to make that tradeoff!

It time to WAKE UP, America! The next time the media tells you about a “frivolous law suit?” Check to see if it’s against one of their sponsors. Whether or not it’s frivolous is a matter for the COURTS TO DECIDE. And plenty of these just get thrown out. Every day. It is not a matter for the media to decide and to use to influence public opinion on Tort Reform…

…which is just another Right Wing Code Word for taking away more of your rights as people in the name of protecting Corporations from having to PLAY BY THE RULES and OBEY THE LAW.

And remember, WHERE did I hear about this? On NPR: A PUBLIC station that does not rely on corporate sponsorship! Think about THAT the next time some Jack-Hole sends you another Right-Wing e-mail that begins, “Here’s a story the cowards in the main-stream media won’t tell you!” The only stories left untold are the ones the corporate owners and corporate sponsors don’t want you hear, or form your own opinion about.

So here’s a new rule: THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT.

Such judgments are entirely matters for the COURT to decide for themselves.

WHICH IS WHY WE FUCKING HAVE THEM!!!

So I was reading Cracked earlier and I saw this ad (just an ad, not one of Cracked's things):

 

And so I clicked it (as you should ALWAYS do when some bullshit ad pops up on a site you like, thereby taking say... some crack-pot's money and redistributing it to a common-sense blogger.) (Hint, hint.)  And the ad linked this THIS SITE.  I just perusde it, I didn't read much of it, and I couldn't help but wonder...

WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEING "DEBATED"?

WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS DEFENDING WARRANTLESS WIRE-TAPS?!

Now... BELIEVE ME... I'm as disappointed as the next guy (probably ClassicLiberal) that President Obama did not immediately, and has not yet, disabled and dismantled all of these illegal Bush-Era practices.  (Like the MURDER LIST? Yeah... Come on Barry, WTF RU waiting for?!)

And I, like many Liberals, am certainly not above critical discussion of President Obama. But I cannot STAND it when he's criticised for continuing Bush-era policies by the same RW Fools that HEER-LEAD the SAME POLICIES when Bush was in office, while REAL Civil Libertarians were voicing their concerns and were ridiculed BY THESE SAME PEOPLE for it!

The list of hypocrisy and projection on the part oft he Right grows and grows, and this is actually two more examples in one: First - They complain Obama doing what Bush did... And criticised us fro complaining about it under Bush!  Second - They keep saying we don't criticize Obama.  That he's our "Messiah" or that anyone who criticise him will be called a racist.  Um... No. That's a lot of shit that the Right just MADE UP.  And it's obvious from how these things always play out, that THEY are the ones who can't stand to see their leaders criticized.

How much more obvious can that be when the criticize Obama for doing the very things THEY INVENTED?!

Oh yeah... And speaking of Cracked, here's another great article.  There "liberal bias" (read penchant for living in reality) is less subtle with this one.  The article's great, and some of the comments are even better. (Look for mine: 'EddieCabot'!)

Glenn Beck meets Donald Duck

OMG! Have you seen this yet?


Funny as hell.  Captures the spirit and message of that hypocritical, lying snake PERFECTLY, not to mention the double-speak!  The gap between rich and poor keeps growng, so vote REPUBLICAN?! 

That he is both (1) somewhat popular and (2) still a net positive for the GOP, is proof of just how stupid this country has become.  Listening to this, I've decided that Glenn Beck is NOT crazy, and NOT stupid.  He's a very, VERY EVIL MAN.  And I never would have thought I'd have underestimated that quality in one of these Right -Wingers.  But he is, and I did.  He's an damned evil genius!  He rubs people faces in everything the Right-wing has done to them, and yet somehow convinces then it's all the LEET's fault! (And they you should give him money!) It abso-fucking-lutely BRILLIANT!

For more like this, check out http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/.

And if you haven't given me your two cents yet, here's my paypal address... no, just kidding! LOL If  you haven't given me your two cents yet, please be sure to comment on my Question for y'all post.  I've got about 3/4 of the overall plot roughly outlined, but I still want to know how "real" (or how fictional)  this 'real world' shoudl be. Thanks!

Civics for Dummies (or: The Constitution for Conservatives)

You’ve got to give credit where it’s due: Conservative TALK a really good game when it comes the Constitution. Unfortunately between their talk of “Liberal Activist Judges” and “restoring the congress to their Constitutional limitations” their blind ignorance and/or blatant hypocrisy because self-apparent when one considers the propensity of the Roberts Court to completely ignore precedent whenever it suits them, the way the Bush Administration rode rough shod over almost every part of the Bill of Rights, and John Boehner’s latest pet project to reform, amend or repeal the 14th amendment. This after the Bush administration wanted the AMMEND the Constitution to ban gay marriage, thus stifling any possibly of common sense winning out in court. (As it has just thhis past week in California.) In any case, one thing that’s become abundantly clear to is that there is nothing CONSERVATIVE about the Conservatives any more. Altering the Constitution is, by definition, inherently a RADICAL ACT. Particularly to do so in a way that effects a Legal AGENDA, rather than in a way that merely describes how laws are made.

Now… I’ve READ the Constitution. And I’m always struck by just how inherently LIBERAL a document it really is, even today; let alone almost 250 years ago when it was intended to replace a Monarchy that still held executive power. So whenever these Right Wingers talk about how “Liberals hate the country” or how “Liberals are destroying the Constitution” I’m reminded that it’s probably a good idea for more people to know what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS. Because it has become increasingly clear that the Conservatives apparently think it says something else. So I thought I’d go through each one of the 27 amendments (yes, JUST the ammendments) and compare what is actually says, to what it would NEED TO SAY in order for almost any part of the Republican, Right-Wing, “Conservative” agenda to appear Constitutional.

Now… This IS a bit long, but I recommend you read it anyway. And no, not just because I took the time to write it! LOL. Rather, because I think it is critically important that every American understands their rights, understands the actual limitations put on our Government, and to see first hand what the “Conservative Paradise” would actually look like in contrast. Because we’re going there. This piece is tongue-in-cheek, but it remains my sole, critical voting issue. So it’s one that I am deadly serious about.


Actual First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Conservative First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity; or abridging the freedom of corporate speech, or of the conservative press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, heavily armed, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Actual Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Conservative Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be regulated in any way whatsoever, at all.


Actual Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Conservative Third Amendment:

Support the troops!


Actual Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Conservative Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless said persons have been accused of being under suspicion of something, in which case, their conversations and electronic correspondence can be intercepted and read with impunity by agents of the executive branch.


Actual Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Conservative Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, unless they are accused of a crime related to terrorism; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, unless they are a terrorist and will be set free; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless they might know something about terrorism; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Actual Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Conservative Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense, unless the defendant has been accused of a crime related to terrorism. In such a case, all provisions of this ammendment are forfeit to the state.


Actual Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Conservative Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law, unless these original findings of fact were in contradiction with the State’s established Christian beliefs.


Actual Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Conservative Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except in cases related to terrorism.


Actual Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conservative Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, except as required by a strictly literal interpretation of the King James Bible.


Actual Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Conservative Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, provided the State agrees with the teachings of the Christian Church or to the people who would otherwise support our Christian values.


Actual Eleventh Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Conservative Eleventh Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State, unless the judge rules in a way that goes against our Conservative Christian values.


Actual Twelfth Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

Conservative Twelfth Amendment:

If the vote is anywhere near in doubt, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide the election.


Actual Thirteenth Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Conservative Thirteenth Amendment:

Slavery and involuntary servitude, including as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Actual Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void

Conservative Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, unless they are the offspring off one or more illegal immigrants. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, unless they are illegal or accused of terrorism related crimes.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Immigrants and Liberals. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in an effort to challenge the established, conservative dogma, or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies of the Conservative agenda. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability, assuming the reformed Liberal now accepts Jesus as their savior..

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned when the Republicans control the Congress, or a Republican is the President. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of a Liberal Cause or rebellion against the Conservative position, or any claim of fair compensation for a honest day’s work; but all such debts, obligations on the parts of Corporations and claims brought against said Corporations shall be held illegal and void.


Actual Fifteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Conservative Fifteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote may be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Supreme Court shall have power to decide any election in which a recount may otherwise be required, or challenges based on disenfranchisement are made.


Actual Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Conservative Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have very limited power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, and the proportion collected from any person must never increase under any circumstances.


Actual Seventeenth Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Conservative Seventeenth Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, unless a Republican has lost by a close margin, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive there of to make temporary appointments if he is a Republican, or allow the people fill the vacancies by election if he is a Democrat.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution, unless we can come up with a reason to get rid of the lousy Democrats.

(Cheap shot alert! OK, before anyone points it out to me, YES, I am fully aware that the Democratic State Legslature in Massachesstets basically did EXACTLY waht I descibed in the 2nd paragraph. I did consider leaving it as it was, but I changed my mind. Sue me.) ;P

Actual Eighteenth Amendment:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Conservative Eighteenth Amendment:

[SELECT ALL], [COPY], [PASTE]… Hey, don’t forget: Conservatives WROTE the Eighteenth Amendment!


Actual Nineteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Conservative Nineteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Only race, sexuality and being economically underprivileged are valid reasons to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote.


Actual Twentieth Amendment:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Conservative Twentieth Amendment:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, but the responsibility for any problems facing this country become the incoming President’s, effective upon his election on the send Thursday in November. The terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin, excepting any Democrats whose terms can be held up in court battles.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day, however under no circumstances can we allow any part of Democratic legislation to EVER come to a vote!

[Remainder unchanged.]


Actual Twenty-First Amendment:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed:

[The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.]


Conservative Twenty-First Amendment:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby extended to included all recreation intoxicants as well as gay marriage.

However, the transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby allowed once again.


Actual Twenty-Second Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Conservative Twenty-Second Amendment:

No Democrat shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no Democrat who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any Republican holding the office of President.


Actual Twenty-Third Amendment:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Conservtaive Twenty-Third Amendment:

WTF?! Why did we ever agree to this?! These assholes were only ones who voted for BOTH McGovern AND Mondale!!! What the hell is wrong with these people?!


Actual Twenty-Fourth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Conservative Twenty-Fourth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State provided that they can pay any poll tax or other tax.


Actual Twenty-Fifth Amendment:

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Conservative Twenty-Fifth Amendment:

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death, resignation, or having been found in bed with an intern, the Vice President shall become President.

(Remainder unchanged)


Actual Twenty Sixth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

(Ed.Note: Actually this is already pretty goofy the way it is. Read it carefully… It’s like saying, “Other than Blacks, no person shall not be denied their right o vote on account of race." Just sayin’!)

Conservative Twenty Sixth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Per the 19th Amendment: Only race sexuality and being economically underprivileged are valid reason to denied or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote.


Actual Twenty Seventh Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Conservative Twenty Seventh Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened… Because that great fiscal conservative, and crusader against fat government paychecks, John Boehner, has got our backs!


If you're still reading, I admire your stamina!  Now that you see what's at stake, lets start TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!

More on (moron) Political Schools of thought...

In my last post, in addition to lamenting the decaying state of political discourse (in-box politics, bumper-sticker politics and beagle politics), I also tried to make the case that the hard-Right Wing has co-opted the word “conservative” to mean what “right-wing radical” used to, and sufficiently demonized the word “liberal” to the point where most people would rather be set on fire than be labeled one.  In other words, they’ve pulled the whole not notion of Left, Center and Right… to the Right. WAY to the right. I’ve argued this before, but something came to me recently that got me thinking…

There are a couple bits of revisionist history that have become rather fashionable for the Right lately. (And let's face it: After the eight year cavalcade of failure that was the George W. Bush administration, some revisionist history is deperately needed by them!)  The first is that George W. Bush wasn’t really a Conservative at all! Apparently the fact that he had huge deficits and huge federal budgets somehow makes him a liberal. And somehow if he were only MORE like Ronald Regan everything would have worked out. The problem with that? Bush was decidedly MORE Conservative that Reagan in just about every way imaginable. Reagan cuts taxes, Bush cut them MORE. And Regan eventually raised some taxes (six times in eight years, in fact) while Bush never did. Reagan waged a Cold War, while Bush waged a decidedly hot war - two, in fact; which for the first six years of his administration accounts for the bulk of his increased spending. Forget detent: he went for Regime Change!  And while both had huge deficits, the only budget cutting Bush did was to the budgets of federal regulatory agencies. (That worked out really well, huh?) What's more, Reagan practically INVENTED the culture of deficit spending, but that's outside the scope of this post.  And finally while Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor - a famous swing-vote - to the Supreme Court, Bush replaced her with Samuel Alito, a hard-Right Wing Reactionary. So seriously folks, don’t make me laugh: Bush’43 was not only to the Right of Reagan and Bush’41, he was WELL to the Right of them.

And with that in mind, I have to ask:

How far to the Right does one need to be for George W. Bush to look like a Lefty?

I mean… where the hell do you put the center if George W. Bush is supposed to be a liberal?

But the other thing we hear a lot lately, especially with all this “Obama is a Nazi” bullshit going around, is that HITLER was really a Liberal, or a Leftist. Now… as absurd as it is call BUSH’43 a liberal, where the fuck can one get that idea about ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER?! OK… to be fair, there is SOME evidence for it, assuming that you look at it VERY simplistically; almost stupidly, really.

First – The Nazi’s were originally called the “National Socialist Party.” So there’s that word, “Socialist.” That means liberal, right? Well, no, not at all really. (Morons.) But even putting that aside, in the 1930’s, “Socialist” wasn’t quite the epithet that it is now. Back then, it was the kind of label (like, “Conservative” today) that could actually be adopted as a selling point. But in many cases, it really meant absolutely nothing at all. It was just marketing ploy. There was nothing “Socialist” about them. It’s no more meaningful than when Kim Jong Ill calls his country the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.” (Or how Communist East Germany was called the “Democratic Republic of Germany.”) There’s nothing Democratic about ‘em, and there was nothing Socialist about the Nazi’s. It’s a LABEL and nothing more.

Second – It’s been argued that you can’t really place Fascism on a Left-Right spectrum. And that’s sort of true, if you put Communism on the far Left and Capitalism on the Right, since Fascism actually rejects BOTH. Now… to the Righties in this country, with their binary mode of thinking, any rejection of Capitalism MUST therefore be an full embrace of Communism, thus Fascism = Communism. Now… 20 Million dead Russians, felled by Nazi Bullets in WWII might argue otherwise, but… there dead. So I’ll have to.

Here’s why that particular Right-Left analogy is flawed, putting aside the fact that Fascists generally HATE liberals, HATE minorities, HATE dissent, HATE Academia, Intellectualism, etc… While Communism can be viewed as both a Political System and an Economic System, CAPITALISM can not be. Capitalism is primarily ONLY an Economic System. And likewise, Fascism can also not be: It’s not an Economic System at all. It goes so far as to reject economics as the primary driver of human behavior – an idea that lies at the heart of both Communism and Capitalism. It’s purely a Political system. So when we’re talking about ECONOMIC systems, you can certainly put Communism / Socialism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right, while Fascism doesn’t really fit in ANYWHERE. (And “Capitalism” itself can vary in its own level of regulation as well, and yet still remain on the Right!) But, if we’re limiting ourselves to discussion Political Systems, Communism ends up on the far left, Liberal Democracy lies near the Center and Fascism represents the Right. The FAR Right, fine, but if you can accept that, I have to ask…

…How far to the Right do you need to be to look to your Left and see Adolph Hitler?

(I’m looking at YOU, Glenn Beck!)

Helen Thomas, Conservtaives and Israel

Helen Thomas announced her retirement earlier this week amidst some controversy over some remarks she made back in May saying that the Jews [Israeli’s?] should “Get the hell out of Palestine.” Not the most diplomatic way to put it, admittedly. She went on to say they should, “Go home” to “Germany [and] Poland.”

Now Thomas has had a long distinguished career. She’s 89 years old – by itself almost reason enough to retire, though presumably she enjoyed what she was doing. She’s always been known for a rather sharp tongue – which is why I will miss her, as she was not afraid to hold either party account able for their vices – so it’s not all that surprising that in saying something about a subject as controversial as Israel, she was probably bound to raise a few eyebrows. But there are two specific aspects of this whole mess that particularly bother me. I’d like to say my bit about them, but then also take a step back and look at what else might be going here, in a less partisan way.

The first, and most obvious problem, is the hypocrisy being shown by these so-called Zionists on the Right. How many times have were heard these same people complain about the Jews in Hollywood, the Jews on Wall Street, the Jews in the White House Cabinet, the Jews on the Supreme Court, the Jews in the ACLU, the Jews in Labor Department… It seems the only Jews these people DON’T have a problem with are the ones in Israel and Palestine! And beyond just anti-Semitic comments that are routinely thrown towards any Jews that are not actively shooting at Palestinians, how many voices on the right get away with ten times that level of bigotry – towards gays, blacks, Muslims, liberals, atheists – EVERY SINGLE DAY, and yet if anyone called for THEIR retirement? If anyone suggested that Rush Limbaugh, or Mike Savage, or Ann Coulter, or Pat Buchanan should step down over the hateful, bigoted, racist and homophobic rhetoric that they spew on a DAILY BASIS, you’d be laughed off the stage!

WHY? Why is it OK for Conservatives to trash every racial, religious, political and societal sub-group under the sun – including JEWS - but if a Liberal with a distinguished career, who’s had awards named after her, says ONE THING against Israel she has to retire?

That’s patently absurd. It’s completely idiotic! Which brings me to my second point…

Which is that: SHE HAD A POINT!

Now don’t get me wrong. At this point in history, any objective observer is forced to conclude that both the Israeli’s and the Palestinians have BOTH committed so many atrocities that each has lost their claim to the moral high ground years ago; DECADES ago. So it’s not as simple as “Tell ‘em to get the hell out of Palestine.” BUT… That would certainly go a long way towards resolving the immediate conflict. right or wrong, there’s no denying that. And I don’t see any reason why an American Citizen does not have the right to side with the Palestinians, considering the History of the region. I DON’T. And I don’t necessarily AGREE with Thomas’ statement. But she still had a point, and she still has the right to express her opinion. Outrage over her comments by the Right, IMHO, identify them as nothing more than hypocrites who love Israel, but hate (or at least have been shown to be perfectly willing to say disparaging things about) Jews.

And as for the idea that the remarks were insensitive because of the holocaust? Because they suggested that Jews go back to the countries that persecuted them? People: the holocaust ended over SIXTY YEARS AGO! The Nazi party has been OUTLAWED in Germany! And while I don’t think it’s the business of an American Journalist to tell ANYONE where to live, I don’t buy the holocaust reasoning because nothing would finally heal that wound, once and for all, like German and Polish Jews returning to their TRUE homeland, and those countries welcoming them back! Again, I’m not telling ANYONE where to live, but what better way to destroy the last remnants of Hitler’s legacy than for a couple million formerly German Jews to return to Germany, and reclaim the GERMAN heritage? It’s not as simple as that, I realize, but what a SYMBOLIC and SPIRITUAL victory that would be!

OK. Let me get off the topic of Right Wing Hypocrisy, and ignore Zionism completely and touch on one aspect of this that is actually a bit more sympathetic to her critics. A while back I had written a few harsh pieces that were critical of White, American Christians. And my post prompted one of my once regular commenters [Duta] to ask me why I hated my own race so much. Now… obviously I don’t hate white people. I’m white, my wife is white, my kids a white, and even within my relatively diverse community and office, pretty much all of my close friends are White. But there’s a reason that I’m proudly a member of what Sean Hannity calls the “Blame America First” crowd: Your own behavior is the only behavior you can control, and it’s the easiest to fix. Looking inward, examining how your own behavior contributes to the problems you face is a sign of enlightenment. A sign of humility. Having the automatic impulse to blame the other guys for all your problems? That’s a sign of nothing more than bigotry.

Helen Thomas is not a Jew. She’s of Lebanese descent. So while it’s not surprising that she’d be inclined to support the Palestinian position, it’s hardly something that should be automatically viewed as a principled stance. If Joe Lieberman had made the same comments? (Not that he would, but if he did…) he’d be far more likely to get a pass. Since he’s Jewish, his criticism of Israel is easier to accept as principled criticism, while his comments on the Palestinians are much easier to dismiss as bigotry. Likewise, Thomas was in a unique position to condemn some of the Palestinian tactics, and be taken very seriously – because she’s closer to that side! And it is exactly this lack of introspection, of basic self-awareness that so many on the Right utterly lack. Blaming America first does not mean failing to recognize that our enemies have committed heinous atrocities. It’s just making sure that WE DON’T and that we don’t fail to acknowledge it when we do. It would be like calling Dr. Bill Cosby a racist for criticizing the Black community. Does Dr. Cosby hate blacks? No, of course not. But he’s showing that he principled enough to take his own community to task for its problems. Now... if any WHITE PEOPLE who want to jump on that bandwagon? You’d better make DAMN SURE your own house is clean before you do!

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m well aware that in the eyes of the Zionist Conservative, Israel can do no wrong and Conservatives can do no wrong, and they’ll use any excuse available to take down ANY liberal, let alone one as well-respected as Thomas. It’s a shame that it happened, and I don’t think it should have.  I just believe I looking at these things from many different points of view, and I think I've fullfilled that principle in this case.

And hey… she’s still 89 years old.

So whatever else might happen, I wish Ms. Thomas a happy retirement. I sincerely hope she enjoys it! In the words of Master Yoda, “Earned it, [she] has.”

Taking it Down, point by point

I mentioned a few posts back that I found this highly offensive piece of RW garbage on an autism discussion blog.  It has little to do with autism,well... nothing really.  Which is about all it has to do with REALITY.  So while most of you will be in the choir for the following bit of preaching, just in case there are any conservatives who stumble by, I'd like to show that we can, in fact, "defend [our views] by reasoning and logic when challenged."  It is in fact the person that WROTE this who has a mental disorder, and I'm not talking about his (supposed)  Aspberger's Syndrome.  More like leprosy of the brain.  I'm going to go just about line by line here, just for fun.  Maybe I can get some of the fools to stop taking for granted everything Fox and Limbaugh tell them. Maybe get them to question some of those "sacred dogmatic assumptions" I was talking about in my last post.

After reading a recent article posted on Autisable titled "Asperger's = Atheist?", it also made me wonder if liberalism in general is a mental disorder that can be found on the autism spectrum.

First problem: ATHEISM does not equal LIBERALISM.  (Chris Hitchens, for example, is no liberal!) Second problem: There is no school of political thought of philosophy which is a "mental disorder," either on the spectrum or otherwise. Maybe you should try actually examining something BEFORE you judge it. 

By liberals, I don't necessarily mean people who simply vote Democrat. Rather, I'm referring to leftists who have really lewd, extreme, off-the-wall beliefs.

Oh, this should be good.  Remember now: LEWD, LEWD (!), off the wall beliefs!

For example, people who worship Obama like he's their God despite the fact that everything he has done in his 1 1/2 years as president has been a failure, as if they are proud that the failures have taken place (not to mention their only argument supporting him is that anyone who disagrees with him is a 'racist').

Turn off the AM radio for five minutes, and open your mind for some strait talk. First off all: NO ONE worships Obama like a God.  That's RW nonsense, fabricated because we don't accept their predisposition to automatically judge him badly over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.  Treating someone fairly is NOT "worshiping them" in the case of someone we judge well in the end, nor is it "HATE" in the case of someone that we judge poorly, like YOU or whomever you got this email from.  Second: WHAT failure?  Seriously.  The economy's improving, the Dow's up, The War is going better than ever, more people will have health care,  banks will be better regulated... WHAT FAILURE?!  The only "failures" are the unnecessary concessions he's made to the REPUBLICANS. Finally: Almost no one is baselessly calling you lot "racists."  That's another RW lie.  I've got ten people acting like the victim for every actual accusation.  It's nonsense.  You want to know why we might think you're a racist?  Because you think the president is a failure without ever being able to give and example of an actual failure! So... what SHOULD we conclude exactly?  Give us another reason, and we'll gladly debate you on that level.

Then there's the people who believe that it's unjust for companies to grow too large or for people to become too enriched, yet they have no problem with a super large federal government and 90% income tax rates.

NOBODY believe this. PERIOD.  NO ONE.  A company becoming "too large" means that if they fail, they could take down the whole economy, or have to be bailed out by tax payers. And NO ONE (Lib's OR Con's) likes doing THAT.  It's not about being JUST, it's about managing risk, and the conservatives are largely on board with that now, they just don't want to let OBAMA sign the law.  So to prevent him from getting credit for fixing the mess, congressional republicans are acting like babies and risking another meltdown.  Also - no one HAS EVER proposed 90% tax rates.  That's a pure, baldfaced, unadulterated LIE. (And/or you don't know how a progressive taxation system actually works.)  I'm not going to explain it all here, but even when we had a TOP TIER income tax rate of 90% (back in the 1940's and 50's) NO ONE was shelling out 90% of their income to the gov't.  Only 90% of their income OVER THE AMOUNT WHERE THAT RATE KICKS IN.  Their effective rate was not much higher than anyone else's, since we all pay the samey rate of the first X dollars we all make, rich or poor.  And in any case, NO ONE is proposing bringing that top tier rate back. NO ONE.  If you heard we were, who ever told you that IS A LIAR. PERIOD.

Then there are the ones who claim the handful of sex scandal cases in the Catholic Church are an abomination and that the practice of Christianity should be limited because of it's "discriminatory" practice, like not legalizing gay marriage and abortion. However, they don't seem to have a problem with Muslims blowing up buildings, terrorizing towns and other countries, beating and killing women that don't cover themselves in public or sin against Allah, and stoning anyone perceived to be a homosexual even by an iota to death.

More utter nonsense.  We "hate" Islam every bit as much as we "hate" Christianity.  Which is to say, that we don't hate either, but we will also treat neither as "sacred" and will  hold BOTH accountable for their misgivings.You vastly overestimate the threat of terrorism, relative to our RESPONSE to it, and as far as those poor towns and villages go? Hey - we don't like religious dictatorships over there anymore than we do over here.  But the answer is to separate church and state, not to create a Christian theocracy over here to balance out the Muslim caliphate over there!  Other than the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter I'll never understand where you people get the idea that we all LOVE ISLAM.  How does not wanting people killed, blown up and tortured, FOR NO REASON, AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS constitute "love" or "support"?  I mean: THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ATTACKING THEM FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT?  How on earth do you justify do all the same things that you are using to show how bad they are?!  Bigotry justified by religion is NEVER acceptable.  It's wrong when THEY do it,m and it wrong when YOU do it.  The difference? You're HERE.  You're IN THIS COUNTRY and INFLUENCING THIS COUNTRY'S LAWS.  They're not.  So you DO pose a great threat to our freedom than they do. Because YOU have power here and they don't.  So sue me for not granting you unlimited power.

 There's other things, such as their belief that humans are equivalent to other animals, yet they are the ones who somehow are capable of destroying the earth, as if the earth is fragile; and how they believe illegal aliens and terrorists should have more rights in this country than even actual citizens.

I'm not even sure what the first line means.  Are you talking about animal rigths activists?  Or people who try to protect endangered species?  If so: What gives you the right to inflict pain on, or commit genocide on, an animal? I'm not exactly an animal rights activist myself (I eat the meat & wear the leather, baby!) but I'd LOVE to hear you're justification for driving a species to extinction just so we can cut down a few more trees.  As for the illegal aliens and terrorists?  No one is proposing giving them MORE RIGHTS than citizens.  That's BALONEY.  At best, we'd treat them as EQUALS.  And the REASON for this is one that you conservatives should be able to appreciate: We don't trust the government! Yes, you read that right,. We don't want to give the gov't the authority to torture, or detain without process or performer unreasonable searches and siezures because once you give them authority they will inevitably abuse it.  THAT'S why we want ALL people treated as well as Americans: The preamble says "inalienable HUMAN rights" not "inalien, AMERICAN rights."

As someone with aspergers, I would not correlate a relationship between aspergers and liberalism.

That's generous, seeing as how you haven't presented a shred of evidence of that.

 Rather, I would classify liberalism as its own unique mental disorder.

Wow, how profound, considering how you haven't presented a shred of evidence of that!  (You've only proven that you do not, in fact, understand ANY of the positions liberals actually hold!) And as I said in the beginning, why don't you try examining and understanding something first, BEFORE you judge it or classify it.

 Not many people consider liberalism to be an actual mental disorder because it's never classified or analyzed as such in our wonderful educational institutions.

Yeah... that's because our "wonderful educational institutions" insist on pesky things like FACTS and EVIDENCE to back up a theory, before reaching any conclusions.

 It baffles me though how liberals will not only dissent from common sense, but will hold anyone who disagrees with their crazy world views in high contempt.

No.  This is not what you really mean.  What you meant to say was, "It baffles me though how liberals will not only dissent for the sacred dogmatic assumptions that we hold dear, but will hold anyone who holds these dogmatic assumptions to be sacred in high contempt."  Now... if you'd said it THAT WAY, you'd be right.  You see... "Common sense" as you put, requires you to buy into to all that sacred dogma that you never really think about; never really examine.  If you'd take the time to do so objectively? You'll find that rather a lot of it doens't make any sense at all, and that which does requires you to see it only from a single point of view.  And if you feel you're being abused, maybe we're just getting back for the ~20 years of abuse we've suffered at the dishonest hands of Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, etc... and the kind of people who WRITE trash like this!

Okay, any group of people is going to argue in favor of their beliefs because everyone has their own beliefs and is entitled to them, but try to argue with liberals on why they think and believe what they think and believe.

You haven't DONE this.  Your distorted presentation of our so-called "positions" and "beliefs" is proof positive that you've NEVER spoken to any actual liberals.  You're just going with the distorted view of liberalism that the arch conservatives and hard-core right wing have given you.  It does not resemble any REAL LIBERALS at all!

 If you ask them, for example, what has Obama done that has helped America or why marxism is an ideal philosophy to follow.

What an absurd question!  OBAMA IS NOT A MARXIST.  We wouldn't even HAVE an answer, because most liberals aren't MARXISTS either!  You're asking us to defend something WE DON'T BELIEVE!  (How and Why would we DO THAT?!) What's more Obama's,  done PLENTY to help America.  (He cut YOUR TAXES, for example!) The economy has gotten better. Our standing in the world has improved.  He could do a lot more, but for some reason he insists on listening to YOU PEOPLE, who have no idea what YOU'RE talking about, and no idea what HE'S really talking about either!)

They may present reasons for these questions, but they are house-of-cards arguments at best.

Or they may not... Seeing as how that's not our position.  We can't defend words that you put into our mouths, and we don't intend to.

When you try to present facts to knock down the house-of-cards to get them to provide more convincing answers, they don't answer those questions.

Again, when you're asking us to defend a philosophy that is not ours, and all you;re really trying to do is trap us in some sort of "GOTCHA!" moment, no reasonable person should be surprised that you'll leave the conversation unsatisfied.  Again: Drop these dogmatic assumptions, like "We're all marxists" and try LISTENING.  You'll find out at least that you're wrong about what liberals think.  On a good day, you might actually learn how wrong conservatives are about MOST THINGS.  (And I'd LOVE to hear some of your "facts."  Becasue I haven't heard a single one yet!)

In fact, they try to dodge the question and bring up some stupid irrelevant comment.

Like, oh, I don't know... "That's a straw-man!" for example?

For example, you want to know from a liberal why Obama is such a great president who is good for America.

OK, fair question...

 You even go as far as pointing out facts such as how every policy Obama has created has further damaged the country by continuously running up the deficit, imposing draconian regulations that are meant to punish businesses for being successful and benefit only the federal government, has hurt our relations overseas with our allies, and has considerably weakened our national security.

LOL! ROTFLMAO!  Yeah.. REAL objective.  So... we're supposed to buy into all those assumptions, concede EVERY POINT,  and THEN tell you why we like Obama?!  HAHAHA! That's HILARIOUS!  How about: WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR PISS-POOR ASSESSMENT OF THINGS, for a start.  How about: Your judgement is completely and utterly divorced from reality?  (Or completely hypocritical, in relation to the Deficit.)

You desperately want to know what Obama has done that is so good for this country because the other side, who supports him, must have an answer that is reasonable, right? Wrong! All you're going to get is some verbiage like "Bush is a warmonger and and you're a racist if you don't support Obama!"

I'll say this unequivocally.  If you get that for an answer... If you REALLY get that for an answer... You're not talking to a liberal, you're talking to an IDIOT.  On the other hand, if you ask the question the way you did above, and you can't have a reasonable discussion assessing those various judgements... then YOU'RE an idiot!

 This isn't just psychobabble coming from stoned college kids who upkeep blogs on the Internet either; you hear this kind of nonsense from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC news anchor Chris Matthews.

Neither of those people has ever said anything like that in response to a question like the one you asked.  I'm flat out calling BULLSHIT on that.  Neither one has EVER answered a question like the one you asked, with an answer like the one you gave.  You're full of shit.  You're lying.  BTW... you may not realize this, but Chris Mathews is no liberal. Don;t believe me? The VERY LIBERAL Media Matters for America named him [conservative] "Misinformer of the Year" in 2005.  Again: Let's put down these sacred dogmatic assumptions for a moment, and try looking at the actual EVIDENCE for a change.  It takes work, I know, but you just might learn a  thing or two and come away a wiser person.

The biggest problem is this mental disorder has plagued our educational institutions and our media.

Again - you haven't demonstrated that it's a mental disorder.  All you've shown is that you are in serious need of more accurate information.  THAT'S the jobs of our schools and media. Informing you. Not dispensing RW propaganda like this crap.  BTW... the media? NOT LIBERAL.  That's just more trash from people that are so far to the Right of REALITY that any remotely objective analysis looks like moon-bat propaganda to them.  The FACT is that the media consistently and predictably leans conservative.  And that's ALL of the media.  Note: MSNBC gives a daily show to former Republican House Representative and proud conservative, Joe Scarborough.  No other station gives ANY regular shows to liberals. PERIOD. NONE.  The myth of liberal media bias is just one more of those "sacred dogmatic assumptions" that you've accepted without any critical evaluation.  It does not stand up to scrutiny.  At all.

Kids are taught daily that America has been the most vile and corrupt country in the history of the world, Christianity should be shunned because Christians are fascists (while Islam is nothing more than a religion of peace), the earth is fragile and humans have been destroying it for the past three generations, capitalism is evil because people become rich and greedy, people who are for securing our borders are racists and should be fined and arrested (as opposed to people who actually enter this country illegally), using corn to fuel cars is an adequate substitute to oil despite the rise in food prices, and sex should be a daily activity encouraged in school by the distribution of condoms.

What the fuck school did YOU go to?!  No one is being taught anything like this!  America is taught OBJECTIVELY.  We've done great good, and we've committed great evil.  Considering that we were one of the last countries to finally abolish slavery, and it took a civil war to do it, I'd say that qualifies us as IMPERFECT.  Nothing regarding the virtue or flaws of Christians OR Muslims is tough in any public school. PERIOD. To do so would be a violation of your first amendment rights, and liberals wouldn't have it any other way.  If your school is teaching you that ANY religion is inherently good or ANY religion is inherently evil - SUE THEIR ASSES OFF.  Because that's against the law, and a violation of your civil rights. The earth is not fragile, and no one is being taught that. What is being taught is the FACT that it's ability to sustain life is.  And we're not "taught" that we're destroying it, we're being SHOWN EVIDENCE that we're destroying it.  There's a difference.  Actually, plenty of lliberals think ethanol from Corn is a mistake.  That's not AT ALL something that liberals support universally.  Your view on sex - apart form being the very first example of a "lewd" belief (a word you used in your opening salvo) - is again, no more than a distortion.  Keeping condoms from teenagers will NOT stop them from having sex.  Teenagers have been having sex long before the invention of latex.  We favor a frank, objective, well informed discussion, with actual facts so that you can make informed choices about sex, and we want condoms made available to anyone who DECIDES to have sex, to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy.  You mind telling me what's wrong with that?

So, this may have come off as a political speech, but I believe it is more than that.

Personally, I believe that it's LESS, but you're entitled to believe what you want.

 If a group of people have outlandish, extreme, radical views that they are unable to defend by reasoning and logic when challenged, then I do believe that said people have a mental disorder.

You've summed up perfectly how I feel about most conservatives; especially ones who write, believe and distribute collections of lies and distortions like this garbage.

Of course, I probably wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel it was a major issue.

Oh.. you've got some major issues all right.

Liberalism has plagued Europe and is plaguing America. The only end result is misery.

Yes, you started out with the assumption that it's a plague, and misery and a mental disorder.  But you present NO EVIDENCE to support that.  It's like I was supposed to agree with every bullshit lie you told and every bullshit assumption you made and in the end shrug my shoulders and say, "Yeah, you're right."  The only problem? YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY ADDRESS ANYTHING I (OR ANY LIBERAL) ACTUALLY BELIEVES!
All you did was start out by saying, "I can't believe you people actually believe this stuff!" and proceeded to rant about a bunch of stuff WE DON'T BELIEVE.  If anyone wants to show me why Obama is such a lousy President, by all means have at it.  The fact is, I've heard nothing but sharp, principled criticism of him from the left and nothing but outright lies and vile distortions like this crap from the Right.  If your party and/or philosophy had any value, GEORGE W. BUSH wouldn't have experienced eight years of failure in which he accomplished nothing and backslid on every single issue facing this country.

And if you don't believe me, I defy you to name ONE ISSUE that we made progress on during his tie in office.  I've issue that challenge before and no conservative has ever been able to answer it.  None even made an ATTEMPT.  So come on, let's hear it conservatives!  Tell me ONE SPECIFIC THING that Obama has done wrong, or ONE ISSUE that George W.  Bush made any progress on.

Gooooood luckwithat.