Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 21,401
Number of posts: 21,401
- 2015 (4)
- 2014 (40)
- 2013 (42)
- 2012 (80)
- 2011 (5)
- December (5)
- Older Archives
- Seen on the tree lawn of a Bay Village, OH home. Bay Village is a mighty Repub-urb in Cuyahoga County.
You know, of all shite catchphrases conservatives come up with, this has to be one of the DUMBEST and most insulting. I can call a conservative all kinds of things . . . such as "astronomically stupid", "foot-shooting", "selfish", "hateful", "gullible beyond redemption" . . . but I would never call them "lazy" or question their work ethic.
What, people who vote Democratic don't WORK? REALLY??
Also . . . I saw . . . in Bay Village, of course . . . my first "Joe the Plumber" sign. Except it's under his real name, in white letters with red background: "WURZELBACHER"
Not Joe the Not Plumber who did NOT buy a plumbing business has as much a chance to beat Marcy Kaptur in our district as I do in beating LeBron James in a one-on-one basketball match.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:23 AM (0 replies)
And it's not even over yet.
A guy who for the past 6 years has been running for president on an economic platform that he's never practiced in his life just got made a non-entity tonight. His face showed it and the Corporate-purchased media is working overtime to spin it.
All I gotta say is, I'm glad tonight, but watch out.
This means the Sheldon Adelsons and the Koch's and their Supreme Court and the corporations just may be getting more ornery and nastier . . . and possibly illegal. This means you're going to see more and more "2016"s, more Jerome Corsi-Donald Trump crapola, more CNBC and Faux with every right-wing shitstick they can dig up from Big Banking, Big Pharma, Big Leisure and Big Retail.
They aren't going to stop until we're ruined . . . one way or another.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Tue Oct 16, 2012, 11:17 PM (0 replies)
Our series today focuses on a conundrum which has yet to be answered:
How do voters buy into a presidential candidate's economic philosophy that even the candidate doesn’t think makes logical or business sense?
Let me ask you something. How did wealthy people like Mitt Romney become wealthy?
Did he put humanity over profit? Was he a kind soul, caring of job creation and workers needs? Did he put community responsibility and worker livelihood first and foremost? Did he get wealthy by being charitable . . . or, to quote certain slobbering pundits, “redistributionist”? Did the workers benefit from his generosity in the form of job security or a living wage that met their cost of living increases?
You and I know what the answer would be to all of those questions. Wealthy people didn’t get extraordinarily wealthy by being generous. They never have, they never will; not in business, not in life. Someone who thinks of money and profit when they wake up and thinks how to make more money and profit before they go to bed isn’t thinking about the overworked employee’s mortgage that she can’t make or the wage slave that has to choose between paying the electric bill or buying food. They’re only thinking about how they can game the system even further to gain more money and profit, and that in turn means gaming the government by lobbying, PACs or running for office themselves (see: Whitman, Meg and Fiorina, Carly).
After all, wasn’t it former WalMart CEO Lee Scott that said, regarding the Employee Free Choice Act: "We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us”?
They don’t steer with you.
Now, if we know that the 1% by principle aren’t going to give any quarter unless they’re forced to (via taxation, which, in turn means they’ll toss some lucre into their businesses or charities to avoid paying taxes), how can they logically expect us to believe that by lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans (essentially giving them free money), they’ll have some kind of awakening and rain jobs on the poor and unfortunate? Isn’t that exactly what Mitt Romney’s campaigning on and hoping you’ll believe . . . that he all of a sudden WANTS a "win-win" for thee and thine?
So let me get this straight: The best solution for the country’s ills is a parasite capitalist that, via offshoring jobs and leveraged buyouts, ruthlessly plowed his way to a quarter-billion-dollar fortune . . . on the premise that “government needs to be run like a business” and “as a businessman, he knows what it takes to create jobs” when, AS a businessman, he practiced no such benevolence because it’s not in the best interests of a parasite capitalist or a corporation SUCH as Bain Capital to BE that way?
How do his peasant supporters square this nonsense up, especially since he’s already vowed to drastically slash the social safety net, eliminate even more government jobs, institute a voucher system for Medicare, expand military occupations and give even more and more of the country’s largesse to the wealthy, thereby either expanding the National Debt or raising taxes on the middle/working/poor (since there is no way this plan is “revenue neutral” and there’s no way he’s selling out his handlers)??
If this sort of hogwash hasn't worked in 32 years, and the peasantry either pretty much knows this or are just plain too stupid to breathe, what makes them think that ReaganBushonomics on Steroids is going to thrust all of America to greatness??
If nothing else, maybe the uneducated and low-info voter can be reached by this simple phrase on a recent FB image going around:
Don’t employ the problem and expect a solution.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:15 AM (7 replies)
THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT DUCK!!
Here's an example . . .. WHERE ARE Mitt's TAX RETURNS?????
Posted by HughBeaumont | Thu Oct 11, 2012, 10:33 PM (0 replies)
DOBBS: There are very few issues right now that are more difficult for corporate America to deal with than the issue of outsourcing. You support it. You support it vigorously. Why?
ANDREESEN: Yes. I think it's purely good for the American company and it's good for American workers. It's part of the natural process of creating new jobs. I think job destruction and job creation go hand in hand. In the last 10 years, this economy has destroyed 325 million jobs and created 342 million new jobs. And, in general, those news jobs are better jobs than the ones that were destroyed.
DOBBS: Marc, we can sit here and not really edify anyone including ourselves by trading statistics. The fact is it is 2004, the fact is in the most event report on trade we show for the first time negative numbers in the area in which you live, that is technology which is supposed to be bringing us all of these wonderful jobs that so far are not materializing.
ANDREESEN: Look, technology took a big hit in the last four years due to recession. When I was involved in creating the first Internet browser in 1993, I can tell how many Internet jobs there were, there were 200. I can tell you how many there are now, there's two million now. We created new jobs in the next 10 years. I'll tell you what, we're going to create a huge number of new jobs in the next 10 years.
DOBBS: I expect you to do so. What I don't expect you to understand is that there is no one listening to us that should take -- has any reason to take as you an article of faith that by moving jobs overseas simply to acquire cheap labor that in any way adds to innovation to this country.
ANDREESEN: Absolutely it does. It compounds innovation, allows American companies to invest both overseas and the U.S. It allows American companies to hire more people in the U.S. It allows American companies to sell their products and services into a larger global market. I tell you another thing, it encourages peace and stability worldwide. The best thing that can happen to us from a national security standpoint we determine to develop the middle classes in India and China. And in fact the really best thing we could do is to start offshoring to the Middle East. If you want to systematicly go after global security and peace, figure out how to bring everybody into this world of increasing returns from economic, increasing returns from trade...
DOBBS: Marc, you surely not suggesting that we create a middle class anywhere in the world at the expense of our own?
ANDREESEN: Of course not. It's not at the expense of our own.
DOBBS: That's precisely the effect of what is happening.
ANDREESEN: No it's not.
DOBBS: No, sir, it is.
ANDREESEN: Trade has been win-win for 200 years.
DOBBS: Win-win. Marc, you are too smart for this. You are absolutely too smart for this. When you hear win-win, what do you think of, a software salesman, right?
Yeah . . . those 10 years are almost up . . . . where was that influx of jobs? How's that "not zero-sum" issue working out for the workers?
Lying liars will keep on lying, even when they're being interviewed by fellow right-wingers.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:30 PM (2 replies)
Seriously . . . this frame of mind is practically mainstreamed.
What if I were to say "ALL Republicans are hateful, extremely bigoted Fascist reactionaries who worship corporations"?? I'd be rightfully admonished by people even on my side and called much worse by those targeted for such a broadbrush.
So why is it perfectly all right, no one batting an eyelash or raising one fuss, when "All Democrats are Communists!" or some variation of it comes spewing out of a TeaHadist's mouth?
Don't believe me? Ask any garden variety Republican, RIGHT NOW, if they think this is true. Think you'll get an answer like "well, no, I don't belive that they're all (insert red bait insult)s, that's crazy."???
We pretty much give them their own segments on news shows (Victoria Jackson, Bernie Marcus on CNBC, etc), Faux or otherwise.
A Communist likely wouldn't BE a member of any mainstreamed American political party.
When the red-baiters should be in the same league as birthers, their bullshit is seen as normal instead. And that is something I have a huge fucking problem with.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:16 PM (10 replies)
THIS is "out of context":
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges; if you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
That's what your dumbass party "built" their entire convention around . .. a deceptively-edited sound bite and what they want to hear . . . just like EVERYTHING else they selectively aurally edit.
THIS is "1000 fucking percent IN Context . .. in other words, what Mitt REALLY thinks about us":
There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
“And I mean the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.
“So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every 4 years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
“What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or another depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”
See, Ann? This isn't so hard!
Posted by HughBeaumont | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:49 PM (0 replies)
Their word = What they really mean by it.
"Entitlements" = "Why should I have to pay for Sheniqua and her nine crack babies???/?"
"Values" = "What We Learnt Bein' White n Heterosexual . . . you know, NORMAL!"
"Freedom" = "I can be as big of an uncaring asshole as I want cuz I'm a WHITE MURKIN!"
"Conservative" = "The Way Things OUGHTA Be, Commie."
"Some Say . . . " = "Normal America thinks . . . "
"Democrat Party" = "Buncha pansy, sissy Ni**er-lovin COMMIES!"
"Austerity" = "Whatever it means, I won't be hurt by it. The Welfare recipients will!"
"Job Creators" = "True Hard Working Americans who I hope to BE PART OF someday!"
"We Built It" = "We Built It"
"Welfare Queen" = "(Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s"
"Statist/Marxist/Socialist/Socialism" = "All Democrats"
"Playing the Race Card" = "Why don't we have a WHIIIIIITE ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL???"
"Right To Work" = "Whatever it means, I won't be hurt by it!"
"Liberty" = "FREEDOM!! Well, except for the gays, women and (insert racial slur here)"
"Founding Fathers" = "Founding Christians"
"ACLU" = "FUCKING CORNHOLING DEMUCRAPS!!!!1!!!"
"Nanny State" = "Murka should just be a free for all!! Hey Shitter, watch me jump this fence with my jet ski . . ."
"Fiscal Conservative" = "More War, Less welfare!"
"Class Warfare" = "LEAVE THE RICH ALOOOOOOOOOONE!!"
"Real America" = "Not the (Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s"
"We're going to take this country back" = "I'm going to take me a gun and kill all the (Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s I seeeeee . . . "
"Feminazi" = "Git in the kitchen whur you belong, stupid!"
"Religious Freedom" = "Why CAN'T that Chick Filet guy tell it like it is about the homos without all these libs runnin' their yaps?"
"Small Government" = "Reagan, the Greatest Preznit Next to Bush!"
Posted by HughBeaumont | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:00 AM (1 replies)
This particular entry is in response to an article about how many lies Mitt Romney has told in a period of 30 days (533 lies). It might not be too far off in explaining why a guy who's worth a quarter of a billion dollars wants to be President (thanks to Ross).
Romney is running for president for the same reason as the reason for most of the things the 0.1% do. He wants to be president to keep one of them from being president.
At a certain point of sociopathy, it's not about what you can get for yourself, but about what you can keep the proles from having.
That's what's keeping the alliance from collapsing from in-fighting. I mean, if it was just about accumulating wealth for yourself, why keep trying to screw the poor? If you want to double your wealth, you won't do it by taking the last 2% of the global wealth from the poor -- you'll get it by bankrupting your rivals and taking *their* money. Poaching ONE Koch brother will fatten your bank account more than raiding the pensions of a million wage-slaves.
But they don't because it's not about increasing their wealth -- they've got so much already that any sense of "more" is purely academic. But you know what they *can* quantify? What they deny to others.
If I'm healthy, additional "health" isn't going to make me healthier, but denying healthcare to others *will* have a visible effect.
If I've got a billion dollars, another hundred thousand means very little to me. But if I can take a hundred thousand dolars and in doing so, reduce a family to desperation, that's something I can look at, and say "Behold my accomplishment!"
Mitt Romney wants to be president so that no one else can have it. Especially someone who might do some good with it.
Just another toy to collect . . . . to say he has it?
Posted by HughBeaumont | Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:11 AM (30 replies)
NEVER. And that includes corporate empty-suit wanksters who follow the Bush economic platform on steroids.
"Stop blaming my brother" . . . Jeb, you stupid bastard,
a) thanks to Obama's congress being either Third Way Worthless to Republican Regressive, NOTHING'S CHANGED since "your brother" and
b) "Your brother" shat things up so bad, it's going to take at least 15 years of America having to make the absolute right move on every economic and electoral decision there is from here on out to correct it. "Your brother" left us with a debt BY CHOICE thanks to his tax cuts for the rich BY CHOICE and his wars OF CHOICE and corporate welfare BY CHOICE. He didn't have to do any of this, he just DID.
You're NEVER going to be president, Jeb. NEVER.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:09 AM (3 replies)