Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 8,143
Number of posts: 8,143
- 2014 (527)
- 2013 (731)
- 2012 (726)
"..Scott Brown plays the last card left in his deck. If only Mitt were President now..."
Scotty,.....beam yourself up!...........
Scott Brown is having fever dreams about what might have been if Mitt Romney had been elected, and on Friday, he snuggled up with Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio to share his innermost fantasies.
“Gosh can you imagine if Mitt was the president right now?” Brown said. “He was right on Russia, he was right on Obamacare, he was right on the economy. And I guarantee you we would not be worrying about Ebola right now and, you know, worrying about our foreign policy screw ups.”
Gosh, we probably wouldn't be worrying about Ebola right now because Mitt isn't African like the current Kenyan usurper is, right? No, we'd be worried about our brave young men and women serving in Ukraine, Syria and Iran while Mitt ignored the bodies coming home in coffins while selling the rest of the country to the billionaires who nearly own it now.
Mitt wasn't right on a damn thing, most especially the economy, where President Obama managed to achieve in two years what Mitt promised in four years. But this is Fox News Fantasyland, where everything is viewed through the looking-glass of Roger Ailes' ass.
Bye-bye, Scott Brown.
Posted by Segami | Sat Oct 18, 2014, 04:10 PM (0 replies)
The presidential wannabe went overseas to tell the world what he thinks America's role in it is.
Sure,...lets put this Fuggin' Clown in charge!!!..................
It was more than 11 years ago that The Dixie Chicks made their famous comment on a London stage about being ashamed the president came from Texas. The firestorm was immediate with Republicans expressing fury, conservative celebrities disowning them, radio stations refusing to play their records and right wing groups staging CD burning parties to protest their very existence. The South Carolina House of Representatives passed a resolution demanding that the Chicks apologize publicly and perform a free concert for American troops stationed. The resolution called the comments “unpatriotic” and “Anti-American.” The far right online group called Free Republic (the Breitbart of its day) said, “We are outraged by the anti American statements made by the Dixie Chicks on foreign soil during a time of imminent war. We are sick of ‘stars’ spouting anti American rhetoric thereby demoralizing our military personnel and offering aid and comfort to our enemies.” When the Chicks went on TV to apologize, Diane Sawyer grilled the singers relentlessly asking, “Do you feel awful about using that word about the president of the United States?” One of the major complaints about their comment was that it was made on “foreign soil” in a time of war. Conservative rocker Gene Simmons put it this way:
“In time of war, to aid and give comfort to the enemy on foreign soil, on stage and in a public forum is perfect fodder for anybody’s press overseas that has a slightly different agenda, and I think it’s reprehensible. And just because you’re cute and have D-cups doesn’t mean it’s any less reprehensible.”
It was quite a flap, culminating with the president himself petulantly complaining that the Chicks could say whatever they wanted but they shouldn’t “get their feelings hurt” when people don’t like them anymore. (Like Bush vs Gore, this was a lesson which only applied to one particular case — when the Duck Dynasty patriarch was equally hit for his homophobia, all the same right-wingers became 1st Amendment absolutists.) This trip down memory lane is just to add a little context to another American who went to London this week to talk about American foreign policy. Texas Governor Rick Perry went across the pond and gave a speech that would have made all those Chicks-haters proud. No, he didn’t repeat his earlier comments to the Americans for Prosperity gathering (from which he drew “hoots” from the audience), in which he said, “The deepening chaos in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine is all the clear and compelling evidence the world needs of a president one step behind, lurching from crisis to crisis, always playing catch up.” But what he did say was enough to curdle the blood of anyone who isn’t looking to start World War III. He makes his case in no uncertain terms:
It is one thing to speak earnestly about the international order that our nations have helped to establish these past 70 years, and something else altogether to see that it is defended. That, once again, is what is required of Western nations and the great alliances we have formed. And as you know better than I, this cause will draw heavily on our wealth, our will, and our wisdom.
The plainest imperative of all is the resources we commit to the common defense, holding nothing back if it will better assure our security. And the nations of the West had better get about it, and never take for granted our military superiority.
For us, in the present conflict, the difference that superiority makes is the difference between those people – the jihadists of ISIS – in control or in retreat.
We know what they do when they’re in control, and they try very hard to make sure we see it. In all of our conduct toward this enemy, there can be no illusions, and no compromise of all that we are defending.
There’s more along this line. Much more. He goes on to put himself in the shoes of the average Iraqi or Syrian, lugubriously asserting that Americans are always seen cleanly and purely as saviors:
And when they look up and see an RAF, Danish, or American bomber coming in, they feel precisely as you and I would feel. That sight must seem like the answer to a prayer, a prayer that can be expressed in every faith: “Save my family, save my home, save my village, save me, from this evil.”
There is much more in his speech to alarm you but this probably sums up his attitude most succinctly:
What all of these various hate groups have in common is a disdain for, and a wish to destroy, our Western way of life.
And someone needs to tell them that the meeting has already been held. It was decided, democratically, long ago – and by the way through great and heroic sacrifice – that our societies will be governed by Western values and Western laws.
Among those values are openness and tolerance. But to every extremist, it has to be made clear: we will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent ideas. If you expect to live among us, and yet plan against us, to receive the protections and comforts of a free society, while showing none of its virtues or graces, then you can have our answer now: No, not on our watch!
You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news: then welcome to civilization.
(But don’t worry, you can carry a many guns as you like and shoot anyone who looks at you sideways.)
Posted by Segami | Sat Oct 18, 2014, 11:13 AM (8 replies)
"...Scalia wants to stop us from “forcing” Republicans to obey the Constitution. And yes, he came right out and said it: “..I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution...”
The Republicans really do not understand the First Amendment. And, as I will explain, when I say “do not understand” I mean, “do not care.” They seem to be saying that, “Just because the First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion, does not mean we should not establish a religion.” But it’s far more sinister than that. It would be nice if it were as easy as waving a copy of the First Amendment in front of their faces. This Amendment, as most Americans know, forbids the federal government from establishing a religion in clear, concise terms anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand:
"..Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..."
By ‘establish,’ what is meant is establishment of a state religion. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the centuries of religious strife endured by Europe – and also colonists here – because of state-sponsored religion: Protestants on one side, Catholics on the other. They wished to avoid that being the fate of America. It is as clear as the ringing of a church bell. If the First Amendment is not clear enough, there is plenty of additional evidence in the form of letters and documents written by the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and his close friend and colleague, James Madison, the guy known as the “Father of the Constitution.” These documents explain to the dimmer among us their intentions. Let’s just say it: It is virtually impossible for anyone to be anything but willfully ignorant of the First Amendment’s purpose. Republicans like to play dumb. They say the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion only to Christians. They like to pretend the First Amendment actually ESTABLISHES Christianity as a state religion even though it clearly forbids such establishment. Or like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, pretend that it doesn’t forbid that establishment:
I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion.
Right. We are only trying to convince you of what the First Amendment actually DOES say. So sue us. Scalia wants to stop us from “forcing” Republicans to obey the Constitution. And yes, he came right out and said it: “I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.” Well, that’s sort of what the Constitution does, doesn’t it? It is ONLY the law of the land, after all. If you parse this, you realize two things: Scalia says the First Amendment does not ban the establishment of religion; and, The Constitution can’t force Republicans do obey the dictate of the First Amendment. What does this tell you about the intent of the Republican Party? Let’s look at some more examples: Iowa Republican Joni Ernst say that we don’t need Obamacare because people should be relying on their churches. Comments like this can only leave us shaking our heads in wonder:
We’re looking at Obamacare right now. Once we start with those benefits in January, how are we going to get people off of those? It’s exponentially harder to remove people once they’ve already been on those programs.
We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do. They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.
Obviously – and again, this needs be said only to the dimmer-witted among us – if the churches were working as Ernst claims, Obamacare would never have been necessary in the first place. We would have all this time been receiving the healthcare we need. There was nothing stopping the church from paying for its congregations’ medical care. They just never did it. And they’re not about to start now. They WILL pray for you, but that won’t cure your cancer or replace your heart valve. And then – talking about the dim-witted among us – there is Georgia Republican Jody Hice, who earlier this month asked who could possibly be offended by school-sponsored (in other words, government-sponsored) prayer?
RIGHT WING WATCH:
Posted by Segami | Sat Oct 18, 2014, 09:21 AM (2 replies)
Pop another handful of crickets Chucky,....this is going to be a long night....
Chuck Todd has claimed special insight into the world of "trolling" in the past. "Easiest way to attract trolls, write 'media' and 'bias' in a sentence," he tweeted last year. Equipped with that knowledge, NBC's new "Meet the Press" moderator waded into a Facebook Q&A on Friday ready to swat down any such hostility that came his way. When one user asked him why he is "always trying to win the midterm for the Republican Party," Todd was prepared. "I think folks mistake analysis of political reality with cheerleading," he said. But that accusation of bias was tame compared to what followed.
"Was false equivalence your dream or did it come to you over time?" another user asked.
According to Todd, that guy was on the wrong social media platform for that kind of sarcasm.
"Happy to answer any serious questions. If you want to snark, do it on Twitter," Todd said.
Todd responded similarly when he was taken to task for not investigating "GOP Voter Discrimination or the Sequester to Blocking everything Obama wants."
"Why didn't you ask me when I stopped beating my wife? Come on," Todd said. "Ask a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer. There's always more nuance to the facts that partisans, left and right, want to admit."
One user called Todd an "a$$ clown" for his suggestion that Alison Lundergan Grimes had "disqualified herself" for refusing to say whether she had voted for President Obama. "I understand you have to be mad at someone, so why not a member of the press," Todd responded. "That's why God invented social media."
Posted by Segami | Fri Oct 17, 2014, 07:40 PM (11 replies)
Instead of changing themselves to better represent all Americans, Republicans are resorting to Hitler like tactics
The Republican Party is increasingly becoming the party of older, white men. The problem with being known as the party of older, white men is that America no longer looks this way. We are entering a period where whites will soon be in the minority. And typically, nonwhites tend to lend heavily toward the Democratic party. Another group that tends to vote Democratic is younger voters. As a result Republicans are looking for ways to influence young people. What better way to do that than by ripping a page straight out of Hitler’s playbook by shaping young minds through altering what is being taught in schools. Hitler understood that the most efficient way to unify a population was to shape young minds through a new educational curriculum. “The Nazi leadership appreciated the difficulty of indoctrinating the older generation… They were all the more determined to mold the new generation along Nazi lines…create a new type of student…” Conservatives have incorporated Hitler-like tactics by focusing on science and history subjects in order to indoctrinate new generations of youth into Republican ideology.
Conservatives have already released a book of pure fiction, Of Pandas and People, for use in “science classes.” The book is used mostly in religious charter schools and claims to offer a supplemental “textbook” for biology teachers in public schools. It focuses on creation science and offers half-truths to discredit evolution. The teaching of “creation-science” in public schools was precluded in June 1987, when the Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Aguillard. At issue was a state law that authorized “creation-science” instruction in the schools of Louisiana. The Court characterized “creation-science” as “a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety.” Teaching it in public schools would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which forbids any law that would establish an official religion. While illegal in public schools, government funded religious charter schools are just fine. Charter schools have essentially become a conservative wet dream. Over 90% of charter school teachers are non-union, the schools receive much of their funding by private (corporate/conservative) donors and they are free to teach creationism and leave out or rewrite important history.
History Shapes the Future
Conservatives are promoting a history curriculum that promotes “citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.” A conservative led school board in Colorado has proposed
“instructional materials that present positive aspects of the nation and its heritage. It would establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights and don’t encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”The Texas Board of Education changed the way social studies and history classes are being taught back in 2010. The goal was to put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks that stressed the superiority of American capitalism, questioned the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presented Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
Posted by Segami | Fri Oct 17, 2014, 05:09 PM (15 replies)
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has become increasingly frustrated with the way Democratic congressional candidates have run their campaigns ahead of the November midterm elections. When she appeared Thursday on Late Night with Seth Meyers, she admitted that liberals may “deserve” to lose the Senate, as most polling models are forecasting.
As Maddow explained, she believes it’s a “weird strategic move” for Democrats to distance themselves from President Barack Obama, especially given the overall success of his Affordable Care Act. Now that Republicans can no longer credibly run against Obamacare, Maddow expressed her disappointment that Democrats have given up on the issue as well.
“If your opponent loses the thing that they’ve been using as a crutch for six years and you just let them walk away from it like it never existed, maybe you don’t deserve to win,” Maddow told Seth Meyers. “They just don’t have the killer instinct it takes to make their opponents pay for a big mistake and I don’t understand why the Democrats are doing that.”
Of course, Maddow did not let the current Congress off the hook when it comes to ISIS. She said it takes a lot of “gall” for Congress to complain and spread fear about ISIS while refusing to actually do anything about it. “To be that wussy, and that cowardly, politically, while then still trying to score political points about what you’re being a wuss about, is why people feel the way they do about Congress,” she said.
Watch video via NBC:
Posted by Segami | Fri Oct 17, 2014, 04:09 PM (56 replies)
"IT'S A FACT": Moderators Call Out Gardner's PERSONHOOD LIES
The Colorado Senate debate took an interesting turn when moderators actually functioned as journalists and exposed Cory Gardner's lies about his support for the Colorado personhood amendment.
These moderators could replace Chuck Todd on Meet the Press and it would completely change the show for the better. Cory Gardner was hammered tonight by the moderators for his co-sponsorship of Colorado's personhood amendment. Try as he might, he just couldn't spin it to take himself off the hook.
First, the moderator informed Gardner that they would not be debating the purpose of the personhood amendment, which he characterized as a way to end abortion forever. Sternly, he told Gardner they would not be debating the character of the amendment, because the intent of it to end abortion is a fact.
He then tells Gardner that they are instead looking at what "this entire episode may say about your judgement more broadly. "A favorable interpretation would be that you have a difficult time admitting when you're wrong." "A less charitable interpretation is that you're not telling us the truth," he concluded.
In other words, Senator-Hopeful Gardner, are you lying or are you just a stubborn SOB who can't admit it when you've screwed up? Watch the rest. It's glorious, because the moderators are relentless, forcing Gardner to do the Republican Shuffle, where he pivots to the excuse that voters don't care about this issue. It's only the press that cares. He should tell the women in this country that. To their face.
Posted by Segami | Thu Oct 16, 2014, 07:52 AM (23 replies)
Starts at 10:28 to 21:42
MADDOW: Now that he's out and working for a global strategy firm that's essentially the Hillary Clinton campaign in exile, now he's flying the same exact anti-Obama flag that the hawkish Clinton wing of the party has been flying all year trying to position themselves for the next stage in their own political careers by stepping on President Obama's neck.
Posted by Segami | Tue Oct 14, 2014, 10:29 AM (13 replies)
In an interview with 60 Minutes that ended up online, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson revealed that Condoleezza Rice had personally asked her to kill a story about the CIA from reporter James Risen. As she recounted to Stahl, Rice, then National Security Advisor, was rather awkward about the entire thing, asking her to personally visit her in an undisclosed location.
“She had a legal yellow notebook on her lap with lots of notes on it, and once I had taken a seat across from her, she barely looked up,” Abramson recalled.” She basically read in a very stern manner from her notes on this legal pad, which were just point after point about why this story would be damaging to the national security. I don’t think I uttered much more than ‘hello,’ and ‘I will think of what you said.’”
Rice’s bottom line “was to make sure that Jim ceases all reporting on this story, which was really an extraordinary request.”
Abramson added that she regretted not publishing Risen’s story, which ended up revealing the CIA’s failed attempt to hinder Iran’s nuclear program, and which landed him in a massive legal battle against the Department of Justice for not revealing his source. “It seemed, in the calculus of all of the major stories we were dealing with at that point, not worth it to me and I regret that decision now,” she said.
Posted by Segami | Tue Oct 14, 2014, 09:23 AM (101 replies)
You know the saying about how you should never yell “Fire!” in a theater? Let’s bring that maxim up to date, and amend it to add that you should also refrain from shouting, “I have Ebola, you’re all screwed!” on an airplane. Because that will result in the hazardous materials folks showing up and generally spoiling an entire planeful of people’s plans for an uneventful flight.
An unidentified American passenger on a US Airways flight traveling from Philadelphia to Punta Cana on in the Dominican Republic on Wednesday reportedly shouted out things like, “I’ve been to Africa!” and, according to media reports, “I have Ebola, you’re all screwed!” right before the plane landed, reports Fox News Latino.
Though it’s unclear/unconfirmed exactly what he said, passengers and crew were not amused, as the Ebola outbreak has killed almost 4,000 people in Africa and infectious diseases are just not something you kid around about, causing a bit of a scene on the plane.
Upon the plane’s arrival, a passenger chronicled what happens next on video, of course, because that is what one does in the times we live in.
The flight crew tells everyone to sit down, and on come the blue hazmat suits, while the passenger in question was taken away to the airport’s medical center for tests, even while saying, “I ain’t from Africa.” He was reportedly coughing during the flight and some reports say he appeared “unbalanced.” An official with the airport says the plane was detained on the tarmac for almost two hours while medical and airline people made sure there was no risk to the more than 200 passengers on board.
Posted by Segami | Mon Oct 13, 2014, 06:16 AM (6 replies)