HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 294 Next »

freshwest

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 44,807

Journal Archives

The aggressive Obama prosecution is why the GOP will attempt another government shut down:

Blackwater Jurors Urged to Give Iraqis Justice... Behind the Blackwater Trial

By MATT APUZZO - AUG. 27, 2014

A look at why the case of four Blackwater guards, accused of murdering 17 Iraqis in Nisour Square on Sept. 16, 2007, has taken so long to reach the courtroom...

“People who could laugh, who could love, were turned into bloodied, bullet-riddled corpses,” said Anthony Asuncion, an assistant United States attorney...

Mr. Asuncion, who spoke softly for much of his three-hour closing argument, said that even if jurors believed there was Iraqi gunfire that day, nothing justified the Blackwater response. When the shooting stopped, he said, it was clear that none of the victims were insurgents, he said.

“Why shoot all of these people who are running away?” he asked. “Why shoot women and children who are unarmed? There’s no reason. What they did was criminal...”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/us/in-closing-blackwater-prosecutor-says-us-court-levels-the-playing-field.html

Asuncion works out of the Washington, D.C. circuit, the one which the GOP has worked hardest to prevent Obama appointing judges and funding prosecutors. They fear what the law will do to the ones they are protecting:



'Top 5 Social Security Myths.' The last two paragraphs agree with you:

Rumors of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Can you check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers?

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.1

Sources:

1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf

3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/

6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240

7. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22141-17547211-b.XrNrx&t=1

Holy F**k! CNN Explores Joint Venture With Paranoid, Racist, Lunatic Glenn Beck

By Mark NC - August 23, 2014



As if to prove that television news executives are lowest form of life on the planet, CNN recently held talks with Glenn Beck about forming a joint venture between the struggling network and Beck’s lame video blog, The Blaze. According to a report in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal it would be…

“…a new venture between CNN-parent Time Warner and The Blaze that would replace HLN’s current programming with Blaze programming.”

What on Earth could they be thinking? The prospect of bringing Beck back to CNN (or television) makes no sense whatsoever. When Beck left his show on CNN’s Headline News it was in the ratings dumpster. He routinely lost to his competition and was the lowest rated program on CNN’s primetime lineup. He gathered more viewers at Fox News, but only because his toxic philosophy was a better fit for the fear-mongering, right-wing propaganda channel. However, when he left Fox News just two years later he was a pariah who couldn’t keep advertisers due to his rancid rhetoric and hate-filled, paranoid tirades. Even Fox acknowledged that he was a liability. After Beck, pretending that the exit was his idea, said he told himself that “If you do not leave now, you won’t leave with your soul intact,” Fox retorted…

“Glenn Beck wasn’t trying to save his soul, he was trying to save his ass. Advertisers fled his show and even Glenn knows what that means in our industry.”

So what exactly did CNN find attractive about the notion of reignited their romance with this loser? He has an even smaller audience now than he did at CNN five years ago. That’s why he is currently on a PR campaign to rehabilitate his noxious image. But despite admitting that he “has said stupid things,” and his other disingenuous attempts to cast himself as repentant for his past vulgarities, he is still the same vituperative huckster of gloom that he has always been. For example, he recently complained about not being able to use the words “fag” and “nigger,” in reference to artwork by a guest on his show.* He is also being sued for defamation by a student from Saudi Arabia whom Beck falsely accused of being a key figure in the Boston marathon bombing.

Where does CNN think his advertisers would come from? A visit to TheBlaze website reveals that he has no advertising other than Google Ads. He is still anathema to the Fords, Campbell Soups, Procter & Gambels, Fidelitys, etc. So if Beck can’t produce ratings, and he can’t attract advertisers, but he is widely reviled and divisive, what could explain CNN’s interest in him?

There only two possible answers to that question. One is that CNN is desperate beyond all comprehension. They are like a drowning man grasping for the only thing in the water, even if it’s an anchor. And secondly, CNN is run by tabloid TV king Ken Jautz who was promoted from his position as head of HLN. It was while he was at HLN that Jautz gave Beck his first job in television. So perhaps it is that unique brand of insanity that causes one to do the same stupid things over and over expecting a different result.

The fact that CNN was participating in these talks says something about their health as a news organization. They would not be considering this if they had bright prospects for the future. It also says something about Beck’s media operation. His Blaze video unit is currently financed by viewer subscriptions. If that were as successful as he pretends it to be, he would not be contemplating giving the same programming away for free on cable TV. That would dry up his web subscription base. He would also have to be pretty desperate to consider returning to the network about which he said…

“I used to call it the Pit of Despair because there are all these people plunking out stories like, ‘I just want to hang myself, I just want to hang myself.” (...and...)

“If you ever think that CNN is a rational, normal, non-leftist organization, look who they hired

More recently, Beck asked himself “Why is CNN in a ratings free fall?” And he gave himself the answer that it was “the unbelievable level of manufactured outrage on the network.” Actually, that may have inspired him to seek out these talks. He may have seen that as a sign that the network was the perfect platform for an outrage manufacturer like himself. But it doesn’t clear up why CNN would seek to recruit someone with such a horrible opinion of the network.

Reports on the talks indicate that they broke down over financial terms, not ideology. That makes the whole incident even worse. Apparently CNN is cool with Beck’s evangelical, ultra-conservative messaging. And it isn’t just that he’s conservative, but that he is so violently hostile toward progressives that he once said that to stop them “you’re going to have to shoot them in the head.” And despite that sort of vile discourse, CNN only walked away from the negotiations over money. Journalism, honesty, integrity, civility, etc., never entered into it.

(Update Brian Stelter, reporting for CNN, says that it was Beck who sought to hook up with CNN, but that from the CNN side “The talks were never serious.” This may just be CNN covering its ass so as not to be embarrassed by the disclosure of the talks, but it also confirms that Beck is scrambling to keep his head above water.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=20307

The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay

Go to the link to other great stories you won't find elsewhere and they have great links and graphics. Fortunately we can post articles in full because it fits within their rules:

All content and images © Crass Commerce. Excerpts of any written content on News Corpse may be reprinted with attribution (and preferably a link back). Articles in their entirety may only be reprinted for non-profit publication, and with attribution, unless other arrangements are made with News Corpse. All written content and artwork remain the property of News Corpse, its publisher, and Crass Commerce.

*Read the whole article at the link:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=16361

I love them... This and the stories of the bees break my heart.







+1. High praise from a dog. Just sayin'



I tolerate dogs, however...

Take that back! Not only are cats able to read, but they can write, too:



Bringing up HRC is red meat to conservatives. Her bashers use buzzwords, misinformation and outrage.

My retort to one of many who call her a 'corporatist' and said Rand was better, is from the lefty icon:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017158126

No, we are not waiting for their sacred utopia. We know who will cheer as we perish. No one should forget the policies for which HRC was savaged in the 1990s.

Healthcare, the rights of children, women and expanding the social safety net and education. Her haters won't discuss those issues, which shows those are not their sacred 4 issues they say we must vote for Rand to save us.

Their only comments on those things are failures of our attempts to secure them, but gee, with friends like them, who needs enemies?

Sorry, but we've got to save ourselves from the Pauls!

JAG, yes, we are BAD kitties! To the Paulites and their 4 sacred issues I say:



Over half the country are pets, huh? We know how well that worked out for us. (Warning: Graphic Pic)

They forgot one minor issue for their continued dominance of the discussion here. Our rights and our lives are not numbers on their profit and loss sheets, written off like Mitt's 47%.


(NOTE: The back story of this image is that those children were rescued.)


But the analogy remains. Their suffering is part of the idol of 'free trade' and the plantation mentality of the Libertarian Tea Party GOP. They only list 4 things that will make them vote LP that come from their status in society now, not ours.

None of them equate to the DNC platform, which they call 'statism' and us 'sheeple.' Yeah, we will organize to protect any institution, government, church, etc. that holds back the empowering entities of the Libertarian cultists from our 'liberty' and 'freedom' which will cost them money. That which is stolen from us is hidden by the 'invisible hand of the market' to them, but not to us.

Yes, my feelings are quite harsh. Since it's not just history and it's killing people now. As far as the 'Indieteapublicans' as JAG calls them are concerned, they expect us to stop squawking like chickens being crushed underfoot as the elephants dance.

We will not go easily. Keep on disrespecting us, and we might just bite, yes, we will become bad pets.

Their sacred property rights have not protected us, no, they supported real slavery and still do with their free market canard.

Then they call us Obama cheerleaders, partisans and other such things to put down what we need from government and society. Make no mistake, when they disrespect the process that so many died to create to give us a voice, they are disrespecting our humanity.

They want us to believe they are big philosophers, all full of theories and we are their intellectual inferiors.

I say we have transcended their view of reality and are going for much higher goals than their 4 sacred cows they try to beat us over the head with. No, we won't bow down to them. We won't submit to live by the charity that they say is the solution to poverty, which is just another way to deny us our rights.

Only if he's dead and can't do MORE harm than he has. Rand Paul is:



Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 294 Next »