Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
August 2, 2014
" CENSORED BY BBC CNN AND FOX "
UN Officials DEBUNK Israeli Lies - No Weapons Found In UN Facilities
" CENSORED BY BBC CNN AND FOX "
August 2, 2014
Hillary Clinton's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, and they've been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders. There's just one problem: That's not true. Clinton last week filled in for George W. Bush at an Ameriprise conference, continuing a speaking tour that is raking in big money from Wall Street. One of her aides later downplayed the idea that Clinton's relationship with the financial sector could be a political liability for her, should she face Warren in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The aide defiantly insisted that the two are exactly the same. "Ask any so-called 'left' or 'liberal' critic of Hillary to name a single vote or position (on) which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would disagree," said the Clinton strategist to The Hill newspaper. OK, fine. I'll take the challenge -- there are many differences between these two politicians.
For example, in her book, "The Two Income Trap," Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill's provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage. "As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs," Warren wrote. "As New York's newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. ... The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not." Additionally, Warren has been a critic of so-called free trade deals, which create regulatory protections for patents and copyrights, but remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for various free trade pacts during her Senate tenure.
Clinton was also a prominent supporter of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that made it more difficult for poor families to receive government benefits. With a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing that law coinciding with a rise in extreme childhood poverty, Clinton's position may open her up to criticism from Warren, who has positioned herself as a champion of the poor. There is also Clinton's vote for the Iraq War. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was an outspoken critic of the war. As a senator, Warren is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal the original authorization for war in Iraq that Clinton supported. Clinton, of course, has attempted to distance herself from her previous positions. In 2008, she said, "I should not have voted for that bankruptcy law." That year, she also said she believes the NAFTA free trade model needs to be "adjusted." And in her 2014 book, "Hard Choices," Clinton says of her Iraq War vote: "I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."
cont'
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clinton-vs-Warren-Big-Di-by-David-Sirota-Democratic_Elizabeth-Warren_Hillary-Clinton_Issues-140801-832.html
Clinton vs. Warren: BIG Differences, Despite Claims to the Contrary
Despite what Clinton's allies would have you believe, Clinton is way to the right of Warren
Hillary Clinton's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, and they've been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders. There's just one problem: That's not true. Clinton last week filled in for George W. Bush at an Ameriprise conference, continuing a speaking tour that is raking in big money from Wall Street. One of her aides later downplayed the idea that Clinton's relationship with the financial sector could be a political liability for her, should she face Warren in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The aide defiantly insisted that the two are exactly the same. "Ask any so-called 'left' or 'liberal' critic of Hillary to name a single vote or position (on) which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would disagree," said the Clinton strategist to The Hill newspaper. OK, fine. I'll take the challenge -- there are many differences between these two politicians.
For example, in her book, "The Two Income Trap," Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill's provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage. "As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs," Warren wrote. "As New York's newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. ... The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not." Additionally, Warren has been a critic of so-called free trade deals, which create regulatory protections for patents and copyrights, but remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for various free trade pacts during her Senate tenure.
Clinton was also a prominent supporter of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that made it more difficult for poor families to receive government benefits. With a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing that law coinciding with a rise in extreme childhood poverty, Clinton's position may open her up to criticism from Warren, who has positioned herself as a champion of the poor. There is also Clinton's vote for the Iraq War. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was an outspoken critic of the war. As a senator, Warren is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal the original authorization for war in Iraq that Clinton supported. Clinton, of course, has attempted to distance herself from her previous positions. In 2008, she said, "I should not have voted for that bankruptcy law." That year, she also said she believes the NAFTA free trade model needs to be "adjusted." And in her 2014 book, "Hard Choices," Clinton says of her Iraq War vote: "I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."
cont'
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clinton-vs-Warren-Big-Di-by-David-Sirota-Democratic_Elizabeth-Warren_Hillary-Clinton_Issues-140801-832.html
August 1, 2014
For the longest time, people opposed to the legalization of marijuana have argued that marijuana is more likely to send someone to the emergency room than even the most dangerous of drugs. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration once published a report called “Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse,” which stated that marijuana accounted for almost 500,000 visits to the E.R. An ONDCP fact sheet also stated “mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin.” However, none of these reports consider that marijuana use is about 70 times more widespread than heroine in the U.S. - so it’s logical that there would be more E.R. visits related to marijuana than lesser used drugs. Because the government has failed to provide accurate comparisons regarding marijuana, Washington Post data journalist Christopher Ingraham took it upon himself to run some numbers. Here’s a graph that illustrates what he found:
Ingraham used data from 2010, as this was the last available year with complete alcohol data. The numbers of regular users were grabbed from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the number of E.R. visits were taken from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, a reporting system that holds data for all E.R. visits involving a drug. E.R. visits involving alcohol were taken from a 2010 National Institutes of Health report. Ingraham’s data shows that per user, marijuana is least likely to send you to the E.R. when compared to heroin, cocaine, meth, prescription drugs and alcohol. Prescriptive drugs were found to cause 75% more trips to the E.R. Most surprisingly, it was found that alcohol was 30% more likely to send someone to the E.R. than marijuana. For reference, here are the raw numbers that Ingraham used for his data:
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/01/governments-own-data-proves-that-alcohol-is-more-dangerous-than-marijuana/
Government’s OWN DATA Proves That ALCOHOL IS MORE DANGEROUS Than Marijuana
"...Of course, marijuana advocates have already been saying this for years. Maybe these numbers will make others pay attention...."
For the longest time, people opposed to the legalization of marijuana have argued that marijuana is more likely to send someone to the emergency room than even the most dangerous of drugs. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration once published a report called “Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse,” which stated that marijuana accounted for almost 500,000 visits to the E.R. An ONDCP fact sheet also stated “mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin.” However, none of these reports consider that marijuana use is about 70 times more widespread than heroine in the U.S. - so it’s logical that there would be more E.R. visits related to marijuana than lesser used drugs. Because the government has failed to provide accurate comparisons regarding marijuana, Washington Post data journalist Christopher Ingraham took it upon himself to run some numbers. Here’s a graph that illustrates what he found:
Ingraham used data from 2010, as this was the last available year with complete alcohol data. The numbers of regular users were grabbed from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the number of E.R. visits were taken from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, a reporting system that holds data for all E.R. visits involving a drug. E.R. visits involving alcohol were taken from a 2010 National Institutes of Health report. Ingraham’s data shows that per user, marijuana is least likely to send you to the E.R. when compared to heroin, cocaine, meth, prescription drugs and alcohol. Prescriptive drugs were found to cause 75% more trips to the E.R. Most surprisingly, it was found that alcohol was 30% more likely to send someone to the E.R. than marijuana. For reference, here are the raw numbers that Ingraham used for his data:
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/01/governments-own-data-proves-that-alcohol-is-more-dangerous-than-marijuana/
August 1, 2014
That was followed by Meteor Blades holding that labeling it a "mistake" minimizes the wrongness that was war in Iraq.
There was a time when I thought that any Democrat with any degree of complicity in that crime would be tarred and feathered by the hard left, but then John Kerry happened. Still, I thought there would be more public hang-wringing about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy and how having her as the Democratic standard-bearer in 2016 diminishes the argument that you should vote for Democrats because they are less likely to drag us into stupid wars. This is, after all, a politician who wanted to arm Syrian rebels (just like John McCain) but was overruled by President Obama.
Has the initial invasion of Iraq faded far enough into the past that Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote no longer matters? Is it less of a priority? Is it more of a forgivable sin than it seemed back then? Or does it seem like less of a sin? Has she rehabilitated herself? Do you think she has changed? If so, why? If you believed she voted for the AUMF out of political expediency with an eye towards 2008, why do you think she wouldn't support military action as president if she thought it would help her re-election in 2020? Does the narrative of inevitability make you resigned to her candidacy? Are you reluctant to see heavy criticism over this point in the absence of a credible primary opponent because you are worried about costing her votes and losing the presidency to the Republicans?
What if the only way to create space for a primary opponent with a better record on this issue is to criticize her enough to harm her public perception and make her seem less inevitable? If you wait until primary season to ask these questions, it will be too late to affect anything.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/31/1315752/-Does-Hillary-Clinton-s-Iraq-War-Vote-Still-Matter
Does Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote STILL Matter?
Last month on Sunday Kos, I noticed an interesting juxtaposition of front page diaries.
Ian Reifowitz began a diary by stating:
"....Barack Obama—and not Hillary Clinton—is the 44th president of the United States for one reason above all others: He was against the Iraq war, and she was for it. That's it. In 2008, the American people knew where he stood because he had said so in 2002. He called it a "dumb war," and a "rash war," and predicted that invading Iraq would "only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and would strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida...."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/22/1307909/-No-mission-creep-in-Iraq-on-Obama-s-watch-He-knows-a-war-in-Iraq-is-a-dumb-war
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/22/1307909/-No-mission-creep-in-Iraq-on-Obama-s-watch-He-knows-a-war-in-Iraq-is-a-dumb-war
That was followed by Meteor Blades holding that labeling it a "mistake" minimizes the wrongness that was war in Iraq.
"...Calling the invasion and slaughter that followed a mistake papers over the lies that took us to Iraq. This assessment of the war as mistake is coming mostly from well-intentioned people, some of whom spoke out against the war before it began and every year it dragged on. It may seem like a proper retort to critics of Obama (who inherited that war rather than started it). But it feeds a dangerous myth.
A mistake is not putting enough garlic in the minestrone, taking the wrong exit, typing the wrong key, falling prey to an accident. Invading Iraq was not a friggin' mistake. Not an accident. Not some foreign policy mishap..."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/22/1307897/-Stop-pretending-the-invasion-of-Iraq-was-a-mistake-It-lets-the-liars-who-launched-it-off-the-hook
A mistake is not putting enough garlic in the minestrone, taking the wrong exit, typing the wrong key, falling prey to an accident. Invading Iraq was not a friggin' mistake. Not an accident. Not some foreign policy mishap..."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/22/1307897/-Stop-pretending-the-invasion-of-Iraq-was-a-mistake-It-lets-the-liars-who-launched-it-off-the-hook
There was a time when I thought that any Democrat with any degree of complicity in that crime would be tarred and feathered by the hard left, but then John Kerry happened. Still, I thought there would be more public hang-wringing about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy and how having her as the Democratic standard-bearer in 2016 diminishes the argument that you should vote for Democrats because they are less likely to drag us into stupid wars. This is, after all, a politician who wanted to arm Syrian rebels (just like John McCain) but was overruled by President Obama.
Has the initial invasion of Iraq faded far enough into the past that Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote no longer matters? Is it less of a priority? Is it more of a forgivable sin than it seemed back then? Or does it seem like less of a sin? Has she rehabilitated herself? Do you think she has changed? If so, why? If you believed she voted for the AUMF out of political expediency with an eye towards 2008, why do you think she wouldn't support military action as president if she thought it would help her re-election in 2020? Does the narrative of inevitability make you resigned to her candidacy? Are you reluctant to see heavy criticism over this point in the absence of a credible primary opponent because you are worried about costing her votes and losing the presidency to the Republicans?
What if the only way to create space for a primary opponent with a better record on this issue is to criticize her enough to harm her public perception and make her seem less inevitable? If you wait until primary season to ask these questions, it will be too late to affect anything.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/31/1315752/-Does-Hillary-Clinton-s-Iraq-War-Vote-Still-Matter
July 31, 2014
F*CK STICKS.................
It’s safe to say CNN anchor Bill Weir is not a fan of climate change deniers. On Thursday, the Twitter account for Fox Nation, a blog run by Fox News, tweeted a link to a post headlined, “Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore’s Group’s Visit to Denver EPA Hearings.” The story, aggregated from the Washington Times, relates to a Denver visit by former Vice President Al Gore‘s “Climate Reality Project” for EPA hearings on power plant emissions. The group showed up to hand out ice cream even though it was 58 degrees.
Weir retweeted the link, with his own comment: “Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.”
Bill Weir ✔ @BillWeirCNN
Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks. MT @foxnation: Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore
http://bit.ly/1qMaMKg
10:25 PM - 30 Jul 2014
cont'
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-bill-weir-to-fox-nation-you-willfully-ignorant-fcksticks/
CNN Anchor Calls Fox Nation ‘Willfully Ignorant F*CK STICKS’
F*CK STICKS.................
It’s safe to say CNN anchor Bill Weir is not a fan of climate change deniers. On Thursday, the Twitter account for Fox Nation, a blog run by Fox News, tweeted a link to a post headlined, “Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore’s Group’s Visit to Denver EPA Hearings.” The story, aggregated from the Washington Times, relates to a Denver visit by former Vice President Al Gore‘s “Climate Reality Project” for EPA hearings on power plant emissions. The group showed up to hand out ice cream even though it was 58 degrees.
Weir retweeted the link, with his own comment: “Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.”
Bill Weir ✔ @BillWeirCNN
Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks. MT @foxnation: Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore
http://bit.ly/1qMaMKg
10:25 PM - 30 Jul 2014
cont'
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-bill-weir-to-fox-nation-you-willfully-ignorant-fcksticks/
July 30, 2014
Hmmm,.....reTHUGS eating their OWN........Crunchy Tummy Ache!!................... 
Well. That was awkward.
Right after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) vehemently denied that he was gunning for impeachment with his lawsuit against the President, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) insisted that Boehner should stop the “theater”, calling his lawsuit a “show” that will waste millions of taxpayer funds. No, it’s not that Jones is against a partisan witch hunt. It’s not that Jones is pulling for his party to find some measure of sanity. Oh, no. His suggestion is that Boehner should just impeach the President.
According to The Hill, Jones said,
This came out on the day that Republicans are voting on their “lawsuit” (aka, Get Out the Vote project), which the Republican lawmaker from North Carolina has just made sure you know is going to cost you between $1-2 million dollars. Jones used to be a Democrat when he was first elected back in 1982. He switched parties in 1994 and used a picture of his opponent jogging with Bill Clinton to rile up the anti-gay sentiment at the time. Just yesterday Boehner said it was a scam for Democrats to claim Republicans wanted to impeach the President. And yet, as I detailed yesterday, there has been a steady drumbeat by Republicans for impeachment and it comes from the same folks who managed to get the Republican Party to shutdown the government. It’s not as if they aren’t running the show.
Furthermore, PoliticusUSA’s Jason Easley busted Boehner in a massive lie as he made the “scam” charge:
Poor John Boehner. He can’t even control the press his caucus gives, let alone the bills they kill or their government shutdowns. Here’s an idea for the Republicans. Instead of wasting $1-2 million on a meritless lawsuit against the President and instead of trying to impeach him for acting like he’s president, why don’t Republicans actually do something that will give them something to run on – give people a reason to vote for them besides hate.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/30/republican-lawmaker-boehners-theater-waste-taxpayer-money-impeach.html
Republican Congressman ACCUSES Boehner of WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY With Lawsuit
Hmmm,.....reTHUGS eating their OWN........Crunchy Tummy Ache!!...................
Well. That was awkward.
Right after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) vehemently denied that he was gunning for impeachment with his lawsuit against the President, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) insisted that Boehner should stop the “theater”, calling his lawsuit a “show” that will waste millions of taxpayer funds. No, it’s not that Jones is against a partisan witch hunt. It’s not that Jones is pulling for his party to find some measure of sanity. Oh, no. His suggestion is that Boehner should just impeach the President.
According to The Hill, Jones said,
“Why not impeach instead of wasting $1 million to $2 million of the taxpayers’ money? … If you’re serious about this, use what the founders of the Constitution gave us.
http://thehill.com/news/house/213751-jones-no-to-obama-lawsuit
http://thehill.com/news/house/213751-jones-no-to-obama-lawsuit
This came out on the day that Republicans are voting on their “lawsuit” (aka, Get Out the Vote project), which the Republican lawmaker from North Carolina has just made sure you know is going to cost you between $1-2 million dollars. Jones used to be a Democrat when he was first elected back in 1982. He switched parties in 1994 and used a picture of his opponent jogging with Bill Clinton to rile up the anti-gay sentiment at the time. Just yesterday Boehner said it was a scam for Democrats to claim Republicans wanted to impeach the President. And yet, as I detailed yesterday, there has been a steady drumbeat by Republicans for impeachment and it comes from the same folks who managed to get the Republican Party to shutdown the government. It’s not as if they aren’t running the show.
Furthermore, PoliticusUSA’s Jason Easley busted Boehner in a massive lie as he made the “scam” charge:
Rep. Boehner claimed that the impeachment talk was started by the president and Democrats, only it wasn’t. Back in January, Boehner hinted at impeachment, “We’re just not going to sit here and let the President trample all over us. This idea that he’s just going to go it alone, I have to remind him we do have a constitution. And the Congress writes the laws, and the President’s job is to execute the laws faithfully. And if he tries to ignore this he’s going to run into a brick wall.”
In May 2013, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) claimed that President Obama could be impeached for Benghazi. During an August 2013 town hall, Rep. Blake Farenthold admitted to constituents that House Republicans are aching to impeach the president. In October 2013, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) threatened to impeach the president if the country defaulted. In June 2014, the South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution that called for Obama to be impeached. Sarah Palin claimed that God wants President Obama impeached.
The list of Republican calls for Obama impeachment is endless, so it is a ridiculous lie for Boehner to claim that Democrats are behind the impeachment talk.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/29/john-boehner-caught-massive-lie-blaming-democrats-obama-impeachment-talk.html
In May 2013, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) claimed that President Obama could be impeached for Benghazi. During an August 2013 town hall, Rep. Blake Farenthold admitted to constituents that House Republicans are aching to impeach the president. In October 2013, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) threatened to impeach the president if the country defaulted. In June 2014, the South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution that called for Obama to be impeached. Sarah Palin claimed that God wants President Obama impeached.
The list of Republican calls for Obama impeachment is endless, so it is a ridiculous lie for Boehner to claim that Democrats are behind the impeachment talk.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/29/john-boehner-caught-massive-lie-blaming-democrats-obama-impeachment-talk.html
Poor John Boehner. He can’t even control the press his caucus gives, let alone the bills they kill or their government shutdowns. Here’s an idea for the Republicans. Instead of wasting $1-2 million on a meritless lawsuit against the President and instead of trying to impeach him for acting like he’s president, why don’t Republicans actually do something that will give them something to run on – give people a reason to vote for them besides hate.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/30/republican-lawmaker-boehners-theater-waste-taxpayer-money-impeach.html
July 29, 2014
........... 
In what has to be the craziest thing to have emerged from the radical fringe, a call for the Democratic members of congress to file the motion to impeach the president. Yes, you read that right. In his piece titled “Why the Democratic Party Will Die Unless a House Democrat Introduces a Resolution to Impeach President Obama,” author Eric Zuesse lays down his case that the only way in which Democrats stand a chance in November is for them to impeach, and remove, President Obama. His case begins with the understanding that establishment GOP leaders are actively working to prevent impeachment. Then moves on to claim that the GOP will take the senate and hold on to the house, and that the president would become a rubber stamp with any vetoes overturned without any difficulty.
His going into detail on polling also demonstrates a demand for validation. His purposeful misrepresentation of a Gallup poll is absolutely shameless. He points out an overall popularity rating not against presidents at the same point in their administration, but against presidents after they are out of office. He also uses a total aggregate instead of paying attention to the numbers, which find that Democrats have a 90% approval rating for the president. His case hinges on the Democrats being disillusioned with the president, when the polls state the opposite. Instead, the piece is not about “saving the Democratic party” but instead is about destroying it. It is no different from the tactics employed by the GOP during the 1990?s, where they successfully framed arguments in order to have the Democrats “shoot Santa Claus” as the late GOP strategist Jude Wanniski put it.
It appears that Eric Zuesse is still attempting to convince the Democrats to shoot Santa Claus. The president is a motivator, and is helping to get people out to the polls. If the Democrats impeach him, or even file the motion to, it would cut off his ability to campaign. This would in turn hurt fundraising needed to overcome the billionaire backers of the GOP. In addition, it would demoralize the Democratic base, who do approve of the president, who then would not turn out in November. This is a single act to destroy the Democratic party. And why? Going over his history, the writer is found to be all over the map, doing everything from writing an article for noted libertarian magazine Reason which argued to let chemical companies dump waste onto publicly owned land to claiming that Obama has sent US soldiers wearing Nazi symbols into the Ukraine. It almost appears as if he seeks out excuses to blame whomever he has picked as a target, in this case the president.
His piece is now making its way around the conservative blogosphere, who proclaim that the man who wrote for the libertarians is a Democrat. This is likely what he anticipated when he wrote it.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/29/impeach-obama-3/
RADICALS So Desperate Now THEY'RE BEGGING The Democrats To Impeach Obama
...........
In what has to be the craziest thing to have emerged from the radical fringe, a call for the Democratic members of congress to file the motion to impeach the president. Yes, you read that right. In his piece titled “Why the Democratic Party Will Die Unless a House Democrat Introduces a Resolution to Impeach President Obama,” author Eric Zuesse lays down his case that the only way in which Democrats stand a chance in November is for them to impeach, and remove, President Obama. His case begins with the understanding that establishment GOP leaders are actively working to prevent impeachment. Then moves on to claim that the GOP will take the senate and hold on to the house, and that the president would become a rubber stamp with any vetoes overturned without any difficulty.
His going into detail on polling also demonstrates a demand for validation. His purposeful misrepresentation of a Gallup poll is absolutely shameless. He points out an overall popularity rating not against presidents at the same point in their administration, but against presidents after they are out of office. He also uses a total aggregate instead of paying attention to the numbers, which find that Democrats have a 90% approval rating for the president. His case hinges on the Democrats being disillusioned with the president, when the polls state the opposite. Instead, the piece is not about “saving the Democratic party” but instead is about destroying it. It is no different from the tactics employed by the GOP during the 1990?s, where they successfully framed arguments in order to have the Democrats “shoot Santa Claus” as the late GOP strategist Jude Wanniski put it.
It appears that Eric Zuesse is still attempting to convince the Democrats to shoot Santa Claus. The president is a motivator, and is helping to get people out to the polls. If the Democrats impeach him, or even file the motion to, it would cut off his ability to campaign. This would in turn hurt fundraising needed to overcome the billionaire backers of the GOP. In addition, it would demoralize the Democratic base, who do approve of the president, who then would not turn out in November. This is a single act to destroy the Democratic party. And why? Going over his history, the writer is found to be all over the map, doing everything from writing an article for noted libertarian magazine Reason which argued to let chemical companies dump waste onto publicly owned land to claiming that Obama has sent US soldiers wearing Nazi symbols into the Ukraine. It almost appears as if he seeks out excuses to blame whomever he has picked as a target, in this case the president.
His piece is now making its way around the conservative blogosphere, who proclaim that the man who wrote for the libertarians is a Democrat. This is likely what he anticipated when he wrote it.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/29/impeach-obama-3/
July 29, 2014
If anyone,...this orange weasel is an expert on 'SCAMS'..................
Republicans have no plans to begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner declared on Tuesday, putting the blame on Democrats for stirring up pre-midterm election tensions in Washington. Boehner is, however, hoping this week to pass Republican legislation that would authorize a lawsuit, claiming Obama overstepped his powers in ordering unilateral changes to his landmark healthcare law known as “Obamacare.” Any such lawsuit could take years to wind through the court system.
Meanwhile, Obama is weighing whether to take executive action to scale back deportations of some undocumented residents, a move that would further rachet up tensions with Republicans, who have blocked comprehensive changes to U.S. immigration law, insisting the president take stronger action to stop the flow of illegal migrants. “We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans,” Boehner said in response to a reporter’s question.
He noted that it was the Democrats themselves who have been raising the notion of a Republican impeachment effort, using it to incite liberal voters and win campaign contributions for Democratic candidates running for re-election to Congress in November. “It’s all a scam started by Democrats,” Boehner said.
Last week, White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that unilateral action by Obama on immigration reform “will certainly up the likelihood that they (Republicans) would consider impeachment.” Since Obama’s first term, some conservative Republicans have mused about impeachment, which would be the initial step in a two-step process that allows Congress to remove a sitting president.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/29/john-boehner-talk-of-impeaching-obama-is-a-scam-started-by-democrats/
John Boehner: Talk of Impeaching Obama Is ‘A SCAM Started by Democrats’
If anyone,...this orange weasel is an expert on 'SCAMS'..................
Republicans have no plans to begin impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner declared on Tuesday, putting the blame on Democrats for stirring up pre-midterm election tensions in Washington. Boehner is, however, hoping this week to pass Republican legislation that would authorize a lawsuit, claiming Obama overstepped his powers in ordering unilateral changes to his landmark healthcare law known as “Obamacare.” Any such lawsuit could take years to wind through the court system.
Meanwhile, Obama is weighing whether to take executive action to scale back deportations of some undocumented residents, a move that would further rachet up tensions with Republicans, who have blocked comprehensive changes to U.S. immigration law, insisting the president take stronger action to stop the flow of illegal migrants. “We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans,” Boehner said in response to a reporter’s question.
He noted that it was the Democrats themselves who have been raising the notion of a Republican impeachment effort, using it to incite liberal voters and win campaign contributions for Democratic candidates running for re-election to Congress in November. “It’s all a scam started by Democrats,” Boehner said.
Last week, White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that unilateral action by Obama on immigration reform “will certainly up the likelihood that they (Republicans) would consider impeachment.” Since Obama’s first term, some conservative Republicans have mused about impeachment, which would be the initial step in a two-step process that allows Congress to remove a sitting president.
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/29/john-boehner-talk-of-impeaching-obama-is-a-scam-started-by-democrats/
July 29, 2014
Video has surfaced of a Maryland Republican nominee for Anne Arundel County Council singing "Dixie" as the national anthem at a secession conference in Alabama. Over the weekend, Grove City College psychology professor and blogger Warren Throckmorton uncovered video of Michael Peroutka speaking to the 2012 League of the South national conference in Wallsboro, Alabama. Peroutka generated controversy after winning the GOP nomination because he believes that the current U.S. and state governments are no longer valid, and should be destroyed by secession or other means.
At the conclusion of his nearly hour-long talk, Peroutka asked the audience to rise and sing the "national anthem." But instead of "The Star-Spangled Banner," Peroutka led them to sing "Dixie," the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War. The song tells the story from the point of view of a freed slave who wishes to return to the plantation where he was born. Last week, Steve Schuh, the GOP candidate for county executive, called on Peroutka to cut ties with League of the South.
cont'
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/goper-asks-secessionists-rise-national
GOPer Asks Secessionists To Rise For 'National Anthem,' And Then Sings 'DIXIE' Instead
"..Video has surfaced of a Maryland Republican nominee for Anne Arundel County Council singing "Dixie" as the national anthem at a secession conference in Alabama..."
Video has surfaced of a Maryland Republican nominee for Anne Arundel County Council singing "Dixie" as the national anthem at a secession conference in Alabama. Over the weekend, Grove City College psychology professor and blogger Warren Throckmorton uncovered video of Michael Peroutka speaking to the 2012 League of the South national conference in Wallsboro, Alabama. Peroutka generated controversy after winning the GOP nomination because he believes that the current U.S. and state governments are no longer valid, and should be destroyed by secession or other means.
"You need to secede and then you need to have the biblical understanding of law and government, and make the applications," Peroutka told the League of the South in 2012. "So we need to take the biblical understand of law and government into account no matter what the outcome is with respect to the crumbling of the current regime."
"We're going to have to have this foundational information in the hearts and the minds of the people or else liberty won't survive the secession either," he explained. "I'm saying this because I don't want people from League of the South to think for one minute that I am about reforming the current regime, and studying the Constitution is about reforming the regime. I, like many of you and like Patrick Henry, probably have come to the conclusion that we have smelled a rat from the beginning."
"We're going to have to have this foundational information in the hearts and the minds of the people or else liberty won't survive the secession either," he explained. "I'm saying this because I don't want people from League of the South to think for one minute that I am about reforming the current regime, and studying the Constitution is about reforming the regime. I, like many of you and like Patrick Henry, probably have come to the conclusion that we have smelled a rat from the beginning."
At the conclusion of his nearly hour-long talk, Peroutka asked the audience to rise and sing the "national anthem." But instead of "The Star-Spangled Banner," Peroutka led them to sing "Dixie," the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War. The song tells the story from the point of view of a freed slave who wishes to return to the plantation where he was born. Last week, Steve Schuh, the GOP candidate for county executive, called on Peroutka to cut ties with League of the South.
cont'
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/goper-asks-secessionists-rise-national
July 22, 2014
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,
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 [2012]…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.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/22/republicans-lie.html
The REPUBLICANS LIE – About EVERYTHING
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 [2012]…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.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/22/republicans-lie.html
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
