Occupy Reality, part two

I'm probably the last one to the party, but I'd like to say a few things about the good work that is being doing by the protesters up in New York (and many other places) that are taking part in the occupy Wall Street protest.  I support everything they're doing, everything they stand for, and the message they're bringing. It is high time the American People gave a collective FUCK YOU to the unimaginable levels of greed that have poisoned our national discourse, ruined our economy, screwed over the American worker and purchased (or rented, in the case of Democrats) our political leaders.

So good on them.

Of course...

If you watch the news, you probably wouldn't even know it was happening! (Sad though it may be, THAT article was the first I'd heard about it! And I listen to National Public Radio!)

And when they HAVE reported on this GENUINE, grass-roots, political phenomenon, what have they had to say?

Fox's Watters Degrades Wall Street Protests As "The Sludge" Of "Every Single Left-Wing Cause"



Fox's Guilfoyle: Wall Street Protesters Are "People With Absolutely No Purpose Or Focus In Life" There To Just "Dirty The Streets"

Limbaugh Calls Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Stupid," Says They're Being "Us[ed]"

Ann Coulter And Sean Hannity Lash Out At "Destructive" "Mob Mentality" Of Occupy Wall Street Protests

Kuhner: "Obama Has Unleashed Class Hatred And Racial Hostility"


Fox's Stephen Hayes On Occupy Wall Street: "This Is Not Going To Amount Of Any Kind Of A Serious Movement"

Limbaugh Derides Occupy Wall Street Protesters As "Pure, Genuine Parasites," Says Many Are "Bored Trust Fund Kids" ***do you know how many lawyers and political insiders this shit-stain's family has?! And he has the NERVE to call someone ELSE "trust fund parasite?!"

Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber"

Fox's Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Do Seem Like Petulant Little Children"

Fox's Crowley: Wall Street Protestors Are "Useful Idiots Who Probably Haven't Paid Much In Taxes Their Whole Life"



Now, to be fair, that's mostly Fox, but basically no one else has even made a STORY of it!  In response to Alan Colmes calling out Fox's double standard here, one poster though it was relevant to say that this was all being backed by GEORGE SOROS! (And old trick, to be sure, but a new one relative to THIS story!)

(And, of course, If George Soros WERE leading a Left-Wing Revolution in American politics? Shouldn't that at least qualify as a STORY?! Shouldn't MORE PEOPLE be talking about that?! So... Even were it TRUE, Colmes still has a point!)

My favorite was this one:


Fox's Doocy Quotes NY Post To Claim The "Number One Reason People Are Going" To Wall St. Protests Is "Free Food"

Now, I'm not posting all of these items, merely to pick on Fox. We've all know, for a looooong time, that they are kind of a "special needs" news channel, and so we can't expect them to get it right all the time. (Or ever.)  But there is an interesting patter here. Do you notice what every single one of these headlines (and moronic Internet comments) have in common?

They're all nothing but ad hominen attacks!

Under that Free-Food item,  poster donzostevens1082  (finally) pointed out:

Even if this "free food" nonsense were true, how does it invalidate a protest against vast and growing income disparity?

And the answer? Is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING!
Because that's what an ad hominen attack IS!

When you can't "win" on facts, evidence, logic, reason, principle...

When all else (including you're own intellect) FAILS...

ATTACK THE SPEAKER RELENTLESSLY!

Look at the above comments: "Idiots," "Sludge," "Parasites," "Mob mentality," (which sure is rich, coming from the Reich-wing!) "People with no Purpose," "Petulant Little Children..." Do ANY of these things address the POINTS that are being made? Oh, HELL no!  Why would Fox News want to make anyone aware of the MESSAGE and the POINTS that these people are making? 

Well, they might...

IF they had ANYTHING of substance to counter with.

I mean... MMFA pretty muich puts up ALL KNOIDS of things trhey Right says, EVERY SINGLE DAY.  And they do this because they KNOW they can prove them wrong!  You see, it's like I always say:

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG. WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.

And try they have - to paint these protesters as "commies" and "hippies" and any number of things OTHER than American's who have had ENOUGH of this crap!
And don't forget: This was the same network that described the Tea Party as "grass roots" - every chance they got, in their 24/7 coverage of them, on their national news service, from whence they organized protests and coordinated rallies... Yeah.. "grass roots." No corporate sponsors there, huh?  The trouble with the Right isn't WHAT they think, or even (as I once believed) HOW they think. The problem with the Right is that they're not even living in the SAME WORLD as the rest of us!  They're not actually living in the same REALITY any more. 

Think about "OBAMACARE."  Can anyone explain to me what that actually IS?!  I mean... they spand an awful lot of time harping on it, and yet NO ONE can explain to me how it is any different for mwhat we've had forever.  What IS this thing?  It is nothing more than a figment of the Rigth's imagination that the have convinced their followers EXISTS...

...The same way Obama is going to take all of our guns...
...or impliement Sharia law...
...of wants to tank the economy...
...or start a race war.

In what fucking plane of exsistance can any of this crap be taken seriously?!

Bottom line?

The ad hominen attack is the last refuge of the guy who's got nothin'.

Fox has got NOTHING. So?  Attack the speaker.  Sling mud.  Make people suspect him.  Make people HATE him...

...because you're basically BONED if anyone actually LISTENS to him!

Thank you, Fox. I accept your concession on all points.

Now... CAN WE PLEASE VOTE OUT ALL OF THE CORPORATE WHORES?!

I support David Lewis!!!

LOL. No, not really.

And again, having been out of circulation for awhile, I'm sure this clown is old news to y'all by now, but I HAVE to put my two cents in.  For anyone who doesn't know, David Lewis is (apparently?) throwing his hat into the ring as a primary challenger to Speaker John Boehner.  And if you want to laugh / cringe / feel sorry for a Conservative, you've got see to see this asshat's interview with Neil Cavuto - arguably one of the most sycophantic Conservative interviewers in the biz. Here's the link that I put up before. There are others. You can Google.

And the amazing thing to me was NOT this guy's absurd talking points.  I mean, yeah, Planned Parenthood are a bunch of Nazi Babykillers, blah... blah... I did choke on my tea a bit when he called John Boehner a Socialist... That was new.  Of course... if Speaker Boehner is a Socialist that only drives the last nail into the coffin of the word having any meaning at all, but it was interesting to see this guy go so far to the Right that even a Right Wing Bootlicker like Neil Cavuto felt compelled to make him look stupid...

...Which, as it turned out, wasn't all that hard.

Because, like I said, it was not so much about Right-Wing talking points that were too absurd for even Fox News.  It was more about the way he DELIVERED them!  Oh may God... Describing him as "cardboard" would insult the memories of the trees who gave their lives that we might have cardboard!  Do you see that dull, vacant expression he's wearing in that picture (if you followed the link)?  Yeah, I saw the interview when it aired and let me assure you, he wore that blank look the entire time.  And "stilted" doesn't even begin to describe this fool's speaking style (or speech impediment, I'm not sure which.) It was like watching someone, who didn't actually speak English, read words - and even pronounce them correctly - having no idea that they were meant to link together and form sentences. The man's words were so disjointed, Cavuto seemed to have trouble even figuring out when to interrupt!  It was painful.

In fact, if you'll pardon the archaic reference, I haven't seen someone look so shell-shocked, camera-shy and both mentally and emotionally unprepared for something since I watched Calvin Schiraldi pitch the last two games of the 1986 World Series. And if you saw that and remember it, you'll know what I mean. If you didn't/don't... It was like watching a middle-school student give a presentation, after forgetting the assignment and deciding to wing it... badly.

It was brutal.

And the whole time I'm thinking:

1) Only Fox would give this fool the time of day. And...
2) There is NO WAY that Fox will continue to give this fool air time!

...for the exact reason that I FULLY SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE!

Because he makes the Right, and the Republicans and the Tea Party look not only like Fascists, but MORONS.  And I don't just mean to the people who know the difference. (Liberals.) Remember: This guy lost NEIL CAVUTO!  This guy would make the Right look stupid TO THE RIGHT.

So you know what?  I seriously propose that we on the Left enthusiastically support David Lewis for Speaker.

1) Any distraction for the Republicans is good.
2) John Boehner spends too much time in the tanning booths. It's not healthy. This might get him out of the House a bit.
3) By forcing these guys to debate, either the mainstream Republicans will be forced into accepting and acknowledging far more common-sense positions than they currently do (to distance themselves from this clown) or finally be revealed publicly as the whack-jobs we accuse them of being.
4) In the worst case (this idiot wins) he is too bloody incompetent to do any real harm to the country, but he would bring down the entire Republican Party along with him.

So PLEASE... JOIN ME in making DAVID LEWIS the NEW FACE of the REPUBLICAN Party and the TEA PARTY!!!!

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility?

I've done several pieces over the past year+ showing how absurd it is to consider the REPUBLICANS "fiscally responsible."  Whether it's showing what portion of our debt they're responsible for, or going year by year and showing the trends in deficit spending or even just recognizing the fact that they have been, in fact, actively trying to bankrupt the government in order to force an end to programs that they know they could never get away with, politically, cutting or eliminating.  And that last bit, while seemingly a bit paranoid, is on full display right now in the ongoing farce about trimming the deficit. And to understand just how big a farce this is, realize that you could take ALL of Obama's proposed cuts, ALL of the Republican's proposed cuts, and none of the Republican's propsed tax cuts (yeah - they're "serious" about the deficit, and yet they're STILL proposing tax cuts! That's liek getting "serious" about your credit card debt by working fewer hours!) and even wth all of that, you wouldn't even be HALFWAY to a balanced budget!
And what do we already see will be the result of all these cuts? Hospitals closing, schools closing, tens of thousands out of their jobs, no funduing for public broadcasting (the Right has to LOVE that one!) and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

And for all that pain?  We're not even HALFWAY to a balanced budget?  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

And do you know what's not on the table? RAISING TAXES. Of course.  And there cannot be one person anywhere in the world with two brain cells to bounce together who thinks you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone.  But... this was the Republican's plan all along!  And Speaker Boehner can cry "We're broke!" all he wants, that doesn't make it true.  We're not broke.  That's a bald-faced lie.  We're in the RED, yes.  And that's not good, long-term.  (Although that being the case one has to wonder why the Republicans PUT US in the red every single one of the last 20 years in a row when they held the White House!)  But see... they don't want to raise taxes for two reasons and two reasons only, and neither of them has ANYTHING to do with harming the economy, or creating jobs - botho fwhich are pretty much bullshit.  In fact the same economic model that gives their tax-cut multipliers? (That would be KEYNES.)  Demonstrates that spending changes have a larger effect! (IOW: Those spending cuts will do more harm to the economy than the same level of tax increase. So says the model that gives them the tax-cut multiplier!) And I'm not going to debate that here, but it's a bullshit, nonsense point anyway.  If you want the details, email me or take a goddamned economics course.

The two reasons they don't want to raise taxes is:

1) The American public has grown so stupid and so greedy and so so shortsighted and lacks so much perspective that we're probably to the point where the fools WOULD actually lose their jobs if they did it.  Not that I care about the Republicans losing their jobs, but the bulk of America has grown so spoiled that they just have no clue. No clue at all.  I'll get to what I'd do with taxes in a moment, but the Right has dumbed down America so much, that it probably IS the political reality that raisign taxes is political suicide.  Even though it's needed.  Kind of like... REAL LEADERHSIP.

2) (And this is the important one) Raising taxes would LITERALLY FIX EVERYTHING.  Seriously.  And... they don't want that!  They've been trying to kill these progams for DECADES and they have finally CREATED an environment where they can claim that we have to! (In some cases, IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM!  Figure THAT ONE out!)  But finally, after 30+ years of crippling our governments finances, they finally have enough people fooled into believing that these things have to go. (Persoanlly, I'd say these idiotic Republicans are the ones that have to go, but the people have spoken.) The LAST thing they want at this point is a solvent federal government!

Think about it: How many times have your heard one of these fools, Democrat or Republican, claim, "We just can't afford it anymore?"  I hear it almost every day.  And while they're right, from a certain point of view, it's utterly shocking why no one ever asked about raising taxes back to the levels they were at when the country and its finances were doing just fine!  It's not like we've had these tax rates etched in stone since time immemoriam!  GEORGE W. BUSH created the current tax table, less than a decade ago! And, at least for the past two years, Obama's lowered taxes EVEN MORE!  It's hardly like were tapped here, folks!  It's like we're dying of thirst sitting in our kitchen, and yet refuse to turn on the tap!  It's psychotic!  And if they wanted to lower taxes repsonsibly, all these many long years, they'd have cut the spending FIRST thus keeping the taxes6 cuts deficit neutral.  But since the American people would never go for that, they had to plunge us into debt, creating this artificial crisis in order to confuse the public and get them on board! (And despite being 30 years in the making, with 20 of those years under Reagan, Bush and Bush, somehow this is all OBAMA'S fault!)

Now, I would like to take a look at some of the tax tables of recent past administrations, just to show you how "painful" (hah!) this would be.  As two examples, I'm going to use a household that makes $500,000 per year and my own (approximate) household income.  I'm not going to STATE my income, but I will be honest about what it would cost or save me if we were taxed at some of these older rates.  If you can calculate my income from that information? Congratulations. You pass basic Algebra.  And I'm also assuming that I don't have to explain to any of you how a MARGINAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION works.  So if you don't know where I'm getting my figures, try wikipedia.  One last thing, you can check my tax bracket info aginst the info available at the U.S. Tax Foundation, and my inflation calculatuions HERE.  One last thing: It's worth noting that, starting in 1984, the tax brackets were adjusted each year for inflation automatically.  I happen think this is a good thing, and would automatically adjust ALL fixed numbers in the tax code - including all maximums and minimums - the same way.  So for simplicity's sake, I'm using the last year that the given rates were in effect.

The current tax table is a legacy of the Bush'43 administration:
(Sorry, these run over.  If they were any smaller, you wouldn't be able to read them!)

This is the tax table that resulted in eight years of record deficits (record at elast when compared to any that came before him) under Bush, and another under Obama, and likely another one next year.  Now you hear a lot about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm on record many times as saying that we should eliminate them accross the board!  Clinton had two budget surplues at the end of his term.  And this was the tax table that created those:

If we adjust for inflation, and move the brackets into 2011 dollars, we get:

So what would all this bed-wetting about the Bush tax cuts cost the rich? Well, that family who's pulling in $500,000 would onlyhave to kick in an extra $12,33.64 a year.  That sounds like a lot, to be sure, but think about it: $500,000 a year!  Think about what you make, what you live on, and ask yourself how hard it would be to find an extra grand or so per month in your budget if you made that many times more than you make now!  You know what I say? Boo-fucking-hoo for the rich.  What would this cost ME?  An extra $1755 a year.  Now that would affect my lifestyle and spendign decisions far more that the $12-large would affect that other familiy's, but I'll be honest with you: $147 less a month?  I could afford it.  Actually? It wouldn't change by budget at all, nor would it impact my retirement savings. I'd still even have some decent cash going into my short-termsavings account. So it really wouldn't change much of anything.  (I guess it must just be good to be me!)  But whatever.  If that's all it cost to REALLY eliminate the defict and KEEP most of our social safety nets? FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!

Now, I will admit that Boehner & Co. may have a point when it comes to tax hikes.  After all, check out the table that got George "Read My Lips" Bush voted out of office in 1992:

adjusted for inflation:

Oh, my fucking god!  His top-rate is still less than his son's!  And he got kicked out of office for that!  Apparently we've been spoiled little cry-babies about taxes longer than I thought, the Clinton years not withstanding!

Now this will illustrate why the whole flat tax thing (and the arguments about top-tier rates) are utter bullshit.  This tax table? Would cost me another $1089 over the Clinton table. (and $2845 over the current table.) That's right: Bill Clinton LOWERED my taxes! (Hint: It was those extra brackets!)  Meanwhile, in all his generosity, Bush'41would give a $13,583 CUT to that family making $500K per year as compared to the Clinton table. (And $1250 less than than what his son's table taxes them at!) Talk about "rob from the poor and give to the rich!"

But how bad was that, anyway?  Why'd he get voted out over that? Well... it was replacing this absurd tax table from Reagan's second term:

Look at that!  A top-tier rate that's actually LESS than what he's taxing the middle class at! Can you believe it!  This is the Right's great hero, folks: Rob from the poor and give to the rich, and don't even try to hide it! Adjusted for inflation, it would look like this:

OK. Under this monstrosity, I'd be paying $3004 more than I'm paying now.  (And $1249 more than the Clinton table!)  Wait... I though Reagan was this great tax-cutter?!  Well... he was, if you were rich enough to afford him:  That family of $500K? Pays $4,872 less than they do now, and $17,205 less that they would owe under Clinton!  The middle class gets soaked for 3-large, so that some making $500K can have an extra 17-GRAND?!  What. the. fuck?  I'm liking Geroge W. Buch better all the time!  At least with him there was SOMETHING in it for me!  As far as I'm concerned Reagan and Bush were a bunch of working-class-people-hating cock-munchers!

There is one thing, however, about Reagan that his current cult-following will not tell you about.  In his first term, he actually signed a top tier tax rate of 50% into law.  It was a CUT at the time but still, let me say that again: Ronald Reagn signed a 50% tax rate into law!  And it was in place until 1986.  Here's what it looked like:

Adjust for inflation and you get...

Looks complicated, no?  Well... complicated can be GOOD sometimes.  Under this table I would owe $2566 more than I owe today, and just $810 more than I would under Clinton.  And those rich folks at $500K?  Would owe $64,798 more than the do now. Wow. And that's under a RONALD WILSON REAGAN CONSTRUCTED Tax Table!  Fuck Clinton! For an extra $810 a year?  I say: let's bring back the first REAGAN tax table!  Let's bring back that $64K tax hike that this great socialist would ask of the rich!

I mentioned that this was actually a reduction, and I've gone so far recently as to call for pre-REAGAN tax rates.  This was the last table under Carter:

Adjusted for inflation:

Do you notice how that top tier rate doesn't even kick in until well after $500K? Remember that the next time someone's making fun of that 70% tax rate.  Now... I'll admit that I could be pursuaded that 70% is too high.  We can argue it.  I'd be perfectly happy with a top tier rate of 50% - with that 1982-86 Reagan Table.

But just for shits and giggles, under Carter, I'd owe $4355 more than I'd owe today.  ($2600 more than with the Clinton table, and $1789 more than with the earlier Reagan table.) That's... a bit much, actually.  I could still swing it, without changing my budget, or my retirement investments, but... there wouldn't be ANYTHIGN left for short-term savings or emergencies. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  So... yeah, bvioulsy that would eventually impact my budget.  And thus I might just have to back off from my calls of Carter-levels of taxation, even if it would squeeze an extra $117,708 out of those rich bastards down the street, over what they'd owe now. (LOL!) As much as I'd love to seem them pay that... We're getting into T.E.A. territory for me with with what I'd owe.  So, yeah, I'll admit this is excessive.

I'll bet you never thought you'd here me say this: BRING BACK THE REAGAN TAX TABLES!

(Just remember: I mean the 1982-1986 tables, not the 1987-1989 tables!)

What do my libral readers think?  Time to revisit Reagan's great tax policy?

TEA, Earl Grey, HOT!!!

I can't believe it... the Tea Party, or at least at least some of it's members, were actually GOOD for something!  (And any RW'er who assumes MSN is "liberally biased" can stick their "three ... tools that are crucial to the ... anti-terror law" in their pipes and smoke it.) 

Hey, we'll see.  It probably won't last.  But THIS LIBERAL applauds any "small-government Conservatives" who actually LIVE UP to their libertarian principles and actually vote down government powers that actually interferes with the freedom and privacy of Americans.  Because, far from being detrimental to our security, it is only with privacy and individual liberty and freedom that we can BE secure.  The FISA Court was little more than a rubber stamp anyway, and probably the most efficient part of the Government.  There ws never any reason to go beyond what they did and authorized.  If anything, they probably should have used MORE scrutiny over the years!  But in any case, bring them back, and scrap the god-damned Patriot act entirely! I've said oit many times, Al-Qaeda has NEVER been a threat to our freedom or our way of life: Only our own Government is, and only our own Government ever will be!

My bet?  These guiys will either (1) be branded as RINO's, be blacklisted by the party and get voted out; (2) Be corrupted by politics and slowly morph into BIG GOVERMENT Conservatives - like the ones who wrote, supported, voted for and slandered anyone who opposed the "Patriot" Act in the first place; or (3) THEY WILL CHANGE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE BETTER.

And hey... If the oppositon on teh Right is made of PRINCIPLED "small government" types, who will actually STAND UP for our freedom?  I can certainly live with that!

All that being said, I'm still convinced that 99% of the tea party and their supporters are no more than a bunch of ingnorant, racist, greedy, immature, same-old-Republican, clowns. But on this day, this Liberal applauds those brave few Tea Partiers who've done more in one vote to defend our freedom than President Obama has doen in 2+ years. 

(And I only hope that idiot [Obama] figures that out, because otherwise we WILL be looking at President Fucking Palin in 2012!)

If we didn't call it racist, we'd have to debate it?!

I was looking for a picture of a tea-bagger sign that I saw the other day that said "If they didn't call it racist, they'd have to debate it!"


Now... I've made the case before that the racism charge is, at worst, perfectly accurate and, at best, giving them the benefit of the doubt.  You can only see so many "Muslim, Kenyan, communist, socialist, sleeper" signs before you're convinced that these people are in fact racists, if for no other reason than because it is hard to fathom a level sheer stupidity high enough to otherwise motivate and rationalize these signs.  Racist is an explanation I can accept. Stupidity is as well, but... that much stupidity?  Purely on stupidity alone?  I almost have a hard time believing that.  Anyway, I couldn't find the sign I was looking for (after sifting through literally hundreds of signs that ranged between the unintentionally hilarious and the outright offensive.) But I did find this one:

And it pretty much makes the same point.


And as well-designed as this one is... seriously: Is this how these people "think?"  We're "losing" the debate?  Perhaps, but only because 60% of America is too stupid to recognize the difference between something that is GOOD for them and something that is BAD for them. Seriously. And there was a perfect exampleof this in today's MSN article about the tightening Congressional races:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39818378/ns/politics-decision_2010


As far as the article goes? OK, yeah, whatever, we'll see in a few weeks.  Good news, I guess, but I'm still going to stand of the street corner with my sandwich warning people of the end of days, thankyouverymuch.   But there was one section that just drove me crazy:

Pennsylvania Republicans say the intense former Navy admiral is too liberal for this centrist state. They note that Sestak, a two-term House member, wanted a public insurance option in the new health care law, a larger stimulus package than the $814 billion plan Congress approved, and a tougher cap-and-trade energy bill than the House passed.

OK... now "Cap-and-trade" we can discuss that.  That's certainly debatable. Liberals are smart enough to realize SOMETHING has to be done, but obviously there IS a cost, and in all reality? It probably won't accomplish all that much. (It was originally a Conservtaive's idea, as well.  Just like everything else these idiots are blaomign OBAMA for!)   But let's put that aside for the moment and look at the other two.  (Because we really do like to list things in threes, don't we?  One thing alone isn't enough to win is it? You need THREE to make case, right?)


He's "too liberal," which is conserva-speak for "bad," because he wanted a public health care option and more stimulus.  In other words: He wanted to get people CHEAPER HEALTH CARE and MORE JOBS.  Can someone please exp-lain to how any individual person, anywhere, can possibly see either of those as a bad thing?!


Public Option: If you can do better, do so.  If it's cheaper, THEN WHY NOT?!  What is wrong with these people?  How can you possibly argue (unless you own an insurance company!) that this can be a bad thing?!  Seriously.  Who can honestly believe this?!  How do you reach that conclusion?! "Socialism," maybe?  But if "Socialism" was really going to give it to you for less, then why the hell would you NOT be a Socialist?  It makes no damned sense at all!


Same goes for the stimulus.  Which is another word for JOBS.  Campaigning against the stimulus is campaigning against JOBS!  Who does that?! Can you imagine what it would sound like if the Republicans were even half-way honest and the average American wasn't completely, mind-numbingly stupid? He be saying: I want to put more of you out of work, and then vote against unemployment for any of you!  Who the heck would vote for THAT guy?


But yeah.  "All" we're doing is shouting "racist."  (No: what we're doing is looking for a REASON behind all the blatant STUPIDITY!)  But apparently "if we don't call it racist, we'll lose the debate.  Well of COURSE we will!  If we're arguing with someone who thinks paying MORE for health and having LESS jobs is a GOOD thing!  How on earth would you debate with someone who has so clearly lost their freaking mind?!


See... it's not us who shout "racist" to squelch debate.


As I've said before, twice now, in fact, it they who say "liberal" and not only squelch debate, but then happily go and campaign for, and vote for, their own royal screwing.


Racist?  That's us being optimistic.  It's a compliment, compared to what we'd say otherwise, assuming there is even a word in the English language for this level of ignorance, gullibility, irrationality and stupidity.

Christine O'Donnell's on Crack...

...ed.

Just a few posts ago I was singing the praises of my Silver Start Winner, Cracked.com.

Well they've just done a little write-up on everybody's favorite political side-show, and it is brilliant:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-6527-christine-odonnell/

(Make sure to read the article, not just the chart!)

What did I say about the best commedy having only the truth in it?  About the only thing Christine O'Donnell has in comon with the truth is that both are much, much stranger than fiction!

Some Fun Stuff...

I was getting a cup for my coffee this moring, when I came accross an old coffee cup that my wife bought just after she finished Grad School:

Hoo, boy.  What I wouldn't give to have THAT 3rd-Party Candidate in a race this year!  I don't think the TeaPublicans have a single brain cell among them and the Democrats have about as much spine as a sewing kit.

Know something crazy?  We both voted for Dole that year! Niether of us have voted for a single Republican since, and it won't be long until we're both to the Left of the Democrats, but George Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 both had both of our votes. LOL. Crazy world we live in.

And with so many Liberals, I keep hearing the lament that the Democrats are at least the "lesser of two evils."  I suppose that's one way to go, but I'll offer you another: Cthulu.  For those who don't want to vote for the LESSER of two evils!

I'm sorry...  I know I've used that poster before.  I just really love it!

Hope you all enjoy my day off tomorrow! ;)

Is it racism... or just stupidity?

Conservatives love to claim that any criticism of Obama or “his policies” ("quotes" because so many of them are carried over from Bush) results in the immediate cry of “racism” from liberals. The implication, of course, being that we use this tactic as a way to be dismissive of their supposedly legitimate concerns. And quite frankly, I was tired of hearing this nonsense form these whiny little bitches long before Jimmy Carter finally got around to calling out their actual racist elements. I was sick of it by then, and I remain sick of it. A few things to consider…


1) It doesn’t really happen all that often.

It almost seems like Conservatives start their arguments out that way because it will somehow give legitimacy to the rest of what they have to say. Of course, when we point out how utterly absurd whatever they have to say is, THEY go on to accuse us of loving Obama, and (if there really riled up) maybe accuse Obama of racism, just to get those extra points.

2) When it does happen, we present evidence.

Putting aside that anyone with an internet connection can google “racist tea party signs” and get more images than they can handle, it’s gotten so bad that even Glenn Beck and other high profile Tea Party leaders have asked their supporters to tone down the signs! So it’s no longer the liberals that are calling these fools racists… it’s GLENN BECK!

3) Actually? ‘Racist’ gives them the benefit of the doubt.

This is a tough one for them to wrap their heads around; because they’re 100% convinced they have a point. But they don’t. See, calling them ‘racists’ is a far more kind an explanation of why they are advocating for the policies that they do. Because the alternatives, assuming that most of them don’t make well over $250K per year, are: STUPIDITY and PSYCOPATHY.

Because their “points” aren't reasonable: they are logically contradictory. And they aren’t rational: they run contrary to the interests that the tea party and the average ‘angry voter’ claim to be concerned about! 

How many times have you heard something this: “I’m out of a job, and we’re losing our home, and yet the Government just keeps spending our money!”

Translation: I’m concerned about the economy, so I want to cut spending.

And as I’m sure no one needs to be told anymore that the “T-E-A” Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” Yet what does their number one concern seem to be? The deficit!

Translation: I’m concerned about the deficit, so I want to cut taxes.

Now… take those two statements together, and try to explain to me how someone might believe these are good ideas? See… these statements are so completely insane that “racism” is a far more forgiving explanation that the level of stupidity and ignorance (or outright insanity) that we'd have to assume in the speaker if they really thought that cutting spending will bolster the economy, or that cutting taxes will reduce the deficit!

And it’s far from just the Tea Party… Have you seen the Republican’s overwhelmingly vapid “Pledge to America?”

They’ll cut taxes – even though the only difference between what they’re proposing and what Obama is proposing is a benefit for the top 2% of earners.

They’ll cut spending – even though the economy is still weak. And of course what the really mean is: We’ll gut social security, Medicare, etc… See it’s the same old charade: Cut taxes for the Rich, cut spending on the poor, working and middle class. Why the hell do people fall for this? Again – You’d think “racism” is preferable to the level of “stupidity” required. At least the person ends appearing the least bit rational that way!

But in the end they won’t really cut spending, because they’re pledging increases to defense spending. Check this out. Pick an income and put it in that graph. Look at how much we spend on defense compared to how little we spend on the Republicans’ favorite targets, entitlements and earmarks. These are overwhelmed by defense spending. We could eliminate everything else and even a small uptick, percent-wise, in defense spending would end up increasing spending overall.

And the kicker? They say they’ll do all of this while ELIMINATING THE DEFICIT. And the best criticism our lame-stream media can come up with? “They don’t really tell us how they’ll accomplish this.” What the…? They may as well tell us how they’re going to accomplish time travel and cold fusion. What they’re proposing is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot cut overall spending if you increase defense spending in any significant way. And it would have to be significant, because Obama already increased it! And you can’t reduce, let alone eliminate, the deficit by cutting taxes, unless you reduce spending by all that PLUS… the amount of the deficit!  That's just 1st-grade arithmatic!

They’re either lying, stupid or insane.


And the only reasons for someone to vote for them? (Aside from the top 1-2% of earners?) The person doing so would have to be either STUPID or INSANE.

Or… (you know…) RACIST.

(I fail to see why they would be so quick to accept the alternative.)

And until either the Republicans start proposing ANYTHING that makes any damned sense, or people stop voting for them, there IS no other explanation for their current popularity.  We’re not in the current economic mess because of taxes, and we’re not here because of the deficit or the national debt. And cutting SPENDING is the exact OPPOSITE of what you should do in you’re concerned about the economy. (And TAXES should be the least of your worries if you don’t have a job!) And my hat’s off to anyone who’s concerned about the deficit. But realize that the only way you can fix that is to raise taxes back to a level that they were back when we HAD a balanced budget.

I look at it this way…

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now is like the difference between a Doctor and a Prostitute. One is telling you to exercise more, lose weight, quit smoking, quite drinking, let them perform all manners of uncomfortable examinations, stick you with needles, etc… And the other is saying that they’ll bring the beer and cigarettes and have sex with you all night long. One off these obviously comes off the more tempting offer, but it’s pretty clear what choice the person who’s more interested in their long-term well being will make.

Cutting the safety nets for 98% of the country while giving more money to the multi-millionaires in the top 2% is NOT the path to National Fiscal and Economic Health, long term. Neither is continuing to ignore Global Warming or continuing to let manufacturing jobs go to developing countries or continuing to think we can badger the rest of the World into doing our bidding.

The Right just ain’t right… on ANYTHING.

Finally I want to leave you with this gem from the great gastropod, Rush Limbaugh, because I really think that THIS shows what passes for “reason” on the Right::

The whole notion of paying for tax cuts has always offended me, as though government is first, last, and always, and whatever happens -- they are the single greatest repository of greed in the world, Washington, DC, including even all the tyrannical dictators around the world. [...] "You don't pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts generate wealth creation.

Limbuagh logic:

A guy who makes $35 Million a year who wants a tax cut to help him generate some wealth for himself is principled.

Buy the government collecting taxes so that the Government can provdei basic services, defend the country and created some semblance of a social safety net for the other 99.9% of the country... That's 'tyrannical greed.'

Glad we got that straitened out.

BTW... the highest paid Goverment Employee is, unless I'm much mistaken, the Presdient. He makes $400K per year. Which, BTW, would represent a 98.8% pay cut for Limbaugh. (But remember: It's the GOVERNMENT who's greedy!)

Who else gets paid through taxes? Teachers, Police, the Military, Firefighters... Glad to know this guy who sits on his @$$ and blathers for a living feels these people, who make closer to $50K per year, (which would be a 99.9% pay cut for Rush) are "greedy."

We are so screwed right now.

Go team, go!

I think I figured out a way to explain what I see as one of the biggest problems with our political discourse: People pick their political party the way they pick their favorite sports team. It’s all about emotion, rather than practical or principled considerations.


I’m a Red Sox fan.

And you can argue (or point out) that the Yankees have the richer history; that the Yankees have won more Championships; that the Yankees have more Hall of Famers; that the Yankees have a deeper farm system; that the Yankees have better ownership; that the Yankees have the most talented 5-man infield ever assembled; that the Yankees do better business; That the Yankees bring in more revenue; that a Yankee Championship would be better for baseball… In short, you could lay out every practical, tangible way in which the Yankees are not only the better team, and not only why they therefore deserve to win, but how more people would be better off if they did. And even were I to concede on every single point?

I’d still want the Red Sox to win.

Why?

I don’t know. They’re just my team. And they always will be my team. And even a guy who I hated when he wore pinstripes, suddenly becomes perfectly likeable in the White and Red.

And do you know what?

That’s perfectly OK.

Because you don’t NEED a reason to root for a sorts team. Maybe you grew up in the city. Or maybe you met one of the players and he made an impression on you. Maybe you just like the team’s logo. I don’t care. Any of those - or NO REASON AT ALL - is a perfectly good reason to root for “your team” to win the ball game.

But we shouldn’t VOTE that way. And we shouldn’t decide how we feel about POLICY that way. Only two questions are in anyway relevant when looking at policy: “How does it affect me?” And, “How will it affect the Country?” That’s IT. And while the answers will sometimes differ between the two questions, they should not change based on which party is proposing them or whether they can been labeled ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’

If a policy will benefit YOU, why should you oppose it simply because it’s liberal or conservative or was proposed (originally or now) by a Democrat or Republican?

If a policy – when looked at objectively - will benefit THE COUNTRY, why should you oppose it simply because it’s liberal or conservative or was proposed (originally or now) by a Democrat or Republican?

Why are so many people – primarily Conservatives – more concerned that “their team wins” than with whether or not GOOD POLICIES get enacted? And why do so many people – primarily Conservatives – judge policies based on whether of not they have their team’s logo on them?   And I say “primarily Conservatives” because those are the people who use “Liberal” as a criticism, and act like the inherent badness therein is self-apparent. Liberals generally don’t argue against Conservatives this way. But Conservtaives act like it’s just a ball game, and the only thing that matters is that the team that they identify with emotionally wins. People: If the policies being enacted by the “winning team” don’t benefit you and benefit the Country, then they shouldn't BE your team!

I originally intended this as a standalone piece, but I’d like to offer it as an open question to the relatively moderate, shall we say "classic," Conservatives out there, who are every bit as frustrated with how far to the Right the Republicans have gone as Liberals are with how far to the Right the Democrats have gone. If that party no longer represents your values, and have moved into a territory that you find borderline (or downright) offensive to you sense of Patriotism and what you believe America stands for, why are they still your party?  (OR: Why do you still use the label to describe yourself?)

I'd like to use as example, how one on the regular commenters here described his political outlook. Now… excepting the ONE LINE at the end about “smaller government” I don’t see anything there that most Liberals and/or Democrats couldn’t embrace, but I see plenty that Conservatives and Republicans – as they are currently defined – outright reject. Yet this poster STILL describes himself as a “Conservative Republican.”

Given what those words have come to mean, I beg to differ.

Going back to the baseball example, I see that kind of reasoning like this: I might wish the Red Sox had the Yankee’s pitching staff and they may make some dumb trades or pass on a draft pick that I really like that ends up signing with the Yankees… but I’ll still root for the Sox anyway. In sports me it doesn’t matter if your favorite player ends up going somewhere else, or your team ends up totally sucking. You’ll still stick with your team And in that context, that’s perfectly OK. But why in Politics? Why stick with a party that you feel does so much wrong?

I don’t want to speak for y’all but I fail to see, as I read Okie’s post on MMFA, why he would stick with the Republicans. OK, there’s that last line. One point for versus a dozen or so against. And you may think you can change the Party… but you can’t. Sorry. The party has rejected what you see as Conservatism and replaced with something you can’t abide. And they’re trending away from you. So why stick around? Why NOT change?

And I ask this as someone who DID change. Because I was once a Republican, and I even once called myself Conservative. The biggest reason for this was that I was comfortable with those labels. And I could argue from a Libertarian point of view that justified my taking those labels. But the movement went to the Right, and to the Limbaugh’s and Beck’s and James Dobson’s and Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Falwell’s of the world, and I could no longer abide all the mental baggage that the labels “Conservative” and “Republican” required me to carry. And at some point I rejected them. And while I don’t agree with EVERYTHING the “Liberal Orthodoxy” (a notion that is largely a creation of the Right, BTW) stands for, the fact is that the Left is far more tolerant of dissent. There’s room for a Gun Ownership Rights supported in the Liberal camp. Or for someone who supports the Death Penalty. Or someone who supported, and continues to support the War in Afghanistan. Not everyone on the Liberal side will agree with my positions on those things of course, but no one will demonize me for them either. And that, to me, is the biggest difference between the two.

At one point in history, I’d say up until about 1968, both parties had their Liberal and Conservatives wings. Stating in ’68, the Conservatives started going to the Republicans and Liberals started going to the Democrats. By 1980 this process was in full swing and by today, partisan lines are drawn almost entirely along ideological ones. But as this process has played out, something else has happened: One side – the Republicans – has grown increasingly intolerant of any dissent at all. One side became the party of Purity Test. Of “in name only.” Of purging itself of any elements that don’t buy into every single part of the agenda, and of any elements that would be willing to cross the aisle and work with the opposition – even when the opposition is proposing something that Republicans once supported!

In other words: One side went completely bat-shit insane.

And I’m not alone in saying this! I don’t say this as a life-long Liberal who’s just opposition bashing. I say this as a moderate, one-time Republican who is completely fed up with the extremism and the downright un-American authoritarianism and the Party-before-Country mentality that the Right has embraced. Now… I’d have been part of the Liberal wing of the Republican party, to be sure. A ‘maverick,’ if you will. But right now? There ISN’T a ‘Liberal Wing’ in the Republican Party! And the 'moderate' wing consists of what used to be the hardliners! (Lindsy Graham? John McCain?)  And there is no indication that they want one!  (I'll bet you a Coke, right now, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will eventuallt retire as either Democrats or Independants, assuming they're not pushed out by Tea-Baggers who go on to LOSE to Democrats.)

In sports it’s expected to stick with your team, even when all your favorite players get traded away. That par for the curse. But WHY do this with politics. My ultimate question, to the moderate, Center-Right, more Libertarian “Republicans” out there, like Okiepoli and others, ESCPECIALLY if it's not "all about the party": Why do you not reject the party that has so clearly rejected you? 

More Tea?

“Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.”

~Jean Luc Picard

It's old news already, but I want to congratulate Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell on her victory in the Republican primary in Delaware. I couldn’t be happier. Likewise, I’d like to congratulate Democrat Chris Coons on his pending victory in the General Election as Delaware's next junior Senator. I couldn’t be happier.

Now I wrote about this awhile ago, but I think the Blogging Ceaser, over at the Conservative Election Project said it best in his post lamenting the then pending loss of 'RINO' Candidate Mike Castle. Ceasar gets it. I get it. Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party? They don’t have a clue. When otherwise easy seats in Delaware and other places that end up staying Democratic and end up costing the Republicans House and Senate majorities that they would have otherwise won back one of two things is going to happen:

1) The Republicans will finally oust the Tea Baggers and come back to more moderate, Center-Right positions and rhetoric. (And the Tea Baggers will be relegated to the 1%’er, third-party, also-ran status that so many other completely insignificant parties “enjoy.”)

2)The Right will double down, the Tea Baggers will take over the Right completely and the moderates in the GOP will continue to flock to the Democrats. This may pull the Dem’s farther to the Right, but the destruction (or relegation to permanent minority status) of the Republican party finally creates a real opportunity for the Liberal Wing to become more prominent or for Liberals to have a little Tea Party of our own.

Either way? It will good for the COUNTRY. And I couldn’t be happier.

Republican Propaganda Video that shows how STUPID Repubicans really are!

(Warning: The following contains some course language, even for this blog.) 
(But read it anyway! LOL)

I'd like you all to see something. You may have already caught it (like syphilis) on YouTube. It was emailed to me but a *ahem* close relative. The email simply said "New Republican Video - Wow." I might say the same thing, although where he meant it to be complimentary, I would mean it like, "WOW, now isn't THAT a load of horseshit?!" Or, "WOW, you Republicans sure are stupid! I can't believe you buy into this tripe!"
So please... Take a look... and then humor me, as I destroy it.



Now right off the bat, I;'d like to say that I'd agree 100% with the first 1:18 of it... Assuming it had been put together by a LIBERAL that is. 

First of all who's this "we?"  WTF is with this "we elected you" shit, seeing as this nothing but is Republican / Conservative / Tea Party / Right Wing Propaganda?!  Um, no, sorry Conservatives, but WE elected Obama.  You lot voted for the Crusty old White Guy and Caribou Barbie.  And it's a bit late to jump on the bandwagon.

And as for being disappointed?  Yeah, you;re god damned right we are!  Because the guy we elected and the Congress we elected has done everything humanly possible bar picking you up and carrying you into the room, to include you in every conference and every negotiation and has made concession after concession to you fools.  I'd almost say "short of letting you write the legislation" but between the absurd and unnecessary (and unpopular) compromises and the actual (formerly) Republican proposals and the stuff that your former lobbyists - now Democratic lobbyists only because they saw which way the wind was blowing before you did - wrote?  You assholes HAVE WRITTEN a disproportionate amount of the ACTUAL legislation!  You just oppose it now because the other party might benefit if they pass... ANYTHING AT ALL.  So stuff this "we elected you crap."  No one involved with this video voted anything but a strait Republican ticket and YOU KNOW IT.

(Note: I truly though this at this point, but by the end I wasn't sure sure...)

It goes on to say that, in 2010, "You will lose."  OK fine, rally the troops.  It IS Republican Propaganda after all.  Um... You DO know that President Obama isn't RUNNING in 2010 though, right? Well, whatever.  You'll get back some seats back fine.  Let's see what you'll do with them:

NO MORE TAXES. 

Wow.  And they say we're fiscally irresponsible!  Oh my God.... Not "No NEW taxes" (they tried that one once, didn't they?) or "No HIGHER taxes" but "NO MORE TAXES."  There people sure know how to over-promise don't they?  I mean, if the promise THAT to get elected in 2010, don't they think their base might be a wee bit disappointed come 2012?  Trust me, the Democrats are seeing right now what happens when you run on one thing and then deliver something else.  Beside how will you pay for...

NO MORE SPENDING.

Oh.

I see. 

Hmmm...  No taxes... No Spending... Sounds like there's no goddamned government at all!  Don't you people even want to "support the troops" or something?  Hasn't all your concern about the deficit and social security and Medicare and Medicaid been because they'll "bankrupt the government?"  Well... i guess you solved that.  NO MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Great.  Nice job.

NO.
MORE.
SOCIALISM.

This one may be a lot tougher than it sounds. See... at the moment? There's absolutely NONE.  So... ANY AT ALL would constitute a failure here. 0 for 3 methinks.  Three up, three down.  And we're through the first inning.  (Maybe what they lack in "socialism" they'll make up for in Anarchy?)

Moving on...

So scary stuff gets shown REALLY QUICKLY with hammers and sickles, followed by:

We tried to warn you.

Of... WHAT, exactly? Communism? A Soviet takeover of America?  WHAT?  I mean... how often can you predict the end of the world before everyone realizes, "Hey, they've been 'warning us' for, like, YEARS now, and the world is totally still here! These people are nut-bags!"?

But we "Wouldn't listen" so now "We'll pay."

Wait... I thought there wouldn't be any more taxes?  Actually this "We tried to warn you" and "You wouldn't listen" so now "You'll Pay" stuff? Would play GREAT as something a LIBERAL might send to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. After they take they licks in November maybe?  We should spam Sec. Gibbs in-box with that, no?    Maybe they'll get the message. As for Conservatives... I haven't been exactly sure what world they've  been living in since about 1992. 

And WHY will "we pay?"

FREEDOM

Oh my God! You mean... You're going to protect abortion rights, allow gay marriage, legalize marijuana and guarantee everyone's freedom to practice our religion as we choose or to not practice at all and to keep our children free from other people, like teachers, forcing their religion on them?

You're a THREAT.

Oh... I see.  You mean, "FREEDOM" as in "Freedom to live the way we let you." Sorry.  My mistake. Please continue.

To our economy.

Wait... What about Freedom? What are they threatening again?  What do you think will happen to "the economy" when there's "No more spending?"  Don't you think some of those millions of people who will now be out of a job might be a bit of a drag on the economy? Especially with "no more taxes" being collected to pay unemployment benefits?  In the words of Lando Calirssian, "This deal is getting worse all the time!"

(BTW... Democrats do a better job with the economy.)

To our health care.

Well, yeah... I mean, without the public option, the Health Care bill amounted to little more than massive corporate welfare for the insurance companies.  But then... Oh wait... That was taken our to please you people... And yet you STILL couldn't get on boar!.  Even though... mandatory insurance (for example) was a Republican idea.  (Governor Mitt Romney-R, MA, IIRC)  So... What the hell are you talking about?  You people and you former lobbyists wrote almost the whole damned thing!  So.. you might be right here... But, again, only if a LIBERAL made this video!

To.
our.
individual.
liberties.

Like... The liberty to not bear all the children God "blesses" you with?  Of the Liberty to marry someone of the same gender? Or the liberty to smoke... Ah, never mind.  We've been over this. You people better make sure none of your constituents (1) really take this seriously and (2) own a dictionary.  Or you're in trouble!

You bet the farm.

When?

Government takeovers

Huh?  Of what? General Motors?  WTF are these people talking about? When Hugo Chavez performed a "Government takeover" of Chevron, do you think HE gave them $70 Billion?  Buuuuulllshit! He just said, "it's mine now, fuck you." Now THAT'S a "government takeover."  This? This was buying stock and guaranteeing loans in order to save about 30 Million jobs.  And do you know what? It fuckin' WORKED.  And GM will be making their IPO in just a few weeks.  After which the Government will start seeing a return on their investment, after getting their money back. So... THANK GOD they bet the farm I guess, huh?

Bailouts

Um... the Bank bailouts were all Bush.

Liberal Policies

I've said it before and I'll say I'll say it again: WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICIES?! NAME ONE!!!

Wait... Maybe there's some coming up... I'm pretty curious to see exactly what Obama HAS done for Liberals myself, so let's watch:

TARP
$700 Billion

That was Bush.

Federal Stimulus
$1.2 Trillion

That was Bush.

Sure Obama had his too but... is it REALLY better to just let the economy collapse? Oh wait... yeah, that's right... according to your "No taxes / No spending" platform, apparently it IS.  Wait a sec... Wasn't that the total cost of Bush's two wars?  Or was that Bush's final budget Deficit? Because I though Obama's first budget deficit was something like $1.3 Trillion.  Oh well.

Federal Reserve Rescue
$6.4 Trillion

THAT was Bush.

Holy shit.  Maybe a liberal DID put this together!

Tax.
Spend.
Redistribute.

Riiiight.  Because taxing the middle class and giving money to bankers, and multinational corporations is really LIBERAL policy.  You know it's bad when just TALKING about STOPPING the UPWARD redistribution of wealth (and not really even DOING anything about it) is met with howls and cries of "COMMUNISM!"  And you KNOW someone's really drinkin' the Vodka when BLUE COLLAR AMERICA keeps BUYING IT year after year!!!

We're BROKE.

News to me.  We've been dancing to this tune for that past 30 years, save for two years under Bill Clinton.  And there's been a Republican in the White House for 20 of them.  (More on that coming up...)

Or did you mean the Republican National Committee?

Now... I almost spit my coffee out at the graph that came up next, from 2:11 to 2:16. 

Pause it there for a second, because this is important.  In fact... THIS, more than anything else, actually made me believe that a Liberal DID put this together, just to see how stupid Conservatives were.  You see how it starts in  1980? The year RONALD REGAN WAS elected?  And you see how the deficits pretty much just get bigger and bigger right up until about... 1992? When BILL CLINTON was elected? Then they start getting smaller and smaller until there's a surplus for several years?  Yeah.  And according to this very graph THAT gravy train ends... IN 2002! The VERY FIRST YEAR that GEORGE W. BUSH BUDGET was in effect!!! And after that we see some REALLY BIG DEFICITS!  And the last bar on the graph? 2009? Yeah, you see THAT was ALSO a Bush Budget! Obama was ELECTED in 2008. He didn't take office until 2009, and at that time the BUSH Budget was still in effect!  It doesn't include a SINGLE YEAR of Obama deficits! NOT ONE!  That graph? It's DEMOCRATIC propaganda!  And they don't even realize it!

Who's the fool here? Are Conservatives REALLY this stupid, or am I just slow to get our side's little prank?  In any case, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're concerned about the deficit, for fucksake don't vote REPUBLICAN!

+10% Unemployment

Man. That's pretty bad, huh? Imagine what it might have been without all that stimulus money, huh?  George W. Bush sure did leave under a pretty big shit-pile to dig out of, didn't he? 

and now you want...
our health care?

I'll assume that this came out, like, a year ago, but how does stopping insurance companies from capriciously screwing over the customer to protect their own profits even as people literally DIE from lack of health care - and this in the most prosperous nation in the world- constitute, "wanting our health care."  I'm not even sure I really know what that means. Because, yeah I "want our health care."  As in: I want us to HAVE SOME.  Oh well, moving on...

(Great picture of Harry Reid coming up at 2:27, BTW.  I wish it was a little higher resolution. I'd blow it up, make it into a poster and hang it on my wall. Maybe I'll stick in the blog somewhere. LOL)

I'm sorry if I missed the joke, but the more I watch this, the more I think that a Liberal really DID make it, just to see if the Conservtaives would fall for it.

Backroom deals.

That was Cheney.

Payoffs.

That was Abramoff. (and Bush, and Cheney, etc...)

Blatant and Shameless Bribes

Well, yeah, you've got us there.  But we had to do SOMETHING to get a Republican or two on board for the health care bill.  So...

We've had enough.

I've had enough of this video.  And of Conservative lies and of America's totally fucking ignorance and naivety regarding you people.

We're taking our country back.

To 1860?

From Radicals

Like the TEA PARTY?

Leftists

Name one.  (OK, yeah, but no one really takes Dennis Kucinich seriously!)

And Liberals

[Up], [Up], [Up], [Up], [Home], [End], [Ctrl-C], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Ctrl-V]

We're coming after you

Well, you did LOSE, so you couldn't have possibly come BEFORE us. If you'd WON, we'd be coming after you. Inspiring stuff though. Love the music. Very "Hollywood trailer."  All they needed was Don LaFontaine to narrate.

AMERICAN RISING

Well... here's hoping the Democrats finally wake the fuck up anyway.  I'm not sure where they've been for the past two years.  As for America?  Probably more likely to take a nap for the next two years.  They'll probably "wake up" sometime in late 2012.

November 2, 2010

(In case those senior citizens at the Tea Party rallies who want to keep Government out of Medicare forget the date.)

Now... the next part, from 3:06 to 3:11, I think, finally shows what the Republicans are REALLY offering, what they REALLY stand for.  Don't you agree?

I'm sorry.

Did I miss the point of this?  Or are Republican voters REALLY this fucking stupid?

Cooler heads Prevail...

So it turns out that the Southern Florida Pastor with nothing going for him but a moustache will NOT end up burning the Koran after all.

I chalk that up to a fluke victory of common sense over Religious fanaticism, but in other news John Boehner has indicated that he may be willing to work with Democrats to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, even if it means that the top tier cuts will expire.

Now... Both of these are hard for me to read.  Did they finally realize just how stupid they were being?  Did they give in to public pressure?  Were they just otherwise good people got carried away in the moment and have came (back) to their senses just in time?  Who knows.  Although with Boehner, I have no doubt that he NEVER had any sense and still doesn't.  I don't know about Father Fu-manchu, but somehow I just can't trust a preacher with such stylized facial hair. LOL. 

Whatever.

I'm interested to see how this all plays out.  Will the pastor catch flack for not standing firm?  I know he won't get much credit for NOT doing ti, since anyone inclined to give him THAT was appalled that he was considering it in the first place.  And what about Boehner? How does THAT play out?  Can the Republicans take credit for helping tax relief get through, even though they were stalling it?  Seems to me that this SHOULD hand the Democrats some good ammo heading into November. Not the press is likely to let them have it though. OTOH... how will the "all or nothing" tea-baggers respond?  They should be happy with the compromise, especially seeing as how 99.999% of them fall into the lower 98% that will benefit from what Obama is proposing, and who have already benefited from the lower taxes as part of the stimulus package that they all hate so much.  "Taxed enough already" but they are scared to death about the deficit.  They want lower taxes and will vote Republican, despite the fact that Republicans were obstructing... LOWER TAXES.  Well... it looks like they'll get they're lower taxes, but do the Republicans get hurt simply for going along with the hated Democrats and the hated Pelosi and the Hated Obama?

You wouldn't think so, but then... WHY ARE they the "hated" Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, etc... when 98% of these idiots are getting EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT from them?  It's really absurd.  But you never can figure out what will happen when so many people act so stupidly. 

Anyway... Lots of questions.  And I don't have the answers.  But I'm curious to hear your all's take on it so let me know.

(BTW... This kind of leads into my post about the Republican Propaganda Video that shows how stupid Republicans are, which should be the next thing I post.)

Hope your all having a nice weekend.  Later!

Same Old Song and Dance

I haven't been very topical lately, and a lot of it has to do with just how depressing the political landscape is right now.  Obama and the Democrats made a mad dash for the Center, overshot the mark considerably, and yet are losing to morons and neophytes who are out campaigning (to the ignorant and the gullible) how "Obama's liberal policies" are destroying this country.  And of course, I'm forced to ask, "WHAT liberal policies?"  The only thing "liberal" about Obama and the Democrat's "policies" are that the teabaggers are describing them as such.  It's absurd. 

1) They cut to the Right of Center.
2) Liberals have largely abandoned them.  (Just take a look at the primary turn out rates!)
3) The Right is poised to take back most, or all, of the Democrats majorities
and (most depressingly of all)
4) The press will characterize the Democrat's defeat as being a backlash against their Liberal Policies!

Again...

WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICES?!?!

NAME ONE!!!

And yet most people still think the press leans Liberal!!!

The press leans STUPID, first and foremost.  But stupidity has a Conservative bias, so...

I can't even talk about it anymore.  It just too depressing.

Because ClassicLiberal was right, in the Pseudo-Conservatives post:

The left in the U.S., to be sure, is a glutton for punishment. It takes a beating over and over again and replies with "thank you sir, may I have another?" But everyone has their breaking point, and those at the White House are smoking crack if they think [fill in anything they've done] going to do anything but hurt them.

He was referring specifically to Press Sec. Gibbs' absurdly ignorant comments about the "professional Left," but I think it applies to practically everything, from Health Care, to Financial Reform, to Elena Kagan, to... Christ, just about everything.

And do you know what REALLY sad part is?  I'm still gung-ho to support the Democrats!  I'm STILL saying "thank you sir, may I have another," because if I/we DON'T then we'll not only be looking at a Tea Party majority in Congress, and President Palin in 2012 - and all the policies, and Court appointees that will result from it - but we'll have to listen to the press say that the Dem's lost because they were too Liberal.

The Dem's will only LOSE if the Liberals STAY HOME.  Which is pretty much exactly what's happening!  And as much as I'd love to "send a message" to the Democrats, that message will never get sent, because the mainstream press simply will not carry that narrative!  To them, it will be: the Right won, the Left lost, so we must just be a conservative country. I'm sorry.  I can't deal with two years of that insanity leading up to November, 2012.  (And the aftermath for this country that will likely, inevitably result.)

But that was the story in 1980, and it was the story in 1994. It's ALWAYS the story... except when the Democrats make gains. And then, even when there an unpopular Republican in the White House, the story is that it's because they were political moderates, willing to work with the Right.  Blue-Dogs, so to speak. DINO's, if you will.

(But DINO 's who will suddenly be painted as flaming liberals come the next election cycle!)

So despite everything that's happened (and everything that hasn't) the thought of the alternative is just too depressing.

Even more so than the current reality... which is just too depressing.

It's all too depressing.

I wish these gutless, spineless Democrats would wake the fuck up.  But that ain't going to happen, and the press would actively work against them if they DID.

I'll be on med's by November.

National Journal agrees with me! LOL

"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
                ~Jean-Luc Picard

LOL.  It seems that the National Journal Online agrees with me.  I came accross this article this morning, after having written what I did the other day regarding the self-defeating nature of the Tea Party movement.  Give it a read.  They talk about ten races where the Tea Party "could make a difference." Ten.  And do know what they DON'T describe, even once?  ANY races involving a strong but potentially vulnerable DEMOCRAT that could be unseated by a pationate and fresh face. 

What I DO see, in every example, is a Primary Challenge to the incumbant Republican; or a Primary Challenge to the Republican Party's nominated or endorsed front-runner in the case of open seats; or a potential Third Part Candidate in a Race against a vulnerable Democrat that would otherwise be an easy victory for Republicans, save for the potentially split vote of the Right.  In NONE of those cases did the Journal offer a single example where a Tea Party Candidate or a Tea-Bag Republican will actually HELP their cause.

I love it. 

One lump, or two?

The Danger of Ideologues -or - “How stupid is the tea party?”

Politics is the art of compromise. And the building of a successful political party depends on building coalitions, some of which may not always “play nice” together. Hence the expression, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” One example of this, and to their credit, would be the Republicans (since 1980) managing to keep the Libertarians and Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists, two groups with largely mutually exclusive agendas, under the same tent. Of course they did this by appealing to the greed of the libertarians and the stupidity of the Funny-Mentalists: We’ll use gay rights and abortion to get the bible-humpers to vote for us, against their own economic interests, and then you [the rich Libertarians] can keep all the money!

Another example came from a conservative friend of mine. She was a school-teacher, and thus required to join the union. She was horrified to see that some of her union dues were being contributed to various gay and lesbian advocacy groups. She couldn’t understand what the benefit of that would be to her job or the union. So I explained to her: Democrats support unions and the LBGT community supports Democrats. Hence the ‘strange’ alliance. But neither example is at all surprising, since to win the majority vote of over 300 MILLION people, you need more than just one wedge issue or one coalition. The Funny-Mentalists ALONE couldn’t win a pie-eating contect and neither could the Rich Bastards Libertarians. But TOGETHER they’ve managed to become the dominant force fucking up American Politics and subverting the U.S. Constitution for the past 30 years!

And this is why the Tea Party is so stupid: They can only hurt their own cause. They can only help the party that’s LEAST like them, ideologically. And I’ll go out on a limb right now and predict that the more prominent the tea party becomes, the better the Democrats will do in the Mid-Terms and the 2012 election. That’s not to say that they won’t lose any seats. They will. It’s inevitable. But I’ll guarantee you there will several seats (and possibly the Presidency) that the Republicans could have won, but will lose due to the actions of the uber-Right, the RINO-Hunters and the Tea-Baggers.

The most recent example of this was the recent NY-23 race for the House. Democrat Bill Owens won with 73,137 votes. Republican (the incumbent party since the 1850’s) Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race, but still got 8,582 votes – as a lame duck candidate! “Conservative” Party candidate Doug Hoffman got 69,553. Now… combine the votes for the “Republicans” and the “Conservatives” and you’ve got 78,535 – not only a victory, but a larger margin of victory than Owns had over Hoffman. Now… maybe Scozzafava wouldn’t have gotten EVERY ONE of Hoffman’s votes, but he only would have needed 64,592, about 93% of them, to win. And I don’t think you’d really see much more than 7% of the “Conservative” (meaning ‘clearly to the Right of the Republicans’) vote going to the Democratic candidate!

Another example that hits closer to home with Liberals would be Florida in the 2000 Presidential Election. Ralph Nader (someone generally perceived as more Liberal than Vice President Al Gore) got 97,488 votes in a State that George W. Bush (officially) won by only 537 votes! If Gore gets just 50.3% of the Nader Vote in Florida alone, he wins the state and he’s our 43rd President, Supreme Court be damned.* And considering how few Nader votes would have likely gone to Bush, it’s pretty clear that Gore would have won Florida decisively. And Nader’s political cause was hardly served better by eight years of a George W. Bush presidency!*

But I want to show you one more historic example, just in case you’re still not convinced: The 1912 Presidential Election.

In 1912 the Republican Party was in turmoil, much the way it is now. Although they had a conservative incumbent President in William Howard Taft, the progressive wing, led by former President Theodore Roosevelt was feeling increasingly disenfranchised and broke off, forming the Bull-Moose Party. (Possibly the only Party name stupider than “Tea,” except for maybe the “Know-Nothing” Party - ironically yet another Whig/Republican offshoot! LOL.) As history played out, here’s what the electoral map looked like in 1912:

Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in LANDSLIDE, 435 to 88 to 8.

BUT… Here’s what might have happened, if the Republicans hadn’t imploded that year. Let’s assume they managed to agree on a Taft/Roosevelt or Roosevelt/Taft ticket, and then combine those votes, state by state. Then, just to be fair, and to try and compensate for the fact that not EVERY Roosevelt voter would have been a Taft/Roosevelt voter, we’ll go ahead and give all of Socialist candidate, Eugene Debs’ votes to Woodrow Wilson. Here’s what the map would look like under that scenario:

Woodrow Wilson now LOSES 285 to 246. A close and hard fought campaign, to be sure, but one the Republican clearly had a good shot at winning by any interpretation. But by splitting the vote in so many states, they ended up losing in a landslide. The only state that would have flipped to Wilson was California, which was much less of a factor back then than it is now. Wilson and Roosevelt ran neck and neck, hence the split electoral vote. But Eugene Debs cleaned President Taft’s clock there. So the 174 vote margin (wow!) that Roosevelt won by, becomes a 75,113 vote margin of victory for Wilson, assuming he’s given all of the Debs vote. But that’s the only gain for Wilson. Twenty other states would have move into the Republican’s column, however, and they’d have won.

And, just in case I’ve got you wondering, George H. Bush would have won reelection in 1992 by getting just over 66% of the Perot vote, nationally. In fact, he doesn’t even need that much: Between 52% and 66% of the Perot Vote would have been enough to flip Colorado (59%), Connecticut (65%), Georgia (52%), Iowa (66%), Kentucky (62%), Maine (64%), Montana (55%), Nevada (55%), New Hampshire (53%), New Jersey (58%), Ohio (54%) and Wisconsin (60%) and give George H. Bush a second term, by a margin of 274 to 264 Electoral Votes over Democratic Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Perot no doubt took some votes away from Clinton as well, but given the numbers involved above, saying that Perot screwed things up for Bush is definitely fair.

Also, to answer your next question, Bob Dole would have needed about 98% of the Perot vote, nationally, to defeat Clinton in 1996; and that’s much more of a stretch. So, I wouldn’t say Perot was a factor in ’96 the way he was in ‘92. But who knows? Maybe Two-Term Vice President Dan Quayle would have been atop the ticket in ’96, if Perot hadn’t botched it up for him four years earlier!

And also, just in case you’re almost as mentally ill as I am wondering: George W. Bush wins reelection against Democrat John Kerry in 2004, even if you award EVERY opposition party’s - thats Nader’s and everyone else’s - votes to Kerry. And some of those votes were for parties to the RIGHT of Bush. So Kerry has absolutely no one to blame but himself.

About the only time a prominent third-party candidate hasn’t screwed things up for the front runner was 1968. In ’68, former Vice President Richard Nixon soundly defeated incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey, despite a strong showing in the South by Segregationist American Independent candidate George Wallace. And remember: For that to happen, not only did the incumbent (Lyndon Johnson) have to decide on his own not to seek reelection, something that had happened only one other time in U.S. history (James Knox Polk was the only other) but the leading candidate within his party ended up getting assassinated just weeks before the Convention! And I’m pretty sure that’s NEVER happened before or since! So that’s two events, one unprecedented and one that had happened only one before in just under 200 years, that had to happen in order to bring about that electoral situation. And that, combined with the national, ideological shifts that started happening in ’68 (which I’ll probable write about next) makes it pretty much impossible to legitimately debate any “what if’s” about the 1968 election.

In any case (in every case) I think the point is clear: The Teabagger Party, the RINO Hunters and all other manner of loud, angry, dangerous and scary right-wingers can only take votes away from the REPUBLICAN candidate. The Democrats will get whatever votes they would have anyway (*assuming Ralph Nader’s learned his fucking lesson!) and what’s left will either go the Republican or get split 2 or more ways. So REST EASY, Liberals! The Tea-Baggers can only attract those who were going to vote against us anyway! And just remember, should things not work out quite the way the Right plans over the next two years: You heard it here first! LOL

---------------------------

* Just a personal Note: As much as I hate George W. Bush, I truly hate Ralph Nader MORE for delivering the Presidency to him! I hate Ralph Nader so much I can taste in my balls! If I ever meet George Bush on the street, I’ll still probably shake his hand and maybe even ask for an autograph. (After all, as much as I criticize Ronald Reagan, I still have, and cherish, the letter I received from him back when I was seven, in response to the ‘get well’ card I made for him and sent to him after he got shot by John Hinckley.) But if I ever meet Ralph Nader on the street, I’m probably  going to punch him in the face as hard as I can, and as often as any bystanders present will let me! And that’s coming from a guy who’s worked in the field of automotive safety for the past thirteen years! It’s unbelievable how many things got so fucked up just because that uncompromising asshole [Nader] flunked Political Science 101.