HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 24,461

About Me

If anyone's wondering why I haven't been here much lately, it's because I feel no one is learning anything from 2016. Neoliberalism is a thing and it doesn't win elections in the 21st Century. People want a candidate that's going to take strong, non-waffling stands on human rights the rest of the world enjoys. Enough living in the goddamned Reagan 1980s. Enough taking solar panels off the roof. Enough introducing more rightwingedness into American economics. Enough medical bankruptcies. Enough governing by mythology. Enough science denial. Enough of spitting on women, children, veterans and the LGBTQI community. Enough kicking the can. ENOUGH. America needs to move past it's "everything has to be about making a buck" bullshit. I'd prefer a candidate not born during the FDR/Truman administrations. No offense, but you had your time . . . and you got us Trump. Plus, I can't take another one of these still-Capitalist Boomer codgers yap on about "bootstraps" when college now costs a mortgage, necessity costs have been outpacing wage growth for 20 years and automation promises to kill more jobs than it creates. I don't want to hear what is or isn't "politically achievable". Kick-the-Can economics was never asked "How is it going to be paid for?". Tax Cuts for the rich were never given a spending limit. Folly wars were never asked "Why is this necessary?". Corporate Pork by the billions was and is always approved. America's safety net needs to be greatly expanded and retirement age needs to be drastically lowered. This country throws out far too many people that still have a decade or two of prime contribution left. If life doesn't get fairer for you or I pretty goddamned quickly, we aren't going to have much of one.

Journal Archives

Since when has it been considered "weak" to ask, want, apply for or seek help/monetary assistance?

Is that what this is about with the assholes who shout "WON HUNNRT PERCENT SELF-MADE, YEW LIBRUL PANSY!" the loudest?

I'm starting to think that it is. God forbid you need financial assistance in some period of your life, for your (or someone else's) health or to start a business; you don't want to be thought of as a "lazy, depependent pussy who can't stand on thur own two feets!!"

Has anyone ever asked these TeaHad cretins this?

I'm just bringing it up because for a group of people who claim to be rugged individualists, it seems they care an awful lot on how others view them on this issue.

For the Republicans, it just doesn't get better.

They're stuck with pushing out-of-touch, corporate Reaganite jerks who value stack ranking, competition, divide-and-conquer social strategy and ruthless Darwinist Corporatism in an age where a majority of the working people are desperate and far more in need of cooperation and progression. Nobody wants war. People want long-term fairness over an instant and unlikely lottery. Only the bitter, paranoid and hateful care what or who someone is, worships or loves. Only the idiotic and stubborn consider it a weakness to ask or seek help of any kind.

Until the modern Republican can come to grips with 21st century reality, they're not going to have much luck with hateful rhetoric and laissez-fail disguised as world-solving hope.

2010 was a dying gasp.

Phenomenally Stupid Ass Birfer Horseshit The Plain Dealer Prints, Volume I.


They want Mitt Romney's tax records going back 12 years, but Barack Obama's Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University records are sealed. His Columbia thesis paper? Sealed. Selective Service and medical records? Sealed. Illinois Senate schedule and records? Sealed. Law practice client list? Sealed. Certified copy of birth certificate and signed and embossed certificate of live birth? Sealed. Baptism record? Sealed.

Now, who do you think has something to hide?

David A. Belin Aurora

Davey? Tax records are kind of important in a presidential candidate that's purported to have lied either to the FEC or the SEC, by their documents and by his many sketchy statements regarding his past.

All the horseshit you listed is part of a giant conspiracy in the cavernous minds of the REST of the "President Ni&&er" people like yourself and Sheriff Joe, perpetuated even AFTER it's repeatedly been debunked.


FUCKING moron. I have no use for the willfully stupid, and that includes this worthless fishwrap for even giving these paranoid Klansmen a voice. NONE.

Great Facebook Status RE: Sally Ride

[font size="5"]"America is a magical place where Sally Ride found going into space less scary than revealing she loved a woman."[/font]

JFW Department: "Outsourcing is Good For America" - Cato's Michael Tanner.

JFW = Just Fucking WOW.

Talk about going beyond not trying to hide the fact that your party just straight up hates the American worker into plain-and-simple brazen disregard for this nation's future . . . Cato's spook house of Free Traitor-Loving wonks can scientifically justify infant consumption and the Koch's will supply them with tons of cash to make 5-minute infovids on why it's beneficial. Amazing. Simply Amazing.


The number of U.S. jobs lost to low-wage countries has never been officially calculated — U.S. companies are not legally mandated to report such statistics. Boston-based global research and advisory firm Forrester predicts that more than 400,000 service jobs have been moved offshore since 2000 — and that number will rise to 3.3 million by 2015. More than 2 million manufacturing jobs have been outsourced abroad since 1983. Economists estimate that the number of jobs leaving the U.S. ranges between 12,000 to 20,000 per month.

Relocated U.S. jobs end up going to workers in developing nations like China and India, countries that pay their employees much less than their American counterparts.

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, argues that low-skill jobs (such as product assembly and call centers) are not cost effective for U.S. companies anymore. In an interview with The Daily Ticker, Tanner says outsourcing has allowed U.S. companies to penetrate foreign markets, be more competitive and hire more U.S. workers at home.

"Countries outsource to establish a presence in a country in which they plan to do business," he says in the accompanying video. "If we're going to sell cars in China it makes sense to build a plant in China." Overseas profits are brought back to the U.S. "and then those new profits enable them to hire new and more skilled jobs in this country."

Laissez-Fail Republicans and Friedmanite RepubliDems are killing this country.

A massive tragedy just happened. Gee, what's CNBC got on?

Joe Kernen . . . "interviewing" Grover Norquist . . . pushing the out-of-context "Obama hates Prosperity" meme . . . and urging people to vote for Romney unless you want to see a $500 billion tax increase.

[font size="8"]REALLY???[/font]

Well, count Yahoo firmly in the Romney camp.

Shilling pro-Romney stories left and right, to the delight of their Red-Meat consuming pigshit hog waller commenters:

"Star of Pro-Obama Ad Can't Stand Obama"

"Study: Obama's Tax Plan could Cost 700,000 Jobs"

"Sununu: The Obama campaign is a ‘bunch of liars’"

"Peek Behind Smoke and Mirrors: Everything from hay bales to pies are carefully chosen for President Obama's message."

"When Mitt Romney Attacks:The candidate unleashes on Obama, suggesting the president wants people to be "ashamed of success"

"Romney: Tax returns are just ammo"

How many more months of this crap?

Sooooooo . . . tell me again, Libertarians, how you're different than hard-right Republicans.


The link I gave was to my article "Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?" in which I said these things:

Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in the womb or unlibertarian to oppose such killing? And even worse, why would a libertarian say that it was unlibertarian to advocate killing foreigners in an aggressive war but not non-libertarian to kill a baby in the womb?

Killing someone is the ultimate form of aggression. Especially a helpless, defenseless fetus that is only guilty of suddenly waking up in a womb. The fetus certainly had no control over being a parasite, aggressing against a woman, invading a woman’s body, or adding unwanted pounds to his host – but its mother certainly did. If an unborn child is not entitled to protection of life, then to be consistent, libertarians should have no problem with the abortion of a fetus from one month old to nine months old. The nine-month old fetus is no more viable than the one-month old one. In fact, a one-month old baby has the same degree of viability. I hate to be so crude, but leave all three of them unattended on a table in a hospital and see what happens.

Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in the womb or unlibertarian to oppose such killing? This has nothing to do with giving the government greater control over a woman’s body; it has everything to do with preventing aggression and protecting innocent life.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion laws were once again made the provision of the states, there would be nothing unlibertarian about supporting state laws making abortion a crime just as laws against murder, manslaughter, and wrongful death are considered legitimate actions of the states.

Oh, that's right. YOU'RE NOT.

Dumbest Columnist on the Planet. There isn't even a close second. And he "writes" for the PD.


SO much idiocy packed in one column. You won't find yourself just getting dumber with each passing sentence, you may experience DNA breakdown. Possibly certain functions of the brain will stop working. Don't say I didn't warn you:

In proposing that tax cuts be retained for anyone at all, Obama is violating a Democratic commandment: Thou shalt not admit the efficacy of lowering tax rates in promoting economic growth.

But if that's what it takes to put Republicans in a box by forcing them to explain why it makes sense not to raise taxes on "job creators" -- a phrase Obama utters with a smirk -- well, Paul Krugman will forgive him.

Republicans, meanwhile, should explain -- in detail. Unlike Obama, they'll be telling the truth and making excellent fiscal sense.

And speaking of details, let's look closely at a few of the other things President One-Note said during Monday's ramble.

"Many members of the other party believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, then that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth."

Many members of the other party believe that because it's true. "Trickle-down" isn't an economic theory; it's an inescapable economic fact. When the top of the economic heap experiences prosperity and growth, it doesn't hoard its capital. Everyone stands to benefit. Conversely, when the top of the economic heap experiences pain, as it has in Obama's economy and as it will to a greater extent in the higher-tax economy Obama proposes, everyone stands to suffer.

What was not true in Obama's statement was the reference to tax cuts as government spending. Tax cuts involve money that does not belong to the government. "We" don't "spend" anything when "we" grant a tax cut. "We" simply allow people to keep more of their own money and use it as they see fit in the private sector of the economy.

WHAT "PAIN" ARE THEY EXPERIENCING, YOU FUCK???? The Stock Market's risen close to 5,000 points since the Failure Fuhrer skipped town in a helicopter! The CEOs and other assorted larcenists are conducting business as usual with bonuses, perks and options packages. You could take away 50% of the top 5000's WEALTH . . . notice I said WEALTH and not INCOME, and they'd still be so goddamned wealthy it would literally be impossible for them to outspend it.

Beginning to hate Republicans on this matter. Stop apologizing for cockamamie theories that do not FUCKING WORK. Stop defending something even high-ranking Republicans know is bullshit. The evidence is irrefutable. These tax cuts have cost us close to 2.5 trillion dollars since we implimented them. You're a satirist, bro, and not a very good one at that.

Krugman on CNBC . . . ughhhhhh

Who can even LISTEN to this?

Every time Krugman tries to get a point across about taxing the wealthy, government spending vs GDP, Medicare, etc . . . he can't even get a word out edgewise because he's being tag-team interrupted by those right wing fucking assholes Joe Kernen and Michelle Caruso Cabrera!!!! Andy Ross Sorkin is the only one letting him talk.

Kernen, GOD he just fucking sucks. Who ever made this asshole a personality? Who? The guy's got a face for radio, a voice like your annoying right-wing co-worker and the delivery/rhetoric/black-and-white mindset of Neil Cavuto. Joe Kernen is literally a composite of the worst qualities of every right-wing anchor out there in one loathsome pig bastard.

What I think about Michelle "You Know I'm Right-Wing" Caruso-Cabrera, they couldn't print.

Krugman was maintaining his composure nicely, but I did notice a little stammering. Good on him, because I'd have been throwing chairs.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »