HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Segami » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 189 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 7,906

Journal Archives


Republican dishonesty, not only about what they do and what they would like to do, but about the world we live in, are endemic. And the situation is getting steadily worse as Republicans daily seem more unhinged, leaving liberals and progressives shaking their heads in dismay. Do you remember last year when Public Policy Polling revealed that more Louisiana Republicans blame President Obama for the mishandling of Katrina relief efforts than blame President Bush? It is a matter of public record that Barack Obama was only a freshman senator then, while Bush had been president for half a decade. Almost half of Louisiana Republicans didn’t know who to blame.

Of course, Republicans have also blamed Obama for the Iraq War and routinely pretend that there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil while Bush was president (9/11 anyone?). Not only that, but Fox News has excised any subsequent Bush-era terrorist attacks from public memory. Republicans have also conveniently forgotten that Bush presided over the economic collapse of 2008. Obama wasn’t elected until November 4 of that year and did not take office until the following January. Of course, President Obama is currently being blamed for the immigration crisis at the border that Republicans are responsible for. Bush signed the law; Obama gets blamed. Republicans attack President Obama for taking too many vacation days. In reality, as Al Sharpton pointed out on August 9, 2013,

"...Obama] has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in. How many did President (George W.) Bush take by the same point in his presidency? Three hundred and sixty seven. Yes, more than a full year of vacation..."

PolitiFact has rated this statement “mostly true” in that Bush spent some working vacation days at his Texas ranch. I remember Bush being on vacation all the time; Republicans don’t even remember Bush. Republicans want to sue and impeach President Obama for signing executive orders, even though he has issued far fewer executive orders than President Bush, whose executive orders were not the object of Republican complaint. For example, on September 25, 2012, FactCheck.org pointed out that “Obama has issued 139 executive orders as of Sept. 25 …Bush issued 160 executive orders through Sept. 20, 2004, a comparable amount of time.” As of June 20, 2014, Obama had signed 182 executive orders. Bush signed 173 in his first term alone, and 291 during his entire presidency. Again, if you want to count executive orders you can do so; it’s a matter of public record and the University of California Santa Barbara helpfully tracks them by year and president. Republicans prefer just making stuff up because the facts do not agree with the fantasies they want to push.

Republicans have claimed Obama is adding to the deficit (while they add to it themselves via tax breaks for their rich owners) when in fact he has been steadily reducing the deficit. In fact, last year, Obama shrank the deficit to a 5-year low. And as Paul Krugman points out, there was never a crisis in the first place. As with all their other scandals, it was manufactured by conservatives to advance their anti-Social Security and Medicare agenda. Democrats like to believe that when they engage the Right in debate that they do so on more or less equal terms. Both sides are, after all, comprised of sentient human beings. But Republicans have given substance to the old childhood taunt, “I am rubber, you are glue, words bounce off me and stick to you.” They are literally impervious to facts. And not only is President Obama magically to blame for all Bush’s manifest misdeeds, he is somehow also to blame for every misdeed committed anywhere in the world. Everything that happens is somehow Obama’s fault and John McCain has turned himself into Chuck Norris, able to strangle the butterfly that flapped its wings in Siberia to prevent a typhoon hitting the West Coast. Only John McCain, who voted for the Iraq War, could have stopped the Iraq War. This must make sense only to Republicans, who nod their heads sagely. If only they could do so in strait jackets, which is arguably where they belong.



LOL!!- Kim Jong Un Really HATES THIS VIDEO And Wants It Off The Internet

Dictators never seem to have much of a sense of humor, and North Korea's Kim Jong Un is no exception. Kim is trying to get China to pull the plug on a satirical video that, with some not-so-subtle digital trickery, shows him dancing, running, getting poked in the butt by a rocket and more, all set to catchy music. He also gets repeatedly pranked -- often by President Barack Obama.

North Korean officials say the clip "seriously compromises Kim's dignity and authority," South Korea's Chosun Ilbun newspaper reports. Naturally, China has been unable to help because once something is online, it's online forever. And Kim doesn't seem to know Rule 19 of the Internet: The more you hate it, the stronger it gets.

This is not the only video that has Pyongyang going ballistic. The nation recently threatened a "resolute and merciless response" over the upcoming Seth Rogan/James Franco film, "The Interview."


GEORGE TAKEI Tells Maher Why He Simply CANNOT STAND William Shatner

.......George Takei never disappoints!...........

July 18, 2014 - One of the saddest facts about the original Star Trek cast is that actors George Takei (Hikaru Sulu) and William Shatner (Cpt. James T. Kirk) can't stand each other in real life. No matter how many times Trekkies hear about the feud, it never seems to feel right or make sense. During his appearance on Real Time, Takei was grilled by Bill Maher on that never-ending feud that reminds millions of Americans of the time members of their favorite band didn't get along. "You just want to go, 'Come on, Bee Gees, just get along!'" the host joked.

"Well, we're human," Takei explained, with Maher expressing confusion that someone from our northern neighboring country couldn't get along with someone else.

"Canadians have a certain image of being even-tempered and friendly and all that," Takei continued. "Well, he is a person who is that way with himself. He is very self-centered."

After a hearty laugh, the geek celebrity-turned-Internet-sensation said, "We work together. We're professionals. We get the work done, but, it's with a lot of difficulty." He joked with Maher that the temptation is sometimes there to just "drive the starship into a death star" just to spite Shatner (weird mix of geek references, eh?).

The feud came up again when Takei talked about how his cast-mates all knew was gay except for one. "It went right over his head." The obvious answer: William Shatner.



A stridently pro-life woman is suing a family planning clinic for not hiring her because she wouldn’t work with birth control – despite that being a major part of the job. Sara Hellwege was turned down for a nursing job at the clinic after she admitted to her prospective employer that she was morally opposed to doing any part of the job which required her to administer or assign birth control to women who came in. This posed a pretty serious problem with regards to her capacity to do the job given the fact that this was a clinic which primarily served as a resource for men and women looking for contraceptives and birth control.In a series of emails (published here), Hellwege converses with Chad Lindsey, the human resources director of Tampa Family Health Centers. After asking about her qualifications and other administrative issues, Lindsey notices that on her resume, Hellwege listed her membership in the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He asked if her pro-life beliefs would affect her ability to work at the clinic, citing its Title X status explicitly making it a facility which provides contraceptive services.

Hellwege’s response is enough to immediately make it clear that she is a terrible fit for the job:

Hi Mr. Lindsey,

Thanks for such a timely response. Yes, I am a member of AAPLOG. Due to religious guidelines, I am able to counsel women regarding all forms of contraception, however, cannot it unless pathology exists – however have no issue with barrier methods & sterilization.

She then asks if there are any positions available in other areas which wouldn’t require her to work around her religious issues with birth control. Lindsey politely sends her a final email which explains that given the clinic’s focus, there didn’t seem to be a way to feasibly hire her considering her moral objections. He also notes that some of the other jobs she was after were already filled and so employment wasn’t a possibility. Rather than move on to other applications, Hellwege decided to wage war against the unfair treatment she thinks she received from the clinic. According to her reasoning, anything less than hiring her and working around her moral objections to the job was tantamount to religious persecution. Hellwege lawyered up and filed a lawsuit against the clinic for religious discrimination. Her defense team is made up of members of the Alliance Defending Freedom. The group describes itself as “an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith” and also “a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.”

According to a press release from the ADF announcing Hellwege’s lawsuit:

The lawsuit, Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, explains that “TFHC’s refusal to consider Ms. Hellwege’s application for employment on the basis of her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG violates multiple federal laws.”

The lawsuit also explains that “Florida law shall not require ‘any person to participate in the termination of a pregnancy, nor shall…any person be liable for such refusal.’” Moreover, “Ms. Hellwege has the right to refuse to prescribe abortifacient contraceptives where such actions violate her religious beliefs or moral convictions.”




Hey, DNC, Whose SIDE Are You On?

Friday morning, Sen. Elizabeth Warren rocked the Netroots Nation 2014 crowd with a rousing speech about what it means to be a Democrat, what we believe in.

"The game is rigged. And the rich and the powerful have lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. Everybody else, not so much. So the way I see this is we can whine about it, we can whimper about it or we can fight back. I'm fighting back!"

Warren ran through a list of progressive policy positions, asserting that "we believe" in tougher rules for Wall Street; science; net neutrality; raising the minimum wage; a livable wage for fast food workers; making sure students aren't burdened by crushing debt; protecting Social Security, Medicare and pensions; equal pay for equal work; equality; immigration reform and the fact that corporations are not people.


That's good red meat for a Democratic base that needs to be activated for November, the speech she's been giving to mobilize the base around the country. So where was the DNC this week, in Detroit, backing up Warren? Nope. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was hanging out with the Third Way.

Yeah. That would be the Third Way that attacked Sen. Warren for her economic populism, the Third Way whose board of directors is completely stacked with CEOs and investment bankers. Maybe Third Way puts out a better breakfast spread than Netroots Nation. But the DNC has to consider this. When the chips are down this fall, who are they going to be asking to make GOTV calls and go door to door? Who is running their voter registration drives? And just which Democratic senator is out working the crowds in the red states for a Democratic Senate in 2014?

DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz might want to reconsider the kind of crowd she's hanging with.


BAM!!- Joan Walsh to McCain: ‘COWARDLY’ Is Putting Palin a ‘HEARTBEAT AWAY’ From Presidency

Joan Walsh sent one sailing into the air and nailed Senator 'Grumpy' John McCain right between the eyes with this one.

Hey Johnny,....can't wait to see you try making yourself relevant on ALL the Sunday morning shows........

During an appearance on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton Friday evening, Salon columnist Joan Walsh took on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for laying blame on President Barack Obama for yesterday’s shot down Malaysia Airlines passenger jet. McCain called Obama “cowardly” for refusing to intervene in Ukraine, but Walsh turned that word around on him.

“It’s just been cowardly,” McCain said on Fox News’ Hannity last night. “It’s a cowardly administration that we failed to give the Ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves,” he continued, suggesting that the Russian separatists who allegedly shot down the plane “may not even have occupied and had access to these weapons” if the U.S. had aided the Ukrainians with weapons and troops.

“You don’t say that about the commander-in-chief,” Walsh told Sharpton today. “This is a man, I respect him for his service, but if we’re going to talk cowardly, somebody tried to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency so that he hoped to hold onto his right-wing base. Somebody that has a lot to atone for and a lot to think about shouldn’t be tossing around words like cowardly.”



Zephyr Teachout & Tim Wu Try To RETURN DEMOCRATS To Their POPULIST ROOTS With A Serious Challenge

"....And Teachout’s campaign, though a longshot, is no laughing matter. Larry Lessig, the reform advocate who has raised $12 million for a campaign against corruption, calls this “the most important money in politics race this year.” It’s not just a race about corruption; it’s the first shot of what might be a real revolt in the Democratic Party..."


Can the Democratic Party return to its populist roots?

It’s an odd question. Unlimited corporate money is pouring into politics after the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. Dramatic economic inequality is being exposed by best-selling economist Thomas Piketty. Politician Elizabeth Warren is ascendant in the Democratic Party. So the answer would seem to be yes. At the same time, Hillary Clinton, an extremely Wall Street-friendly candidate, is attracting the bulk of liberal support. Other candidates for the 2016, such as Martin O’Malley and Jay Nixon, may run, both solely as competent technocrats. In 2016, despite the seemingly potent moment, no serious candidate is directly challenging corporate power. It seems as if liberal Democrats are, to put it mildly, confused. The answer to this question may best be answered by looking at an improbably important race in New York state, for governor. A year ago, this race looked like a snooze, with a popular and powerful incumbent Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, cruising to re-election. But that was before two things happened. One, federal prosecutors began investigating possible criminal activity by Cuomo in tampering with a New York state anti-corruption panel known as the Moreland Commission. And two, Zephyr Teachout, a constitutional law professor and corruption scholar, began her campaign to challenge Cuomo, on this same question of corruption. And Teachout’s campaign, though a longshot, is no laughing matter. Larry Lessig, the reform advocate who has raised $12 million for a campaign against corruption, calls this “the most important money in politics race this year.” It’s not just a race about corruption; it’s the first shot of what might be a real revolt in the Democratic Party.


Cuomo is a standard-bearer for the Democratic Party establishment — he’s a former Clinton cabinet official, New York attorney general, son of legendary liberal Mario Cuomo and a potential future presidential candidate. In the last six months, 16 billionaires have dumped money into his campaign. He has, as a lieutenant governor running mate, Kathy Hochul, a (non-registered) bank lobbyist and former upstate Democratic congresswoman with a long history of anti-immigrant activism. Teachout is an insurgent, a scholar of corruption and corporate influence in politics, as well as a longtime activist in Democratic politics. She chose as her running mate Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a specialist in internet law and former Federal Trade Commission official who coined the term ‘net neutrality’. What makes this race unusual is that Teachout and Wu have made addressing corporate power the centerpiece of their campaign. One of Teachout’s first specific policy proposals was to use New York government to block the Comcast-Time Warner merger in the state. This is more revolutionary than it looks. Everyone in New York City hates Time Warner, and telecommunications companies are among the least popular companies in the country. But when was the last time anyone got to vote against their cable company? That’s the chance Teachout and Wu want to give voters. They have also pledged to take on the perceived monopolistic power that Amazon is wielding over the publishing industry, which is centered in New York City. Their platform lists public financing of campaigns and caps on corporate contributions to political parties as critical mechanisms to root out corruption and run a government for the people.


In 2006, the last competitive primary for governor, a little over 750,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary. If the number of voters remains similar, 12% of the people needed to win have already signed up to put Teachout and Wu on the ballot. In other words, they already have 12% of the votes they need to win. That’s grassroots power, and there’s only upside since most Democrats have no idea yet that there’s another option on the ballot aside from Cuomo. There are several other secret weapons; Wu will be able to draw upon a rich trove of immigrant community votes, and the duo could bring in a vast network of liberal voters who dislike Cuomo and who belong to internet groups. Moveon alone has 293,000 list members in New York City. It’s a difficult race, but it is actually not impossible. Since the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have been governed by a specific ‘New Democrat’ model. The basic theory of the ‘New Democrat’ model of governance is that Wall Street and multinational corporate elites produce wealth through the creation of innovative financial practices and technology, and that Democrats should then help middle class and poor citizens by taxing this wealth, and then using some of it to support progressive social programs. Financialization, which is a specific type of financial capitalism in which various elements of society are turned into revenue streams to be sold into financial markets, has been the order of the day.


There is a hunger in the Democratic Party for making the party serve the interest of regular voters, not the rich. In 2008, liberal Democrats decisively broke from the Clinton legacy and voted for Barack Obama, with his mantra of hope and change. Obama, however, stocked his administration with Clinton administration officials like Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Janet Yellen. A joke going around Democratic circles after the election was that “Those supporting Obama got a president, those supporting Clinton got a job.” Obama broke with the Clinton name, but brought the Clinton intellectual legacy, and Clinton’s Wall Street-backed machine, into governance. Today, liberal Democratic primary voters are exhausted by six years of an administration under siege. Liberal Democratic voters still, by and large, do not view Obama’s failure to deliver on his promises as a failure of design or of personnel. Instead, they generally blame structural corruption in politics, or radical right-wing truculence. Obama, they think, is a good liberal man who did what he could. But looking ahead to 2016, many are attracted to what they perceive as Hillary Clinton’s pragmatism. They are ready to return to the Clinton family because they think what is needed is competence. The potentially transformative message of the Teachout-Wu campaign is that the problem is not solely one of personalities or tactical political approaches. Rather it is that the New Democrat model itself, and the Democratic party establishment, is fundamentally at odds with the party’s traditional liberalism.




This is the guy they should Impeach!..............

Why on Earth did you publish that pathetic piece of nonsense by John Boehner ("Obama is trampling Constitution")? There is a reason why the current House of Representatives has, by far, the lowest approval rating in our nation's history. You, Mr. Boehner, have spent all of your time wasting taxpayer money on ridiculous charades and promoting an unconscionable agenda. You have voted over 50 times to cancel the Affordable Care Act. Doing so would take us back to the days of allowing Health Insurance Corporations to:

(1) Deny medical coverage and medical care to any person having a pre-existing medical condition, a highly serious illness or injury in their medical record, or a potentially inheritable and expensive medical disease in their family tree

(2) Simply cancel, at the annual renewal date, the health insurance policy of any person who was no longer profitable for them to cover

(3) Sell health insurance policies which are actually nothing more than vile pieces of garbage and a false sense of security because they have extremely low annual and/or lifetime benefit caps, or don't cover those conditions which are likely to cause financial ruin, or have such high patient deductible clauses and patient co-payment schedules that they are guaranteed to cause financial ruin

(4) Refuse to cover, under a parent's family health insurance policy, all children above the age of 17, instead of above the age of 25. The Affordable care Act wasn't the only conceivable path to achieving imperative patient protection goals, but if you simply repeal it, all of its patient protection requirements immediately vanish.

Every time that our nation has enacted a highly complex piece of new legislation, it has been necessary to delay implementation of some aspects of it. President Bush first delayed, and then cancelled, the fees which were supposed to be charged to seniors who were tardy in signing up for Medicare Part D.

Nobody, including you, objected.

Now you want to sue President Obama for delaying one aspect of the extremely lengthy & complex ACA? Have you completely lost your mind? Do you have any idea of how preposterous it is for you to sue the President for slowing down the implementation of one aspect of the ACA, thereby actually helping businesses, while you have devoted your entire political life to killing all patient protections?

Now let's talk about something which actually does cry out for severe punishment. Every legitimate economics expert on this planet warned that global economic chaos and catastrophe would result if the United States voted to default on its debts. So what did the majority of the members of your political party in the U.S. House of Representatives do? They chose to cast a vote in favor of default. This is, clearly, an act of treason and terrorism against not only our nation, but against all members of the human race. These individuals must be removed from office and imprisoned for a time period of not less than ten years, with no possibility of parole.



McCain Blames 'COWARDLY' Obama Administration For Allowing Plane Attack

Heeeeeeeeeee's Baaaack On TV!!!.......John Meeeee-Cain!.................

Guess who Sen. John McCain blames for the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight 17? Yup, President Obama:

Mr. McCain said that Mr. Obama is running a “cowardly administration that failed to give the Ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves.”


McCain's comments came during an appearance on Fox's Hannity show. He said that if Obama had simply armed the Ukrainians, then "these separatists may not even have occupied and had access to these weapons, which apparently, they got at an airfield." So according to expert McCain, if Obama had simply weaponized Ukraine, then these separatists never would have been able to get the weapon system they used to bring down the airplane. But hold on a moment ... how does McCain know that the missiles were obtained at an airfield, and that they weren't provided to the separatists by Russian military—or that Russian military personnel may have actually been operating the weapons? Well, based on this statement, also by McCain, and delivered during the same interview, it's pretty clear he has no idea, because just after saying that the people who shot down the plane did so with weapons they found at an airfield, he said that the separatists weren't actually separatists but were actually in fact Russian special operation forces:

To me, it's compelling evidence that this was done by the so-called separatists, which are, by the way, special operations, special forces of Russians, that are Russian-trained Russian military that call themselves separatists.

Literally within seconds, McCain's story went from accusing Obama of letting a Ukrainian missile system fall into the wrong hands to accusing Russia of maintaining a special operation force that was responsible for shooting down the plane. Who knows, both of those scenarios seem plausible, but not at the same time ... unless, of course, your priority is attacking President Obama, which obviously is bitter McCain's real agenda.


LOL!!- GOP Wants MITT BACK: 70% Of Republican Voters Are Open to Voting For Romney in 2016

The arrogance of 1% elitist a$$holes who just won't accept no for an answer..........

By: Jason Easley

The idea that Mitt Romney may run for president again in 2016 is getting closer to becoming a reality as a Vox Populi Poll found that 70% of Republican primary voters are open to voting again for Romney. Republican primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were asked if they would consider voting for Romney again for their party’s nomination in 2016. Twenty-three percent of South Carolina primary voters would vote for Mitt Romney again, and 51% would consider it. In New Hampshire, 30% would definitely vote for him, and 47% would consider it. In Iowa, 21% would definitely vote for him, and 53% would consider it.

The numbers in each state suggest that Romney already has enough support to win two or maybe all three of the first three primary states on the Republican calendar. Romney’s support has stayed fairly consistent with his 2012 performance. In 2012, Romney got 25% of the caucus vote in Iowa. Today, he is at 21% in the state. Romney got 39% of the 2012 GOP primary vote in New Hampshire, and he is at 30% today. In South Carolina, Romney got 28% of the vote in 2012, and he is sitting at 23% today. Romney’s lingering popularity with Republican primary voters suggests that voters aren’t in love with any of their possible options. Scandals have sunk Chris Christie and Scott Walker. Rand Paul remains a Paul, and his foreign policy views are completely out of step with most of the party. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have past support of immigration reform working against them, and the rest of the potential candidates hail from the Ted Cruz kooky wing of the party.

A glance through the alternatives makes it easy to understand why Romney remains popular with so many Republican primary voters. It might seem unbelievable, but Mr. 47% could be the least damaged Republican option out there. The big money voices in the GOP have been trying to cut a deal to clear the field and hand Romney the nomination, but they may not even need to do it. A path is forming for Mitt Romney to run for a third time, and win back to back Republican nominations. Romney would lose to Hillary Clinton by an even larger margin than he lost to President Obama, but Republicans in early voting states believe that he is their best option in what could be a historically bad field of candidates.


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 189 Next »