Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 8,164
Number of posts: 8,164
- 2014 (533)
- 2013 (731)
- 2012 (726)
This rant is for all the war-mongering, chickenhawk-reTHUG, cabal of Bushes, Cheneys, Romneys (5 sons), Rumsfelds etc. and ALL politicians who want to eagerly jump into wars without ever paying the piper with their own family's blood sacrifice. Such clever weasels expect OTHER PATRIOT FAMILIES to sacrifice dearly while they stir up world conflicts for multinationals and deliver their propaganda through speeches about sacrifice for God & Country when they themselves or their brood have NO intention of ever participating in such conflicts. Lets FIRST, airdrop THEIR family on the front lines of these brutal wars and MAYBE we might see our politicians renew the art of 'diplomacy first' once again.
Rep. Charles Rangel is absolutely correct in the statements he makes in the above video. The congressman appeared on Jose Diaz-Balart. He echoed unfortunately what too few congresspeople are echoing. The ISIS/ISIL war is not an existential threat to America. I wrote about it a few weeks ago where I said the following:
The military industrial complex and its puppets in the media and Congress play into the game. After all, it is a gain for them both. For the military industrial complex they profit from the bombs, military hardware, and services they provide. Congress keeps Americans in a state of fear. Americans remain paralyzed and take their eyes off the ball. They are no longer focused on a plutocracy extracting their wealth and squandering their economic future.
Americans must wise up and make it absolutely clear to the president and Congress that ISIS is not an existential threat to the US. Instead of spending billions over there, spend it over here. Improve our security. Rebuild our infrastructure. Invest in America’s human capital.
Rep. Rangel's last statement is one every American citizen should digest. "Listen. It is a confusing thing," Rangel said. "If indeed the president knows who supports him in terms of 'this war,' if they're right, bring it to the Congress and convince the United States of America that there is a threat to our national security. And when you do that, be prepared to pay for it. Be prepared to make a sacrifice. Have a mandatory military so that we all share in defending ourselves. And also, pay for it with a war tax."
If all Americans had to sacrifice like the thousands of soldiers that have been maimed, killed, and/or had their lives or the lives of their families destroyed, our affinity for war would attenuate rapidly. Fighting them over there does little to protect us over here. Protecting us here prevents them from getting over here.
Posted by Segami | Sat Oct 25, 2014, 08:27 AM (1 replies)
"...The mainstream media is trying to give this election to Mitch McConnell, but the reality is that there are warning signs all over this campaign that Sen. McConnell is losing in Kentucky..."
SHHHHHHWEASEL, MY PRECIOUS!.............
Mitch McConnell is so desperate to get people to attend his campaign rallies that he is paying people from Ohio in order to make it appear that he has supporters. This is another sign that McConnell’s campaign may be losing in Kentucky.
According to The Independent Online in Ashland, KY,
"....With a backdrop of two gargantuan dump trucks displaying banners which read “Protect Coal Jobs” and “Support Coal or live in the Dark,” McConnell addressed about 100 supporters. They included some of the same young people decked out in red “TeamMitch” t-shirts on hand at stops in the area Tuesday and a few Whayne Supply employees, at least one of which said he lives in Ohio and can’t vote in Kentucky’s senate election. The online publication, The Hill, reported the Republican Party of Kentucky solicited volunteers to go on the trip to show support, offering to pick up the cost of their meals and lodging. McConnell would only say he has “enthusiastic supporters” when asked about the story..."
McConnell is refusing to answer questions about the supporters that his campaign paid to be on the bus tour, but reporting from the scene suggests that if the paid supporters, campaign staffers, and those who are ineligible to vote in the Senate election are subtracted, Sen. McConnell could probably comfortably fit all of his organic supporters into a few tables at Denny’s.
Candidates, Democratic or Republican, who can’t generate crowds at rallies usually don’t win. The absence of a crowd is direct indicator of a lack of enthusiasm for McConnell’s reelection bid.
Posted by Segami | Thu Oct 23, 2014, 12:20 PM (19 replies)
That would make it the largest stinkhole jail in the world........
THE TRUTH ABOUT REPUBLICANS
Posted by Segami | Thu Oct 23, 2014, 09:40 AM (6 replies)
Alison Lundergan Grimes took the stage in Kentucky and delivered a punch in the nose to Chuck Todd by proclaiming that she will not be bullied by the Meet The Press moderator. During a rally in Kentucky will Bill Clinton, Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes said, “Kentucky is ready for a senator that’s an independent thinker that can put the partisanship aside and actually fight for the people for this state. One that won’t be bullied by Mitch McConnell or Chuck Todd. We can do this Kentucky.”
Chuck Todd has been crying crocodile tears about how he never wanted to inject himself into the center of the campaign, but his comments about Alison Grimes disqualifying herself by refusing to say if she voted for President Obama have done exactly that. It turns out that while he was trying to sabotage Grimes, Chuck Todd did her a big favor. Todd has become the perfect foil for Grimes to make her point that Washington is trying to tell Kentucky what kind of senator they deserve. Todd’s comments were so ignorant of the needs of the people of Kentucky that he is the embodiment of why Mitch McConnell should not be sent back to the Senate.
The media are trying to bully Alison Lundergan Grimes by dismissing her chances of winning because the press has already determined that Republicans are going to win control of the Senate. The media have already decide that the 2014 election is about voters rejecting Barack Obama. By claiming that Grimes disqualified herself, Todd was just pushing his preconceived storyline for the election.
Posted by Segami | Wed Oct 22, 2014, 10:08 PM (48 replies)
A disturbing video that was uploaded to facebook yesterday reportedly shows several convenience store employees refusing to accept money from a black child. The scene was recorded at a 7-Eleven store in Alexandria, Virginia. As a little boy, who is being held by his father, tries to pay for a bag of chips, the three workers can be seen refusing to take the money out of the child’s hand. The video goes on for a minute and a half, as angry and frustrated customers of the store tell the workers to take the child’s money.
It wasn’t until a white woman standing next to the boy and his father finally spoke up, paying for the child’s chips herself, that the workers finally rang up and cashed out the sale. The woman can be heard saying as she pushes the money at one of the cashiers:
“You all are acting like crazy people. You are in the customer service business.”
Clearly distraught by what she has just witnessed, the woman then tells the workers:
“I am going to report you to the 7-Eleven franchise. All three of you.”
Acording to the person who posted the video, Jeramey Williams, the video shows exactly what it looks like, blatant racism. Williams wrote:
” 7/11 clerk refuses to sale (sic) bag of chips to African American customer for no reason in Alexandria Va. Little Black Boy wouldnt have (sic) gotten the chips if the nice white lady didn't put the money in the clerks hand… “
The facebook page operated by the 7-Eleven franchise has received a slew of comments about the video. The company has been responding to individual posts with similar versions of the following comment:
"Unfortunately, this video neglects to tell the whole story and is clearly meant to create unrest and misdirect anger," a spokesperson for 7-Eleven said in an email today. "We have video that has been turned over to local law enforcement of the individual who was not served and who was stealing from the store several times, causing disruption in the store and intimidating other customers. Neither race or racism was a factor in what happened in that video. The franchisee for this store, herself, is Black/African-American, and during the incident on tape another African-American customer was served. We explained this to the Caucasian lady who purchased the chips. She was sorry that she was outspoken against the employees and was sympathetic to their predicament."
Posted by Segami | Wed Oct 22, 2014, 09:33 AM (69 replies)
"..NBC’s Chuck Todd is crying crocodile tears, while trying to walk back his claim that Alison Lundergan Grimes disqualified herself from office. Todd’s hit job on Grimes backfired, and now he is looking for a way out..."
What a rag-of-a-man, disguised as a journalist shilling for thugs & grifters who are hell bent on hurting the 99%...
Now he's caught with his thumb up his a$$!!
Chuck Todd sat down with Media Matters for an interview, and tried to backtrack off of his claim that Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes disqualified herself because she won’t say who she voted for in 2012.
Transcript from Media Matters:
TODD: It turned into a lively discussion. Look, I don’t like being part of a political campaign.
MEDIA MATTERS: Right, and then you were in the ad.
TODD: And I don’t like — you know, and it gives me heartburn. All right? It gives me — it makes me, you know, literally physically ill.
MEDIA MATTERS: What do you say — what do you think is the standard for saying someone’s disqualified? I mean, things like Mitch McConnell doesn’t believe in —
TODD: My point is, it’s up to a voter.
MEDIA MATTERS: — global warming or others —
TODD: My point is it’s up to the — the voters make that decision, not me.
MEDIA MATTERS: Right, but you’re the one who mentioned it.
TODD: And I understand. Like I said, I was shorthanding it, and I — what I — that, to me — I think a lot of voters are going to say that that was a — like, this is ridiculous, and now you’re just trying to pull the wool over my eyes. This is kind of silly. And to voters, that’s a — there’s different — look, voters disqualify candidates for various reasons. I was — you can accuse me of being sloppy, of putting the words in my mouth and I should have put the words in the — in how this will impact, impact voters and impact the race. And, you know, that’s where I was sloppy. I don’t take back the analysis. I mean, I think it’s — I think that — you know, I think it was — I think she had run — she’s been running a poor campaign. I don’t understand how she’s not made this about Mitch McConnell. Like, I’m still — for the life of me, I don’t get how this is not a referendum on him. Right? And you know, that’s — I mean, you know, that’s clearly what the voters wanted to make it. So I — you know, and, you know, so you critique the campaign, but I think this was a — you know, it’s one of those — campaigns have moments.
Chuck Todd thinks Alison Lundergan Grimes has run a terrible campaign, but in no way was he trying to help Mitch McConnell by claiming that Grimes had disqualified herself. The most exasperating element of Todd’s remarks is that Grimes has been making this election all about McConnell from the very beginning. She has been going after the incumbent’s record daily. Her campaign message can be summed up as fire Mitch McConnell, and elect a senator who will work for the people of Kentucky. Grimes has not run a flawless campaign. At times, her campaign has gotten bogged down in a sort of negative tit for tat mudslinging that is McConnell’s only chance of winning. Her answer on the simple who did you vote for softball leaves much to be desired, but Todd’s criticism of her campaign is so far off base that it is obvious that he hasn’t been paying attention to what is happening in Kentucky.
Chuck Todd knew what he was doing when he claimed that Alison Lundergan Grimes disqualified herself. He knew that his comments would generate attention. He was counting on it. Todd’s takeover of Meet The Press has done nothing to halt the show’s slide into oblivion. Todd needed some headlines, so he cut loose on Grimes. What the Meet The Press moderator didn’t count on was the backlash that has followed his comments.
Posted by Segami | Tue Oct 21, 2014, 07:40 PM (58 replies)
"..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)