Thursday, January 14, 2010
Robertson and Limbaugh hate Haiti
First, Pat Robertson:
Read it here or here
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about. [Haitians] were under the heel of the French...and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French.’ True story. And the Devil said, ‘OK it’s a deal.’ Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another.”
Blaming 100,000 deaths on sin and voodoo. This is the same guy who said Katrina and 9/11 were God's wrath on the US for abortion and gay marriage.
Pat Robertson worships an imaginary God. Pat Roberson is no Christian.
And then there's Rush Limbaugh being his normal pompous self:
""This will play right into Obama's hands...they'll use this to burnish their, uh, shall we say, credibility with the black community, both the light-skinned and black community in the country. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there; could not wait to get out there...Besides, we've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax."
What does that even mean, Rush?
Go back to rehab, Jackass.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Right-wing paranoid delusions: We are better than that.
and Dreamscapes:
----------------------------------------------------
In a conference room. Maybe seven or eight government employees in their late 30s-early 40s. They’re wearing suits from Ann Taylor, or Men’s Wearhouse sitting on one side of a conference table that looks like it came right out of the Office Depot catalog In one hand they’re holding cups of coffee, or cans of Diet Coke (or some other caffeinated drink - they’ve been working late the last couple of nights) , the other hand busily hammering the keyboards of their mid-tier laptop computers, jotting down notes, trying to capture what the lady on the side of the table is saying.
Across the table is a woman in her mid 60s. Her blouse and pants recently purchased from the local Wal-Mart, her shoes from Payless Shoes. She’s nervously playing with her purse handles as she shuffles her feet. She’s not sure how to answer this last question. She should have been prepared for this question. She was…until just this second.
“We’d all like to get out of here today, Ma’am, so please answer as best you can,” the Committee chair sighs as she asks the question for the third time, “When you the government no longer finds you insurable…” she pauses, not for effect, but because she still can’t believe she has to ask the question.
“…how do you want to die?”
Chilling isn’t it? Cold, bureaucratic evil, like a scene out of the film CONSPIRACY. If certain right wing celebrities are to be believed this won ‘t be that far from the truth should Barack Obama’s health care plan pass both House of Congress.
But they are not to be believed. This is a a nightmare scenario crafted by self-styled leaders of the Republican Party. This is the kind of thing that has to stop.
Let’s be honest: Obama’s Plan is a bad one. It’s costly beyond comprehension. It adds bureaucratic roadblocks to an already excessively bureaucratic process. And, despite all the costs, it only provides additional care for a small percentage of the nation’s uninsured.
It’s a bad plan with any number of weaknesses that Republicans can point to as reasons we should be vehemently against it. Is it necessary to make things up about it?
Who is helped by devising scenarios like the one described above? Does Sara Palin making up spooky stories about Obama’s DEATH PANEL, really add weight to the argument against the real plan?
Does comparing the health plan to Nazis [limbaugh-20090806-hitler.flv] like friend of the blog, Rush Limbaugh, has done?
No. This type of rhetoric serves only to cheapen the debate.
Yes, Democrats spent a large portion of President Bush’s Presidency engaging in these very same tactics. Whether it was calling the President a Nazi for the War in Iraq or shouting down Republican members of Congress, the extreme left showed their true colors by acting insane on the public stage in support of their various causes. We justifiably condemned them for that behavior. We don’t need to turn around use those same tactics.
Not when we have the facts on our side. House Republicans have made some very clear arguments why they are against the current bill :
…was unnecessarily rushed through the Committee without proper understanding or even a reading of the bill by Members;
The massive spending and tax increases will damage an already reeling economy;
Americans will lose coverage they have and like;
The bill gives the government control over Americans’ personal health decisions
Clear, cogent arguments from the men and women we have elected to represent us in Congress. This is what we should be basing our resistance on. Not the overblown rhetoric of extreme right-wing celebrities. We have more sense than that.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have said it better myself. People screaming "socialism!" "Nazis!" "Communism!" "Death Panels!" or other such nonsense are detrimental to the cause.
Stick to the facts: this plan sucks. We need a better one, not false and crazy accusations.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The way Powell could prove his statements.
All ugliness aside, I just plain disagree with him on where the Republican Party needs to go.
I have noticed that there is a war of sorts raging within the GOP. Cheney and Limbaugh are on one side, and Powell and McCain are on the other.
First of all, I believe all four individuals above do want to see the GOP remain Grand.
Second, all personal opinion aside, if Powell wants to actually succeed in helping the Republican Party become more "big tent" and moderate, he needs to take a page from the Democratic Party's handbook. No, I'm not talking about becoming more liberal. I'm talking about the DLC: The Democratic Leadership Committee, an independent entity responsible for the "New Democrats," namely the Clintons. Bill Clinton came from the DLC's leadership, which worked to counteract the negative image associated with Jesse Jackson Sr's Presidential run in '84 and '88. They feared the extreme left continuing their takeover of the Democratic Party.
What Powell needs, and I personally believe we need in the GOP, is our own DLC to balance the far-right. If Powell really believes that the Republican Party needs to start bringing in the moderates and social liberals (but fiscal conservatives), he needs to be part of the leadership of said committee. In other words, he needs to back up his words with actions.
CNN's Roland S. Martin has the same idea. From his article at CNN.com:
If such an organization was created, and all of a sudden you had chapters forming in states across the country, you would have the infrastructure to identify candidates to run in local and state races, and challenge the people Powell and others think are driving the party further into isolation as a largely southern and regional party.
It's clear the GOP has enormous problems in the Northeast part of the country, and with Obama winning a sizeable portion of the Hispanic vote, and the party's staunch opposition to illegal immigration, it is going to have a hell of a time in the Southwest and West. And with a fractured party, there is no better time to create an alternative that people can believe in and rally behind.
On CNN last week, senior analyst Gloria Borger said there clearly is a civil war raging within the GOP, and Powell and Cheney are on opposite sides. I chimed in that in any war, I'd trust the guy who put on a military uniform -- Powell -- rather than the guy who ran from serving our country -- Cheney.
In other words, the only way for Powell to prove his point that the party would be stronger if it reached out to moderates more would be to create this kind of organization. If his hypothesis is correct, then the party would grow exponentially, with strong moderate candidates to run for office. If he's wrong, then the worst would be that the party would continue to shift to the right, a path it is already taking.
Powell cannot lose unless he does nothing.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor + Rush's ignorance...
"Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the Court.
Do I still want to Obama to fail as President? Yeah, -- AP, you getting this?
He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country."
And why would she be a disaster? Oh, because Obama appointed her. Nothing else.
He forgets to mention that she was first appointed to the bench by President H.W. Bush in November 1991. She's also considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association, which is what you want in a Judge; you want someone not tied down by party lines.
Not to mention that George W. Bush also considered her as a supreme court nominee, not to mention she is more qualified than anyone else currently holding the position.
Rush Limbaugh only cares because Obama appointed her. That's all. Why? Because he wants Obama to fail. Not in his "socialist agenda," but wants "Obama to fail as President."
Partisan, ignorant, fear-monger.
Good luck, Sonia. Rush Limbaugh has his drug-addled sights set on you.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Why Dick Cheney sucks.
Here's a list substantiating my opinion:
1. Dick Cheney is, unapologetically, a Neo-Conservative.
Cheney founded the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative U.S. think tank whose self-stated goal is to "promote American global leadership."
2. From 1995-2000 was the CEO of Haliburton.
Cheney and Haliburton are under current investigation by the US Dept of Justice, the FBI, and the Pentagon for allegedly getting unlawful special attention for contracts during the Iraq war.
3. Disdain for the American Public that he was serving.
When told that most Americans were not happy with how the Iraq war was going, he slipped and said "so?"
4. As of 2004, Dick Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Haliburton, while serving as Vice-President of the United States.
5. Doesn't like Free Press.
While serving as Deputy Assistant to the president in 1974-1975 under President Ford, Cheney suggested in a legal memo that the President should use the US Dept of Justice to punish the New York Times for an unfavorable article.
6. The John Yoo/Bybee memos:
Cheney advocated the revocation of many of the Bill of Rights, even for US Citizens, during the "War on Terror."
7. He shot someone in the face:
On February 11, 2006, Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, in the face, neck, and upper torso with birdshot pellets when he turned to shoot a quail while hunting on a southern Texas ranch.
8. Advocate for Torture:
Waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation" is torture, and therefore undermines the United States' moral authority.
9. Advocate for big government:
Supported Nixon's illegal acts, and has actively pursued expansion of the President's powers, challenging Congressional Laws, including but not limited to: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the War Powers Resolution.
10. Spied on the American Public:
Part of the illegal NSA warrantless wiretap scandal, spying on US Citizens in clear violation of due process.
11. Dismal voting record during his tenure as a Congressman in 1979-1989, showing more contempt for the American Public (unless you're rich and white):
- Repeatedly voted against programs designed to provide assistance to displaced workers.
Voted against legislation requiring factory owners to notify employees before closing their plants. Cast 10 separate votes against funding nutrition programs for children, including one vote opposing a move to protect food programs for women and infants from budget cuts. - Repeatedly voted against maintaining funding for Head Start programs.
Voted against a measure that granted time off for federal employees to care for sick family members. - Voted against the Hunger Relief Act, which expanded eligibility for the federal food stamp program.
- Voted against providing mortgage assistance for low income home buyers.
- Opposed college student aid programs contained in the Higher Education Act.
- During the recession of the early 1980s, voted to block extension of unemployment benefits, including a provision that would provide health insurance for unemployed workers and their families.
- Voted against the Equal Rights Amendment.
- Voted for Ronald Reagan’s veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
- Voted to limit Social Security cost-of-living adjustments for retired Americans living on fixed incomes.
- Was one of only eight members of the House to vote against renewing the Older Americans Act, which provided nutritional and other support services for elderly Americans. (If Cheney’s opposition had succeeded, the entire nutritional program would have effectively been shut down).
- Voted against limiting out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare recipients, most of whom were senior citizens. His votes were so consistently counter to the interests of the elderly that a Cox News Service headline declared, “Senior Groups Call Cheney’s Voting Record a Disaster.”
- Not only did Cheney’s votes tend toward unfairness on domestic issues, he actually voted against sanctioning South Africa’s apartheid regime for its repressive policies. He was also a vocal opponent of Nelson Mandela’s release from prison.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cheney, Limbaugh OWNED.
Roberta McCain, mother of Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, spoke out against Rush Limbaugh Wednesday night on Jay Leno's show, saying that Rush Limbaugh "does not represent the Republican Party that I belong to".
"I belong to the Republican Party," McCain, 97, said. "What he represents of the Republican Party has nothing to do with my side of it. I don't know what the man means, I don't know what he's talking about."
Regarding Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman, she praised him for labeling Limbaugh an "entertainer" earlier this year during an interview on CNN:
"I think [Steele] was exactly right when he defined this man as an entertainer," she said. "To my horror, the Republican Party made him back up on it."
Limbaugh has long been a critic of John McCain, publicly urging listeners to vote against him during the Republican presidential primaries last year. Most recently, Limbaugh said McCain and his outspoken daughter, Meghan, should follow Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter out of the GOP.
The long-time Republican also critisized liberal television host Keith Olbermann for doing the same sort of stuff:
"I, myself, can't figure out that type of person who really more or less gets joy out of denigrating people. I'm just not that type of person, I don't have friends like that, and thank God I am not around people like him."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/14/mccain-mom-takes-swipe-at-limbaugh/
Regarding Cheney, Bill Clinton just nailed him recently:
"I wish him well," Clinton told CNN while greeting voters after a campaign stop with Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. "It's over," he added, apparently a reference to the Bush administration.
"But I do hope he gets some more target practice before he goes out again," Clinton said with a grin before moving along the ropeline.
All I have to say is OWNED.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/14/bill-clinton-terry-mcauliffe-born-to-lead-virginia-2/
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Republican party is CLUELESS...
The Republicans are critizing Obama's plans for....well everything. They have nothing good to say about him or his policies, any of them. But when the President asks for any alternatives, they just complain futher about socialism or more tax cuts for the rich. WTF? Why?! Oh yeah, the rich that "create" jobs. That may have been true in Reagan's time...but now the rich only create jobs in India and other countries (can you say outsourcing?)
Oh wait, the republicans do have an idea! Impeach Obama and the Dems in Congress because their plans haven't worked yet! Its Obama's fault! Riiiiiiiight. Put the Republicans back in power. Because the last 8 years haven't been damaging enough. You know, two wars and a doubled deficit, and then a stock market crash. Right. Its all Obama's fault.
I'm not a Democrat, either. I don't like some of Obama's policies. But at least he's trying something new. Unlike the tired old "Reaganomics" that the Republicans keep proposing that only worked during Reagan's presidency. In fact, the Republicans let a short term solution that got the US out of a specific recession and turned it into a macro-solution for every problem. I used to like the Republican party. But now they have to blame a new President who has tried to reach across the aisle, who is trying some new things, and blame the economy on him, instead of looking inward and seeing that in the last 29 years, we've had a Republican in the White House for 22 years of them. And oh yea, didn't the deficit spending decrease under Clinton's budget proposals and the public debt increase only slightly (due to interest) while falling as a percentage of GDP? I'm no Clinton fan. I feel that he wasted a ton of his presidency fooling around with Monica and then lying about it. But at least, for a time, he did something and we prospered. But under the last Republican Presidency of eight years and Republican Congress of six, we have gone nowhere. (Except, of course, in doubled deficit-land, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a flooded Katrina superdome)...
What happened, Republican party? You used to stand for something. Under Reagan, you had some new ideas that got us out of a recession. You used to have leaders. Now what do you have? Rush Limbaugh, Jindal, and Palin?
I'm not a Democrat. But I'm sure as hell not a Republican anymore.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/25/gop-leaders-introduce-housing-plan/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover