Thursday, July 29, 2010
Shirley Sherrod is planning to sue Andrew Breitbart for posting the video of her speech at an NAACP event. After all, she was the wronged party, according to her! Breitbart was clearly targeting her, a little-known Department of Agriculture employee until now, so she's just trying to restore her good name.
Meanwhile in the real world, we get to see Sherrod for what she truly is: an opportunist.
Granted, everyone has a bit of this streak within them. But not everyone gets to write his or her on history as Sherrod and her ideological allies have done. No matter how the Left spins the facts, the timeline doesn't fit their spin, which puts Sherrod's case in a bit of trouble. See, the courts tend to have a little higher standard of proof than Media Matters. With the media coverage making her into an overnight sensation, though, I'm thinking she's letting her ego write checks that her legal team won't be able to cash. (But maybe they'll get some of that sweet settlement money Sherrod and her husband just received from the federal government.)
Some on the Left say Sherrod is only trying to restore her reputation. Given how she's trying to cash in on a lie, I'd say her reputation has already been affirmed.
See? Even though it's a proven fact that Breitbart lied, and it's a proven fact that Fox News.com and Fox Nation ran with the lie immediately; right-wingers will continue to say it's just not true, even when faced with those undeniable facts. Even Lindaman can't offer a defense against the fact that Breitbart lied, and Fox News.com and Fox Nation ran with Breitbart's lie.
A black woman's speech is ripped out of context, and right-wingers make her the bad guy. Is this any shocker?
Right-wingers live in a bubble of denial. Especially when certain races are involved. Even T.L. isn't trying to hide it anymore.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Remember What I Said About Context?
Even when the facts regarding Shirley Sherrod's "firing" by the Obama White House come out, some on the Left refuse to accept that Fox News didn't get her "fired."
Mediaite's Steve Krakauer tried to set the Left straight as to the actual timeline of Fox News' coverage of the Sherrod story, but one poster (who will remain nameless to protect his/her fragile Leftist ego) wasn't buying the facts:
You got the facts right Steve, but I’m not buying your conclusion.
The administration didn’t fire Sherrod because they saw the video on Fox News, true.
The administration fired Sherod because a right-wing smear machine disguised as a news network that has repeatedly race-baited the White House with their “us vs them/Black against White” narrative EXISTS.
If that wasn’t the FOX M.O. then the White House would not have acted so rashly. They knew by experience that they could not expect fairness from FOX when it comes to race and that is what makes Fox at least partly to blame.
If there was no history of Fox race-baiting their would be no reason to act rashly.
I do believe Fox created the ATMOSPHERWE for this to happen and that is why they are to blame.
Fuck timelines..Fox has been doing this since Obama was nominated. There’s your timeline. [Emphasis mine]
So, let me get this straight. The facts were right that showed that Fox News didn't get Sherrod fired as the Left has claimed, but they're still to blame for getting her fired because of the "atmosphere" they allegedly created? The only way you can even remotely make this claim is to invent a reality where Fox News and Andrew Breitbart masterminded a great racist conspiracy to bring down a virtual unknown to get back at the President.
Meanwhile, the real story (that being the NAACP's racism in its midst after chastising the TEA Parties for racists in their midst) is being ignored by the Left. By jumping on the TEA Parties as racist from the very beginning, haven't you created the environment under which Sherrod was fired, using your logic? So, when are you going to man up and accept responsibility?
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on this. Needless to say, now that the "Fox News got Shirley Sherrod" lie has been discredited, the Left is reduced to creating new reasons to blame them for the boneheaded actions of the Obama Administration and the NAACP. But no matter what narrative they invent, the facts are out there, and no one but them is buying their spin.
ROFL What the fuck ever, loser. Right-winger Breitbart posted a lie. Fox News.com, Fox Nation ran with the lie and there's nothing you or mediaite can do to bullshit your way out of those facts, no matter how many times you state Vilsack is "Obama's White House." Let's take a look at what's been happening lately:
1. Right-wingers take video of Al Sharpton talking about equality, and state it's about black people wanting free stuff.
2. Right-wingers fall over themselves to keep an AZ law that has racial profiling.
3. Black male John Lewis states he was called the n-word and was spat upon. Right-wingers fall over themselves and say he's lying by default.
4. Right-wingers post old National Geographic footage of a New Black Panther party member being a dick, and say that's somehow connected to the NAACP.
5. Right-winger Breitbart posts video deliberately cut down to falsely imply a black member of the NAACP is racist. Right-wingers add on and falsely say the NAACP is cheering and applauding her racist comments.
6. Right-wing Fox News's website and right-wing Fox Nation immediately run with the right-wing Breitbart story. After the video is proven deceptive, Right-wingers pretend this didn't happen.
7. Right-wingers want to stop a community center that's two city blocks away from Ground Zero, because it's Islamist and has a prayer room.
Beginning to see the pattern yet?
But hey, maybe you can tell us what ANDY MARTIN has to say about it! After all, he's a legitimate source for right-wingers, as he hates Muslims AND Jews! hahaaaa...
Oh, and for Those Who Think I've Been Proven Wrong about Media Matters
"Proven wrong" about what? You've deliberately lied in multiple posts about Media Matters.
Okay, so in response to pointing out that you're lying by saying Media Matters was stating George Washington wasn't a Christian (they did not say that)... in response to pointing out that you're lying by saying Media Matters "looped back" on itself in that article (it did not)... in response to pointing out that you're lying about a Media Matters article being bogus by saying that BP employee campaign contributions and BP itself giving contributions are "the same thing" (it obviously isn't)... in response to saying you're lying about the fact that Media Matters is truthfully stating that Fox News.com and Fox Nation immediately ran with the lying Breitbart video...
You respond with... an old blog that lasted six months, and died four years ago, from some nobody. And nothing on that blog says anything about the issues you lied about above.
That's your idea of "research". Pulling up something random on Google. That's what they taught you in journalism classes, eh?
Wow, that's just... sad. You threw in the towel wayyy too soon on this one. I expected better, even from you.
Oh, wait guys... there's more!
A little later, Thomas Lindaman's biggest fan; a Mr. T Lindaman, makes a comment to himself:
I mean... heheeeheaaaa... Andy Martin?? The Birther that sued Hawaii to prove Obama was a secret Muslim? THAT Andy Martin?
That's your big revelation? That Andy Martin filed a lawsuit against Media Matters?
Do you have even a BASIC understanding of law and civil suits? You do know that anybody can sue anybody for anything, right?
Andy Martin has a HISTORY of frivolous litigation, even to the point where a judge told him to knock it the fuck off. That's why the suit was thrown out... because he SUES EVERYBODY!
What could Andy Martin have said in that suit? That he's not an anti-Semite?
Andy Martin put it in a MOTION that a judge was a "dirty Jew." He didn't just say it and it was hearsay... he WROTE IT in the motion. If you call someone a "dirty Jew" that makes you an anti-Semite. You know what Andy's defense to that was? That his Anti-Semitic comments were "inserted" into the files by "malicious judges." Different judges, I might add. They were all conspiring against him. lol
Lindaman... this is a practical joke, right? I'm being punk'd, aren't I? Even you can't be THIS incompetent. This HAS to be a joke... unless you actually didn't do even a speck of research in the very articles you were posting.
ANDY MARTIN?? I mean, did you link that article because of the headline... that some right-wing twat wrote? Maybe she and that Stella Rondo cunt could work together. lol
Haahahaaaa... ANDY MARTIN! "How dare Media Matters reprint articles from newspapers that truthfully stated I filed motions saying I'm not feeling as sorry about the Holocaust as I used to!"
BWahahaa... Okay, *snerk* I'll calm down and resume the post. Okay, Lindaman then says:
Choke on it.
BAHAHAHAAAAAA.... dammit, Thomas! You did it again! Now you rip off my "Bite it" comment from just a few hours earlier. HAHAHAAAA....
I'm "choking," all right... Choking on LAUGHTER. Not quite as bad as you almost choking to death trying to eat that entire bucket of KFC, but still!
Who wouldn't laugh at a person that uses a nutball Birther and proven Anti-Semite as a legitimate source?
Journalism Degree, folks! Apparently you slept through the classes on checking sources, credibility, and integrity.
One of the hot issues right now is the proposed building of a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. Some say it's a way to heal the wounds of 9/11 by showing that we're above hatred. Others say it disrespects the families of those who died on 9/11.
Guess which side I'm on.
The wrong one, which is always a winning guess.
Folks, let me be as blunt as possible. If this mosque goes up, it will prove that we haven't learned a damn thing from 9/11. We're doomed to make the same mistakes of believing hollow words and ignoring real action unless we think through this carefully.
And the place to start is with the fundamental question: why build a mosque within two blocks of a site where Muslim extremists attacked a major American, and dare I say world, city? Wasn't there another spot that is closer to the Muslim community in NYC? And wouldn't the greed and social climbing connected to Manhattan be an affront to Islam on some level? None of it makes sense.
Unless you look at it from the standpoint of a radical Muslim. To them, building a mosque within a short distance of a martyrdom site is highly attractive, especially when it's going a poke in the eye of "the Great Satan." (For the uninitiated and for the Left, that's us.) And let's not forget that radical Muslims are trained to use our freedoms against us and invent scandals to make us scared to speak out against them.
And what does Mayor Mike Bloomberg do? Become the Capitulator in Chief and defend the mosque being built.
There's a fine line between tolerance and allowing people to take advantage of you. And let me tell you, radical Muslims are taking advantage of all of us with this Ground Zero mosque. While the Left attacks Sarah Palin for Tweeting her opposition to the mosque, they miss the obvious: they're being used for a purpose that will ultimately destroy them and, if they bothered to think through their stated positions for more than a microsecond, they would be opposed to, and should be if they had any sense whatsoever. I'm asking a lot, I know, but it's still a dream...
However, to be fair, I am willing to drop my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque on one condition: they allow me to erect two symbols at the entrance to the mosque.
A Star of David, and a Christian Cross.
After all, if it's all about tolerance, shouldn't we hold Muslims to the same standards that they want to hold us to?
Ground Zero isn't holy ground, idiot.
It's a community center with a prayer room attached. Anybody can go in, anybody can use it. You folks think reality has anything to do with the right-wing pants-pissing screeching hordes?
Also, Cordoba was known for 700 years as a place where religious minds met and discussed from several faiths. It was also the epicenter of scientific progress.
Cordoba Initiative (CI) aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions.
There's an ACTUAL mosque six minutes away from the community center, already, BTW.
Dirty Muslims. What have they ever done for our country?
Right-wingers must see the faces of these potential terrorists every night...
Look at this potential terrorist mother. Look at her, hanging on that dirty Muslim grave like it meant something important.
What is the acceptable radius for a "no muslim" zone?
Mosques... in NYC? Inconceivable!
Did Palin finally manage to "refudiate" her critics?
You know who else fought for a religious cleansing of a place they consider sacred?
Did no Muslims die in the towers?
I'm sure Salman Hamdani is spinning in his grave. And Mohammad Chowdhury. Or Rahma Salie and her unborn child. Or the dozens and dozens of other Muslim victims of 9/11 and their families, like Chowdhury's orphaned child who was born two days after 9/11.
"Islam" didn't attack America on 9/11. A small group of crazy people, who were Muslim, did it. Way to condemn by association a religion of more than a billion people. The rest of the Muslim world had about as much to do with it as you have to do with suspects being tortured at Gitmo.
Collective punishment is one incredibly immoral behavior we have never really been able to stamp out. It's hard to convince people that it's wrong when we work so hard to dehumanize our enemies.
This is nothing big to New Yorkers. Having a muslim community center in downtown would be a very big sign of how New Yorkers actually are: unafraid, accepting of different points of view, and not willing to blame everyone for a few morons activities. You know, unlike those forgiving "Christian" inbred midwesterners who have giant ears of corn shoved in their ears and up their collective fat asses.
Why are all these self described "small government, states rights" advocates... telling New York City what kind of churches they can and can not build? Why are you NOW so concerned about what a private organization does with their money? Tell us, logically, how allowing the Islamic center would cripple NYC and the nation.
So what is the argument from the right-wingers here? That Muslim terrorists will gather in the "mosque" that is "near" Ground Zero? Do they even know what their argument is?
Watch out, folks! The radical mooslums are going to fly the mosque into a building! Or... something.
You should buy this pickup truck, it's perfect for you:
If REAL radical Muslims really wanted to harm America, they'd shave their beards and pretend to be conservative pundits. They have the same values, so it wouldn't be too difficult.
So tell us, rednecks: Are all Muslims responsible for 9/11? That question is what the far right is dancing around and eventually they're going to have to just say it point-blank.
Saying that al Qaeda fanatics are the same as other Muslims is like saying the crazy snake-handlers, or the people who shoot up abortion clinics are the same as every other Christian.
In other words, it shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you bigoted pile of shit.
You can't get around it. You're telling Muslims to go be Muslims somewhere else. There's no way for anyone to rationalize this as anything other than bigotry.
Us "America-haters", however... are not afraid of buildings. Conservatives are a bunch of bedwetting pussies.
On the other hand, I'd also be happy if the "mosque" wasn't there. Because I'd be happy if mosques weren't ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. I'd also be happy if Christian churches and Jewish synagogues weren't anywhere in the world. Because the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian God are all from the Old Testament. And the Old Testament is proven bullshit. Your collective god is fake, and houses of worship of that god encourage ignorance.
That being said, even if Christians and Muslims are assbackwards dumbfucks worshipping invisible sky wizards, and my seeing ALL of their little worship-houses gone would make me very happy, that doesn't mean that I want to take away their right to do so. Neither I nor any other American should get to say or do anything about where or how any religion should get together to justify their dumbfuckedness to one another.
It's absolutely moronic to believe in gods. But it's far worse than moronic, it's dangerous -- to discriminate against people based on which particular god they like best.
Of course it's going to offend some people. Let them be offended. Who cares about hurting the feelings of bigots?
I'm sure Lindaman is also outraged there's a church near the OKC bombing site, since it's an insult to the victims due to the bombing being committed by a Christian.
What's even funnier fodder, is that the "radical islamist" that wants to build the center... is a Sufi!
Jihadist groups like Al-Queda see other, conventional Muslims as "the near enemy" and actually want to kill them more than your typical American, who is considered "the far enemy". I can't help but wonder why we would want to alienate the vast majority of moderate Muslims by not letting this go through; wouldn't it be better to show solidarity with Muslims and push the real jihadists further and further to the edges, or are we trying to push moderate Muslims closer to the jihadists?
You know what's interesting? Notice that not a single person blogging about being opposed to the "Mosque on Ground Zero!" has expressed even the slightest interest in working together to come up with an alternative, or maybe find some common ground. They simply demand that they get their way and the community center not be built. Even the ones that claim to be bothered by the "tension" simply expect the other side to give in completely so they can have their way.
And suffice it to say, the community center isn't even at Ground Zero. It's a few NEW YORK CITY blocks away. Do you know what even two NEW YORK CITY blocks can be there? You can be in a different universe practically in the space of two NEW YORK CITY blocks.
Oh, wait... these cries of fear are coming from bloggers who live in shitty apartments in redneck states. They have no concept of what a city block IN A REAL CITY is.
The only "ground" that's being disturbed is a plot of real estate for an old Burlington Coat Factory. It's just so sad... that old Burlington Coat Factory building is being made into a "mosque"... It will never be a Burlington Coat Factory ever again. Fuck the firefighters... Burlington Coat Factory was the real hero of 9/11.
Keep sticking up for yellow journalism and manufactured outrage.
Right-wingers like these, who would twist the Constitution to protect their childlike sensitivities are more dangerous to America than any Muslim terrorist could ever hope to be.
You're right about "Forgetting Lessons" from 9/11. You still let fear and hate dominate your life. Which is precisely how the terrorists want you to feel. Bin Laden would be laughing his ass off at you guys for enabling him the way you have since 9/11.
According to right-wingers, the best way to eradicate intolerance is to practice it.
Monday, July 26, 2010
New York Congressman Charles Rangel is in a bit of hot water with the House Ethics Committee over a string of minor infractions, like tax evasion and misuse of rent control property. You know, stuff that only bothers those nitpickers at the IRS? Well, Rangel's supporters/defenders are saying that we should give Rangel a chance to explain himself in context.
This got me to thinking what the Left means when they talk about context. Usually, they refer to it when they say something stupid and gets caught. They claim "They took that statement out of context" (without ever proving it was taken out of context). Take, for example, their argument in defense of Shirley Sherrod's speech where she admits to being racist initially to a white farmer. They claim Andrew Breitbart and Fox News took the speech out of context to discredit her.
Of course, these same Leftists say nothing about Media Matters, a Leftist website that frequently takes conservatives out of context.
Prove it. You have to, because you have no credibility; as you have already been proven to be a liar on two different posts regarding Media Matters.
And, I'm still waiting for these Leftists to praise Glenn Beck for showing restraint and calling for the speech to be viewed in its full context.
Get back to us when he retracts his accusation that Obama hates white people.
Frankly, Beck is right, but he gets it wrong by assuming the Left has the same commitment to an accurate context as the Right does. The Left believes that reality is subject to their whims, which is why they can disregard the actions of the New Black Panther Party as insignificant while repeating a discredited lie about John Lewis getting spat upon and being called the n-word by TEA Party members.
How was it "discredited"? In your last post you said "It hasn't been proven." Now it's "discredited"? Can't wait to hear your next escalated reworded description of the same event in your next post. Maybe next time you'll morph it into "He spat on the white people!"
To them, the reality doesn't fit their narrative, so they ignore it. Granted, there are people on the Right who do the same thing (Lindsey Graham comes to mind), but the Left takes self-delusion to an art form.
Says the guy who claimed Saddam had WMD's after Bush said there wasn't. Says the guy who believes in ghosts.
To protect their fragile egos.
The Left cannot stand being proven wrong about anything, yet they're constantly wrong about just about everything.
Great, then prove it. I won't "be holding my breath."
Because to you, claiming proof without showing any proof, is the same as proof.
When they run across someone with even a little knowledge of a subject, they get testy. I ran into this recently with a Leftist who asked me to use the scientific method to show how evolution was not settled science. After I did, he swore at me, insulted me, and generally ignored the fact that I did what he asked and proved him wrong with the very standard he insisted I use.
Great, let's see it! Because there's nothing funnier than watching a retarded Intelligent Design supporter (redundant?), arguing against proven science.
So, how does that play into the concept of context? When someone can lie about reality, he or she creates a context by which no one but that person can define and apply. In other words, he or she creates a reality that no one else can breach. When that happens, only certain facts are allowed in to be processed while others are disregarded.
Sounds like your recent bullshit defense of Beck talking about Obama's children: "But he made an Elmo sound!"
That's how the Left can blame Fox News for getting Sherrod fired when a) she resigned, and b) Fox News didn't start covering the story until after she resigned.
Liar (see last post).
The Fox News website ran the story MINUTES after Breitbart posted the video, with nearly identical text. That means they had already discussed it.
The right wing blogosphere then ran with it almost immediately.
It was all OVER the internet in a matter of hours, driven directly by Fox News.
Saying "we didn't show it on TV until later" has NOTHING to do with what happened.
Independents(tm) have been pushing this line for days. They are trying to shift the blame from themselves onto the Administration. Again, the mistakes of this Administration in handling the controversy in no way absolves Breitbart or Fox News from creating and perpetuating the controversy.
This whole "It wasn't on TV until later so Fox News had nothing to do with it!" crap is so intellectually dishonest.
And oh so typical.
The Administration made a mistake and Obama personally saw that it was fixed. That's what leaders do.
Breitbart and Fox News were caught in a massive lie and immediately began telling bigger lies to save their own asses. That's what unaccountable right-wing douchebags do.
Now, let's apply this concept to the Rangel situation. When Leftists say they want Rangel to be able to put his actions into the proper context, they mean they want to give him time to come up with a version of reality that diminishes if not excuses what he did and gives his defenders a narrative they can follow to defend him.
And you can bet that Rangel's version of what happened will bear very little resemblance to what actually happened.
You claimed that Janet Napolitano said that it was premature to say whether the Obama administration's response to the Gulf oil spill was adequate, when Janet was clearly talking about BP's response.
You said Obama said "Claim Traction" when he clearly said "Gain Traction."
And that's just fairly recent stuff.
You can educate people on understanding context when you figure out how to listen and read basic sentences.
After all, "words mean things".
The NAACP's annual convention starts this week. Normally, I wouldn't give one-tenth of one crap about them, but this year, they're really going out on a limb.
They're calling the TEA Parties racist.
Wow. With all the problems facing blacks today, the NAACP has really drilled down to the heart of the issue. (For those of you on the Left playing along at home, that was sarcasm.)
Again, Lindaman has to explain the joke, thus defeating the purpose of the joke. His inability to understand how humor works is part of the reason why after years of trying, he's still an unknown rather than a famous pundit.
I find this a little convenient, given how blacks have had to deal with a member of the New Black Panther Party talking about wanting to kill "cracker babies." Not exactly the best way to showcase the many fine points of the African-American community,
Yeah, that was such an issue... back in 2008 when the footage was in a National Geographic documentary. Remember the outrage? Oh, that's right... there wasn't any. The right-wingers had to dig it out in order to try to connect it to a fake scandal.
I grant you, but the NAACP has at least a bit more legitimacy with the white community than the New Black Panther Party.
That is until now.
The NAACP has a resolution that they will be voting on tomorrow to repudiate the "racist" elements of the TEA Party movement. In fact, NAACP spokesperson Leila McDowell suggested the following:
We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.
With all due respect, Ms. McDowell, I did a little research and couldn't find where you repudiated members of your own organization for racism, and I don't seem to see you recognizing the historic and present racist elements in your midst. And while we're here, could you provide examples of the racism you see in the TEA Parties,
This could help you, Ms. McDowell.
Oh, and this guy named Billy Roper. Perhaps you've heard of him.
or are they like the alleged (and unproven) charges by blacks that protesters to the health care reform bill being voted on by the House hurled racist epithets at them and spat on them?
Something tells me the latter is more likely.
"Unproven". What a shocker. A Teabagger won't take a black person's word over a white person's.
What the NAACP fails to realize is that the TEA Parties aren't about race, no matter what they do to try to make them about race. In fact, if they would attend a TEA Party rally, they might be surprised to see the number of non-white faces staring back at them. And it's due in no small part to the NAACP. For all of their self-professed desire to advance people of color, they've found themselves grafted at the hip to the very people who don't want colored people to advance. After decades of support for more big government programs with little to no improvement in the black community, blacks have started looking elsewhere for representation.
And the NAACP keeps sticking by the people who have screwed them for decades.
As opposed to the people who try to link blacks to one "New Black Panther" dick (see above). Not to mention their absolutely pathetic attempts to link it to a phony "scandal".
If you're a member of the NAACP reading this, ask yourself one question. What will calling the TEA Parties racist do to help a single black person? If you're honest, there is only one answer you can give.
Yes, right-wingers, I know it's difficult to comprehend how somebody can condemn the racist elements of something without saying how the whole thing is racist, but really... oh wait, no, it's not difficult to do that at all.
Even children understand that condemning the KKK as a racist element of America isn't seriously suggesting all of America is racist.
This is just Page 1, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the conservative playbook: Lie, exaggerate, and distort as much as you possibly can, because facts have a well-know liberal bias.
Right-wingers always try to obfuscate between the actual matter that is based in reality, and the fantasy version they attempt cook up by intentionally lying about what was actually said.
It's everything from "Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet" when in reality Gore correctly took credit for congressional Internet funding initiatives, to "The NAACP calls the Tea Party racist" when in reality the NAACP cordially asked all non-racist Tea Party members to repudiate the racist elements in their midst.
Again, even the most base and cursory examination reveals what deliberate liars you are, whose arguments are so wholly without merit you are required to invent fictions and ascribe those fictions to your opponent.
The "race card" argument is nothing new. When racist elements did scream about Obama, uploading anti-miscegenation pictures of Obama to the RNC facebook, distributing pictures of Obama surrounded by the Kool-Aid Man and fried chicken, etc., liberals correctly decried these as racist. And of course, the right-wing blogosphere does their usual "We're not racist! These black people are reverse racist! And the liberals keep the black man down somehow!" while they wink-wink at their bigoted base.
The right, never one to miss an opportunity, decided to pretend their reaction to racist imagery related to Obama was the left's response to any criticism, because again their arguments are so wholly without merit and so difficult to account for that creating a fiction is entirely easier than arguing anything based in reality.
You're stuck with the racist label, Teabaggers. Racists know it, minorities know it. Don't want to be called racist? Disavow the non-grassroots corporate-funded Tea Party "Movement" and get some sense.
Honestly, who in their right mind would want these complete and utter proven DIPSHITS calling the shots?
They deliberately, and with malice aforethought, lie about what the NAACP said, hope to create sufficient noise about it, surge on the outrage as per standard operating procedures, and deflect from the actual matter at hand. Such as right-wingers desperately trying to duct tape the "New Black Panthers" into a discussion about the NAACP and the Teabaggers, never mind that the matter was settled before Obama took office. But no, that's not racist.
It should come as absolutely zero surprise that once again the right is absolutely disingenuous, and once again distorts reality, presenting half-truths and utter lies that even the most simple application of critical thinking reveals to be false.
The strategy is always the same. Lie, make noise, deflect from the actual matter of substance and hope your knowingly-made lie isn't exposed. Zero creativity, zero variation.
How long do you right-wingers have to shower to get that coating of scum and slime off you, or do you even bother?
I had to visit my apartment complex's office today to take care of some business when I had a chance to talk to one of the other residents about various subjects. Invariably, the war in Afghanistan came up.
"We need to get out of that war over there," the resident said. "We can't win over there. It's just like Vietnam. Look at what it did to the Russians."
On the surface, my fellow resident has a point. The war in Afghanistan has not been run as well as it could be, and the same can be said of the war in Iraq. However, a badly run war is not the same as an unjust war, and I still feel both wars are valid in the larger scheme of things. I won't back down from that position.
Actually, you insisted that Saddam had WMD's, even after it was proven otherwise.
However, I did take gentle issue with the resident's notion that Afghanistan is just like Vietnam and that we would end up like the Russians did when they conducted a war there. I pointed out to the resident that we could still win the war in Afghanistan due to our socioeconomic foundations. When the Russians waged war in Afghanistan, they did it while Russia was still under the influences of communism, which was and is a very rigid form of government and society that doesn't value innovation. They had a stock approach to every situation and rarely deviated from it.
On the other hand, the United States has a more open form of government and champions those who innovate. Sure, it might mean more people have opinions on how to address an issue, but isn't that a good thing when dealing with war? War isn't something that can be mapped out from start to finish because of the human element, so we need people who aren't limited by inside-the-box thinking. It may lead to multiple trips to the drawing board, but it's a lot better than sticking to the same strategy and hoping it works this time.
Yes, we may not be waging war the way it needs to be waged,
Let's hear your ideas on this. That would be a hoot, right up there with your ideas of what Obama should've done differently with BP. Should he have sent the EPA Freedom Force to Afghanistan?
but if anyone can win in Afghanistan, it's us. And I'm not quite ready to give up on us winning yet.
The difference between Bush's invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan is rather significant: The Russians actually WERE greeted as liberators.
I don't believe this will be another Vietnam either. But at least you got an interesting face-to-face conversation out of the subject.
I've been called a lot of names over the years, but lately a new name has been used quite often to describe me.
Who calls you that? People in an AOL chatroom? lol
To someone who loves his country, "traitor" is a name that elicits a strong emotional reaction, as it is meant to do when a Leftist calls someone one. It's gotten to be in vogue for the Left to do that lately because they've run into a problem as it pertains to President Obama. People simply aren't willing to listen to him much anymore because he hasn't shown the kind of leadership that he promised to deliver. So, the Left now equates disagreement with the President with treason.
Did we write a lying book about it?
Just like they did when people disagreed with Bill Clinton's decision to go into Kosovo. I had any number of Leftists call me a traitor for asking legitimate questions about why we were going into Kosovo in the first place. It didn't matter that the questions were legitimate. All that mattered to them at that time was that I was questioning the President's judgment during a time of war.
LOL Whatever. Right-wingers weren't against Kosovo because they are traitors, it's because they don't give a shit about ethnic cleansing if it's an ethnicity they don't care about.
Then, George W. Bush became President, and questioning the President during a time of war was acceptable to the Left. After all, they were speaking truth to power! (Check local listings for the level of truth and power the Leftists were speaking.) And when the Right called the Left traitors (basically using the Left's own logic against itself), the Left whined and yelled about dissent being patriotic.
See, when the Right-Wingers are against a war, it's "questioning." When the Left are against a war, it's "whining and yelling." Sheesh, how typical.
One was ethnic cleansing, the other was fighting in the wrong goddamn country.
You weren't called traitors for opposing Kosovo. And you weren't "using the Left's own logic against itself," you were just being your usual selves.
To have those same Leftists call me a traitor today
Which they don't. That would involve actual interaction with human beings.
for criticizing President Obama is the height of hypocrisy, especially when you consider that I didn't believe Leftist dissent was traitorous, merely misguided. However, I refuse to let them get me angry or upset when they call me a traitor. Instead, I've decided to do something else that immediately puts them on the defensive.
Call their bluff.
After all, treason is a federal crime, and that means citizens can arrest me if I'm guilty of treason. To date, not one of them has acted upon their rhetoric and had me arrested, and I doubt any will. Then, they would have to prove their allegations in front of a judge, and that would be much harder to prove than they think.
So, to all you Leftists out there, call me a traitor if you want. I can't stop you, and I won't even try. I much prefer the amusement of watching you guys backtrack when you get called out.
"If I'm not jailed for it, then I didn't dood it!"
Don't act like you're above such things. You happily called Leftists "America-haters" without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Calling radical right-wingers traitors gives them too much credit, as it would imply they are loyal to another country. Which would imply they are loyal to anything other than themselves.
There's only one country that radical right-wingers love: Corporatestan.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
The Washington Post has reported that Democrats are digging deep for any dirt they can find on Republicans in close races. Although opposition research isn't unusual in today's political environment, there is an element of this year's opposition research that doesn't bode well for the Left.
"This is bad news... for Obama!"
Keep in mind that traditionally the party in the White House loses seats in Congress in midterm elections. It doesn't always happen (see 2002), but the trend is well-known. If this trend continues, the Democrats are looking at losing power in Congress; the question is how much. That puts the Left behind the eight ball from the outset.
Add to this the growing discontent with all politicians, not just the ones in power. Some have argued that the TEA Party movement wouldn't have emerged had it not been for President Obama's election, but I would argue that it would have emerged anyway because our elected officials have become embarrassingly out-of-touch and increasingly arrogant. The same TEA Party folks that have criticized Obama have criticized John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other more moderate Republicans for the same reasons oftentimes.
But instead of trying to tap into the more independent voting bloc, the Democrats have gone back to the tried and true scandal well.
Democrat leaders just don't get it. We aren't going to fall for that sort of gamesmanship this time around. Just because a Republican got a special tax break doesn't negate the special breaks Christopher Dodd got thanks to Countrywide. A Republican who has unpaid state taxes doesn't make Charlie Rangel's federal tax evasion go away. All it does is show how Democrats are trying to change the subject in an attempt to avoid an electoral drubbing in November.
And that signals a very weak party.
Concern Troll is Concerned once again!
The Ethics Committee has a majority of Democratic reps on it. And yet somehow it collectively voted to bring charges against Rangel. It's almost as if the talking points that right-wingers are pushing have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
We don't fight to keep our bad apples, unlike you guys.
Good campaign fodder for the Dems:
- Steele calling Afghanistan Obama's war of choice
- Well, pretty much anything that comes out of Steele's pie hole
- Voting against shit then claiming credit for it passage
- Hatch's statement that under Bush they didn't really care about deficit spending
- Sharon Angle/Rand Paul/Teabaggers
- Resistance to any form of regulation, even in light of disasters highlighting its necessity
- Defense of the only industry or profession where you can operate with zero liability (big oil)
The Democrats have succeeded more now than in decades; sweeping health care reform, an $800 billion emergency spending bill, re-writing of banking laws. Changing the way student loans will be administered, passing new rules for credit card companies and more. And they did it without the Republicans (of course).
Right-wingers, on the other hand, accomplished NOTHING.
But yes, the GOP will gain seats. It's inevitable. And the GOP is a VERY good propaganda machine. Constant lying about Obama on Fox news, the Teabaggers, etc. And the fact that the majority of the right is generally an ignorant base that will believe anything, even when proven otherwise.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
If you listen to some conservative talking airheads (like Sean Hannity), you get the impression that America is doomed if things don't turn around. His solution? We need to elect Republicans!
Republicans like, say, Lindsey Graham, who say the TEA Party movement is unsustainable? Graham, who has been an inconsistent Republican at best, as well as a frequent guest on Hannity's program?
Or would he prefer Republicans like John McCain, a man Hannity has praised as being a good man, but misguided?
Folks, Hannity misses the point on two fronts. First, voting in Republicans in and of itself won't fix the problems because many of the Republicans currently in office and in positions of power within the GOP are the ones who caused the problems in the first place. It would be like replacing a burnt out light bulb with another burnt out light bulb, thinking that the second one was bound to work.
That's right, folks. According to Lindaman, even the current crop of insanely right-wing Republicans aren't radically right-wing enough.
Second, I don't believe for a second that this country is as bad off as we're being lead to believe it is. Don't get me wrong, things could certainly be better. But are we truly teetering on the brink of ruin unless we vote in Republicans in November? Heck no. This country has never been made great by the politicians running it at any given time. It has been made great by the people.
People like the Founding Fathers, who risked far more than we realize today to get this grand experiment in governance started.
People like the soldiers at Valley Forge, who survived brutal weather and low supply levels to stand tall against the most powerful military in the world at that time.
I could go on and on, but the point is that our history is rife with people who strove to make this country better. And that's the heart of patriotism in my book. It takes no courage to take a "my country, right or wrong" attitude. It takes a true love of this country to acknowledge we've made mistakes and to champion the fight to fix those mistakes.
"I had to kill moderate Republicans because they made a mistake.
Now it's time to erase that mistake."
Anyhoo, for those that thought Lindaman was actually sounding rational, he of course has to crank the bullshit knob up to 11:
This is where Leftists get it wrong. They criticize America not to try to make it better, but to tear it down to justify their contempt for the country. On the other hand, people like me criticize America to bring about the change necessary to make it a far better country. Put another way, Leftists are motivated by hatred for America, while people like me are motivated by love for America.
That's right, folks. According to Lindman, Leftists hate America.
Even after Lindaman and other right-wingers cheered "Yay! America lost!" when we didn't get the Olympics. Even after Lindaman and other right-wingers cheered "Boo! America won!" when we get a Nobel Prize. Even when they talk about seceding. Even after they create a humiliating group that dishonors everything our revolutionary soldiers fought for.
To hear Hannity talk about the possible end of America if Republicans aren't elected in 2010 makes me wonder about his love of country.
No one man, not even someone as inept as Barack Obama, can take down America. We're far too strong, and he's far too incompetent.
Which you can never back up.
Instead of trumpeting the horns of doom, I prefer to trumpet America's success for well over 200 years as being a beacon of freedom for the world.
While simultaneously fighting against that very freedom.
YOU are the one that exploited Independence Day by spending that day on your blog accusing half the nation as being America-haters. Let's see you tell that to the "Leftist" soldiers and firefighters.
You're the last person on the planet to talk about who respects this country. Your own actions prove that. You're also pretty pathetic, having nothing better to do on the 4th of July. No wonder you're bitter.
Happy Independence Day, folks!
Thomas Lindaman writes:
If there's one thing I can say about the Left, it's that they love to fail to shoot for the moon and then achieve their ultimate goal through smaller steps. Crap and spayed...I mean cap and trade is their latest attempt to change the way we do business in America. With the initial failure of the crap and spayed...cap and trade effort, the Left regrouped and found another path to the same destination.
And the recent financial reform bill opened the door for it.
According to the Washington Post, the financial reform bill made a "winner" out of commodity exchanges, citing the fact that the bill would increase business for said exchanges. What does that have to do with crap and spayed?
The Chicago Climate Exchange.
For those unfamiliar or partially familiar with it, the Chicago Climate Exchange is a group where businesses can trade carbon credits as they would stocks. In short, the carbon credits become a...commodity. Therefore, the Chicago Climate Exchange would be a...commodity exchange. And thanks to the financial reform bill, they stand to make a lot of money off crap and spayed.
Give it up. "Crap and Spayed" will never become a catchphrase.
Like I said, the Left loves to shoot for the moon and fail, only to succeed in piecemeal fashion later.
CCXgate! You went almost a week without a new batshit crazy conspiracy theory!
Oh, wait... this particular conspiracy theory was "borrowed" from Glenn Beck.
Anyways, the new energy plan has this:
1. Hold oil producers responsible for the Gulf oil spill;
2. Lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil by tapping into domestic natural gas resources;
3. Decrease domestic energy consumption through the Home Star energy efficiency program; and
4. Focus on land conservation.
Now remind us what's wrong with these things?
Whether you like it or not, carbon emissions hurt the planet. That's a proven fact. And giving incentives with $$ is the only way corporations will actually do something about it. Because corporations sure won't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
You know it, and I know it. So let's cut through it.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
Politics isn't exactly known for being the nicest game in town, but it seems as though the Left has gotten rather punchy lately. Whether it's Vice President Joe Biden calling the owner of a custard shop a "smartass " for asking Biden to lower his taxes
Funny, looking at the video in your own link: The owner was joking, and Biden was joking. And there's an edit between the two statements. But leave it to lying right-wingers to describe it like the owner was making a serious somber question.
to the head of the AFL-CIO calling Fox Business Channel host Neil Cavuto an "asshole"
That's because Cavuto was being an asshole, Asshole. Stating Blackwell got his degree at a baking school more than opened himself up for being called an asshole. But leave it to right-wing assholes to leave that "little" detail out.
it seems the Left has decided to pull off the kid gloves and attack anyone who might have a contrary opinion. Wow. And they're supposed to be the tolerant ones?
Oh, I see. So if it's from the left, it's an "attack." If it's from the right, it's "stating a contrary opinion."
I attribute a large portion of this vitriol to the fact that they haven't been able to do things they've wanted, due in large part to people like Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, and others exposing the true face of the Left.
Nope, they just lie. And that's been proven over and over again. The Sherrod situation is just a recent example.
In response, the Left has attacked these folks, with the results being...well, let's just say the word "impotent" comes to mind. They have the power to do some things, but they lack the knowledge to use that power effectively. Instead, they try to force their ideas down our throats instead of persuading us.
Total bullshit. No matter what, you're just going to say no anyway.
Then, you have to consider that the Leftist approach to life is juvenile at best. Leftists are in a permanent state of arrested development in that they tend not to react intellectually to an issue. For them, every issue is a matter of ego. If they support a certain position, they feel morally and intellectually superior, no matter how dumb that position actually is. Take climate change, for example. They think that if we stop offshore drilling and develop alternate fuel sources that they can "fix" the planet's climate change woes. Yeah, but try telling them that weening us off oil right now without a viable alternative (and, no, ethanol is not a viable alternative) is stupid, and they'll get downright mean. It's because they've invested so much of their ego towards the cause of their choice that they don't see how people might not agree with their take on how to address the cause.
You want to talk about anti-intellectualism? You're the guys that say that scientists are lying. That's not just anti-intellectualism, it's full-on mental retardation.
They need to stop offshore drilling until the flaws are straightened out. I know you guys laugh at workers getting killed, but some people give a shit.
And nobody is saying that we can be weened off oil "right now." They're saying that we need to find a viable alternative and stop dragging our feet.
As far as ethanol, Bush supported it and he had oil experience. Why didn't you laugh at him back then?
As the summer gets hotter, expect the Democrats' attacks to be on the rise. They're bracing for what can only be a Congressional butt-kicking for the ages by lashing out against those who they need to stem the tide. Smart move, kids.
You guys have been attacking since Day One. The difference is that you have to make things up in order to do it.
Let's see how that works in 2012, okay?
That's funny, coming from the guy that said Obama would lose the presidential election.
Ever since 2008, Obama has been trying to build a bridge over the partisan divide, except the Republicans keep burning down the bridge and blaming Obama for not getting the bridge built faster.
If Democrats say: "We want to pass a bill that protects cute, innocent little babies from packs of wild dogs." Republicans would respond with: "FILIBUSTER! Now Obama wants to control wild dogs, too? Democrats want to take food out of the mouths of innocent puppies!"
Republicans saying "These people didn't want you to have health care reform, banking reform or extended unemployment benefits, but they sure do care about BP," is an excellent strategy.
No need to sling mud against Republicans. The facts suffice.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
Remember a couple of years ago when the Left fell all over themselves to criticize General David Petraeus before he testified before Congress about the Iraq War? MoveOn.org even put out a full page ad in the New York Times calling him "General Betray-Us" because they disagreed with the war in Iraq and President George W. Bush's actions to get into it. Petraeus showed great restraint in dealing with pinheads like Hillary Clinton who indirectly accused the General of lying to the American people.
Now, in the wake of the General McChrystal situation, who does the Left turn to? General Petraeus.
Interesting pick, to be sure. After the Left hounded Petraeus, it has to be sweet vindication for him to be chosen to pick up the pieces and push ahead. In Petraeus, the Obama Administration will get a competent leader who will do what he's told and suck up any criticism, warranted or otherwise. He should serve the President well, just as he served President Bush.
But there's a part of me that isn't sure that the pick wasn't more political than practical. With the McChrystal situation adding to Obama's current mountain of woes, he needed someone who could help solidify at least some of his waning influence and that people wouldn't attack so readily. And, much to the Left's chagrin, people actually like Petraeus.
But here's the thing that the Left really can't stand to admit: Obama's copying George W. Bush again on the war. Time and time again, Obama has run to the Bush strategy when dealing with war matters, and after criticizing Bush during the campaign for doing the same things. Instead of promoting change, Obama's war strategy has been the status quo. The Left knows this and it eats them up inside because they supported Obama's change and bashed Bush's status quo. Now that the two have merged yet again, they may have to eat their "Betray-Us" words.
Ultimately, time will tell whether the Petraeus pick was for the purposes of winning the war in Afghanistan or winning the PR war at home. For the sake of the troops, let's hope it's the former.
The vast majority of "the Left" was not in favor of the MoveOn.org ad, and in fact that very ad is what caused "the Left" to stop taking them seriously. After they aired that commercial they essentially became persona non grata.
I supported Petraeus because he was in favor of Afghanistan over Iraq. Something you right-wingers were opposed to.
He campaigned on ending Iraq - not immediately, via a phased withdrawal.
He campaigned on escalating engagement in Afghanistan to finally beat the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces that remain, and then turning the country over to its lawful government. With all the mineral wealth discovered there recently it sounds like we now have a solid base to help them build an economy out of, American companies could train and employee local labor to mine those minerals. Finding something to base a modern economy off of in that country has been one of the biggest challenges to stabilizing them.
You can spin it however you want. While it's true many "Leftists" were opposed to both wars, most of us were in favor of Afghanistan over Iraq. Because, well, Afghanistan was actually relevant to 9/11. Obama's not reading from the Bush playbook, because he's not starting a war against the wrong country.
But what's the use in trying to discuss this with you, considering you're one of those crazy people that still think Saddam had WMD's after Bush admitted there weren't any.
Thomas Lindaman writes:I may torque off a few readers with this, but I'm going to agree with President Obama's decision to remove General Stanley McChrystal from command of the Afghanistan operation. The reason is simple: McChrystal was in a position of influence, which creates a higher expectation for the person in that position. To vent in front of a reporter, even in jest, is bad form and worse strategy. If he's brought up on charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for his actions, I will take no issue with McChrystal being held accountable.
Now, there's a question that I haven't seen asked by anyone else except Newsweek: Was the General on the record at the time he made the comments? This is an important question because it reveals much about the intent of the Rolling Stone reporter. If someone is on the record, that means the person being interviewed gives permission for the reporter to use his or her words in a story. If the person is off the record, the reporter is not to use the subject's words in any way, shape, or form.
Where this comes into play with the McChrystal situation is that the General should know that the UCMJ prohibits an active member in the military from criticizing the President, Vice President, and other government officials. Although it's to be assumed that unless he says otherwise, he should consider himself to be on the record, there's an expectation that the reporter use his best judgment when it comes to deciding whether something is on the record or off. Just because a source doesn't come out and say it doesn't relieve the reporter of the responsibility to use his or her best judgment.
I have to tip my hat to Newsweek for asking the question, but the response from the reporter doesn't quite address it well enough, in my opinion.
It was always clear that you were a reporter and you were, in essence, on the record? And more, the entire article was thoroughly fact-checked, yes?
Yes. It was crystal clear to me, and I was walking around with a tape recorder and a notepad in my hand three-quarters of the time. I didn't have the Matt Drudge press hat on, but everything short of that it was pretty obvious I was a reporter writing a profile of the general for Rolling Stone. It was always very clear.
Not quite, Mr. Reporter. Just because it's clear to you doesn't mean it's clear to your subject. That's when you have to use your best judgment, even if it means your story loses some of its punch. Judging from your response, I don't get a sense that you did your job and you let your desire for a story or to push a particular point of view get in the way of being a responsible journalist.
Even if the publication you work for is Rolling Stone.
In either case, McChrystal and the reporter used bad judgment, and so far only one is losing his job, and rightly so. Now, will the other get the same punishment?
Damn liberal media!
Honestly, who cares if he was a reporter or not? The General knows anything he says to a stranger can come back to haunt him.
Non-issue. This was just filler. Moving on.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
I've criticized the President in this blog for his frequent activities unrelated to the Gulf Coast oil spill and his seeming detachment from the seriousness of the issue. Even the hint of such a notion would be enough for most leaders to do as much as they could to look engaged.
You've already proven that it doesn't matter what the President does.
"ZOMG! Obama isn't doing anything! Why won't he DO SOMETHING???"
"ZOMG! Obama got involved! Why he is interfering with BP? What the hell does he know?"
In other words: Just kill yourselves, baggers.
Well, now I have to take BP CEO Tony Hayward to task for his actions this weekend. Hayward spent time on Capitol Hill defending his company, only to head back to England to...attend a yacht race. Even Joe Biden's saying that's a big gaffe, Mr. Hayward, and he wrote the book on making big gaffes.
Like saying Obama said "Claim Traction"?
(Either that or he plagiarized it.)
Not from Beck, though. You're the expert on that.
Hayward's actions show the same kind of short-sightedness in leadership that President Obama has exhibited countless times since the oil spill began. The only difference? The press still likes Obama. They already don't like you or your company, Mr. Hayward. Why give them more of a reason to run you into the ground?
This hurts BP in another way, that being in making their case before the world. Up until now, BP has been the target of a lot of criticism, valid and otherwise, for its handling of the Gulf Coast situation. They haven't lost the PR war yet, but they have been keeping pretty even. Hayward's actions blow that out of the water completely. On top of the PR nightmare of the spill, now BP has to deal with the "let them eat cake" image that the Hayward story creates, with only a slight push from the media. Dude, if you were looking to screw over your own company, mission accomplished.
As someone who just defended BP in my previous post, I am stunned at the thoughtlessness exhibited by BP's President. Given the circumstances, I think they would have been okay with you skipping this year's yacht race. Now, you've done potentially fatal harm to BP's company reputation. Just one piece of advice for you, Mr. Hayward.
Dust off your resume and start asking for job references.
I don't care if Hayward and Obama are sitting together on a tropical island sipping mint juleps. All I care about is making sure BP pays for every single thing, and the administration regulates the shit out of them.
PR is irrelevant.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
It seems that BP has been used as a political pinata lately for anyone and everyone with an ax to grind. Want more regulation of the oil industry? Talk about BP. Want to pass crap and spayed...I mean cap and trade? Talk about BP. Want to score cheap political points in an attempt to look and sound like you care about the environment? Talk about BP.
Yet, we're not hearing very much from the other side of the debate, whether it's out of fear, apathy, or what have you. It's time we stop that. Now is not the time to be silent, but the time to roar in the face of outlandish bullcrap about BP.
I support BP because I understand the pressures they're under to address the issue in the Gulf, pressures both internal and external.
That they created.
I support BP because they're not out there grandstanding for the public.
When you murder 11 workers and create one of the worst man-made ecological disasters in history, it's kind of hard to grandstand. Though they did try passing the buck.
Instead, they're quietly reminding people that they're doing what they can while working on the problem far more than their vocal opposition is. If talk could plug the hole, the Left would have had this leak taken care of in a day or two. Unfortunately for them, it's not, and BP's the one doing the heavy lifting while the Left jacks their jaws at every opportunity.
They deserve everything they got. You reap what you sow.
I support BP because most of their franchises are locally-owned. If you boycott BP, you're hurting the small businessman and their customers. Yep, your attempt to "make a statement" will wind up putting a mom and pop operation out of business and won't hurt the main company at all. Not to mention, you're most likely going to cause more trouble for the people who rely on those BPs for their gas and other services. Makes you look a lot less like a group looking out for the little guys, doesn't it?
Right-wingers have never cared about small business, so you can't play that card. You care about the corporation. Even though the right-wing blogosphere are people that have no money themselves. The CEOs would piss on your faces and laugh about it.
And yes, people's jobs and the economy are at stake. If you live in the Gulf, and your job isn't in the oil industry, you probably just lost it. Compare your little sob story, to what was lost due to this one single oil spill. Apparently you favor those workers over fishermen for some reason, care to clue me in as to why?
Yup, families will lose jobs . Maybe they can get re-hired in the newly created BP safety and clean-up Research and Development division and then move back to their old jobs.
What's more, jobs is a completely irrelevant argument. You don't keep open a business that can cause this much damage to an ecosystem, to other businesses like fishermen or tour boats and takes risks that resulted in 11 lost lives, just to save a few jobs.
You know who else lost their jobs? The dead oil rig workers, whose graves you're gleefully dancing on.
I support BP because I see how the Obama Administration has hamstrung their efforts to clean up the mess
while simultaneously raising the bar for them to act.
I support BP because it's frightfully easy to bash a faceless corporation based on what limited information we have, but it's a lot harder to give them the benefit of the doubt as we all learn more about the circumstances behind the explosion.
I support BP because the fact is what happened on that oil rig is the exception, not the rule. Believe it or not, drilling for oil has gotten more environmentally friendly than its critics lead you to believe. To toss aside offshore drilling because of a unique situation is hardly smart policy.
I support BP because behind the corporate logo is people of all walks of life, blue collar and white collar, all trying to make a living. How anyone in good conscience can punish them for actions they didn't take is beyond me.
I support BP because we're going to need them and other oil companies to keep producing until we can develop effective and efficient alternatives to oil. Killing them off now before there's a viable replacement is folly, regardless of where you stand on this issue.
I support BP because their President showed far more restraint on Capitol Hill than I would have at the sanctimonious asshats trying to score cheap political points by only giving one side of the story.
I support BP because I feel they've been maligned enough by people who know too little about them to make an informed statement. The talking airheads can dish it out, but ask them to come up with viable solutions to what BP is doing and watch them sputter like the dolts they are.
An adequate disaster plan is supposed to be in place before drilling begins. BP's plan was approved and drilling permitted before Obama was president. It is the height of dishonesty (an outright lie) to claim that the plan's failure was in any way Obama's fault.
If BP followed standard industry protocols, and actually fixed their safety equipment, this would have never happened. If they simply put more regulation on equipment inspections, this type of problem is preventable.
BP has to prove that they can operate safely AND manage disaster successfully. Trying to shift attention to a third party (Obama) is pure chickenshit on the part of right-wingers, and will only work on the idiot right-wing half of the population.
All Big Oil companies, including BP, had the same contingency plan for a spill, which includes an emergency contact number to a guy who has been dead for five years.
So, BP didn't want to pay to make their shit safer? Fine, now they have to pay ten times as much on the back end now that they've fucked everything up.
FEMA was prepared and organized to respond to a disaster such as a hurricane, and they failed. BP is prepared and organized to respond to an oil spill and so far, they've failed. One of these organizations is a part of the US government. The other is not. One of these organizations is equipped to deal with oil spills, the other is not. Were that a US government owned rig, this would be a colossal failure of a response or prevention effort. But it was privately owned - all the government could do is accept their word that they are all prepared for a response to such an event. Yes, the MMS was supposed to be overseeing this, but it wasn't. For a long time, in fact - about 8 years before Obama took office, and a year since.
Anyone who can hold this against the government not being completely prepared for a totally unprecedented event in the private sector - is an intellectually blind fool.
That's disingenuous, since the only thing Obama did wrong in this mess was not fire all of Bush's oil cronies from the MMS when he took charge.
Right-wingers are saying we should not vote Democrat because Democrats don't clean up Republican messes as fast or as thoroughly as they should. So vote Republican, since they'll fuck things up and you KNOW they'll fuck things up, but at least you won't get your hopes up that things will get better.
Finally, I support BP because at the end of the day, it's the right thing to do.
BP killed eleven workers, and you guys suck their dick. Typical of right-wing corporate anarchists. The right-wingers could not be happier about this disaster. The more people suffer, the happier they are... because that's how they operate. Off of fear, and misery. They are feeding off of ignorance and fear and knee-jerk reactions.
I can just see these right-wingers trying to be lawyers at a murder trial if BP was a single person: "We admit that Mr. BP shot that man in the head. But he mopped up the blood, so he's a good guy!"
Obama's approach led to BP providing BILLIONS dedicated to cleanup and reparations... WAY more than the $3 billion "cap". He got what's really important... he got a SHITLOAD of money for the victims, a shitload more than a grandstanding Bush-type would have.
And you right-wingers absolutely HATE that. So you'll have to excuse us when we state the fact that your crocodile tears aren't convincing anyone.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
My fellow Americans, last night President Obama gave a speech about the situation in the Gulf of Mexico due in part to BP and offshore drilling. Although he talked tough and sounded like he genuinely wanted to solve the problem,
Wait for it... wait for it...
I have to say I was unimpressed.
SHOCK OF THE CENTURY!
We've heard this same rhetoric from him since Day One, and what has it gotten us?
Several lives saved, for one thing.
One of the big reasons people are pissed at him is he ISN'T doing the bullshit grandstanding that people want him to do. He's a thinker. He's calm, he's rational. And in the end, he gets what he wants. Not to mention getting WAY more from BP than they would have given if Obama had been a grandstanding jackass.
A worsening oil spill,
Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Right?
and a President who is too busy trying to sound like Rambo to act like a President.
Funny, first you said the President wasn't talking enough. Now when he does, you say he's acting like Rambo.
How about you just sleep in instead?
Seriously, does anyone whose lips aren't affixed to the President's backside take him seriously when he sounds like Lex Luthor going after Superman? It would be one thing if Obama had overtly taken the lead on this issue early on, but it's another when it seems he showed up every so often between fundraisers, vacations, and begging for votes to talk tough and then go back to being disconnected from the situation.
When you act like the President playing golf is DIRECTLY REPLACING his time fixing the gulf, it comes off as butthurt. There's no detriment to the current situation from his playing golf. You're acting like there is. You're more than acting; you're repeatedly screaming and shouting. That, my friend, is butthurt.
And I love how every time there's campaigning by a Democrat, you have to reword it as "Beg for votes." Well, unlike right-wing bloggers begging for sex, he actually gets what he's "begging" for.
As it stands, Obama's tough talk has the opposite effect; instead of making him look and sound serious, it makes him look impotent and foolish.
If the President is serious about working towards a solution, he needs to be much more visible in doing it and much less visible in sounding like he wants a solution.
Hey, just because YOUR President Bush couldn't do two things at once, doesn't mean Obama can't.
You still have yet to show where Obama failed at anything.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
Just when you think the Gulf Coast oil spill couldn't get any more surreal, Rosie O'Donnell had to weigh in. On her radio program, she said that President Obama should use his authority and seize BP's assets as a means of getting them to clean up the oil spill.
And her sentiment is echoed by any number of Leftists.
Journalism degree, folks!
Which should be the biggest red flag that it's a horrible idea.
Oh, fuck off. When it comes to corporations, you guys never have good ideas.
Let's set aside the logistical nightmare that comes with an American President trying to take over a British company and just look at the reasoning behind the notion that nationalizing BP would somehow make the oil spill get cleaned up faster. As great as Leftists think government is, most of the time government intervention winds up being less effective and more complicated. Just ask the car dealers who participated in Cash for Clunkers how government intervention in a business worked.
Mike Contestable, sales manager at Cortese Ford in Brighton: "It was a good stimulant. I don't see any fallout from it at this point but at the time it helped. It took a lot of vehicles off the road that should be off and it brought more people into the market for new cars."
Mike Jackson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AutoNation: "We delivered strong double-digit growth in the second quarter, which was driven by both new and used vehicle unit sales and revenue. We continue to expect full year industry new vehicle unit sales to be in the range of 11.5 million new units. We expect third quarter new vehicle industry sales will equal or surpass third quarter 2009 new vehicle industry sales even though the prior year included the highly successful Cash for Clunkers program. We continue to see a solid automotive recovery going forward."
The reason government intervention in business doesn't turn out so well is because it strips the good parts of business out of the equation and replaces it with bureaucracy. Under the influence of a bureaucracy, even the simplest tasks require near-Herculean efforts to complete. If you doubt me, spend a day at the DMV.
Now tell us how the DMV would be better as a non-government business.
The post office is no longer a government job, and I don't see their lines going any faster.
And here's the twist: there are no real benchmarks to hit. When you're in government, your standards are set low enough that you could be dead and still excel. Try underachieving in the private sector, and more often than not you'll find yourself unemployed. Then, you can get a job in the Obama Administration and everything will be fine.
Have you ever worked for the government?
Plus, there's a noticeable lack of innovation in government.
I think NASA would like to have a word with you.
BP has chemicals that they've used to clean up other oil spills, but what has the government done to match that? That's right, kids. Nothing. Not even a bad idea of using a giant sieve.
That's because our government doesn't make oil rigs.
BP made $6 Billion in the first quarter alone this year. BP has had decades to push forward clean-up technologies. BP bought the newest clean-up technologies from Kevin Costner.
Kevin Costner has spent more money and more time on clean-up technologies than BP.
Kevin Costner is the leading authority on new oil clean-up technologies.
Got some fucking perspective now?
Just creative ways to blame others for their own incompetence.
BP, the private corporation, is the one that killed 11 people.
(By the way, the EPA has already told BP not to use the chemicals they would normally use. Brilliant!)
But... you said Obama should have sent the EPA immediately! Even though that wasn't their job! Oh, that's right... you were just making stories up because you couldn't find anything to legitimately blame Obama for in regard to the spill.
Regardless, the reason the EPA leaned on them is because the dispersant chemicals were more toxic than the alternative chemicals they were recommending. I know right-wingers don't give a shit about toxic chemicals in the ocean because swimming is exercise, but other people do.
But leave it to right-wingers to solve an environmental disaster... by creating a new one.
And here's the real twist. We've seen government intervention in the Gulf right now, and for the most part, it's been ineffective. Seriously, sending the Attorney General to an oil spill? That's one of the dumbest things I've seen government do, and given the current crop of Congress-critters, that's saying a lot. What was he supposed to do? Sue the oil?
And if he didn't appear, you would've posted a blog entry saying "So much for all hands on deck! Derp!"
The Attorney General was there to speak with the attorneys general of all the Gulf states and to some locals, getting a sense of the problems people are dealing with because of the crude crisis. You think it's "the dumbest thing you've seen the government do" to have an actual understanding of how the crisis is impacting the states? Figures.
Throw blame at BP all you want, but having the federal government take it over isn't the answer. Let me advance a radical hypothesis for you Leftists reading this.
Get out of the damn way and let BP clean it up.
No, don't get out of the damn way. The government needs to lean on BP to clean their shit up, make sure they aren't fucking around like they did at the start when they were LYING about the amount being spilled, make them pay out the ass for every single part of the cleanup, and then regulate the SHIT out of them when it's over, to help keep this from happening again.
To Big Oil: You have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you cannot be trusted. Like a reckless driver who got people killed, you should lose your licenses until you can prove otherwise.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
Recently, President Obama said he was going to Wall Street to find asses to kick due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Tough talk, to be sure, but I'm not convinced given other "tough talk" Obama's utilized in the past.
Evidence never convinces you of anything. Regardless, I'd say the fifty-plus billion dollars BP is going to have to pay pretty much shows an ass-kicking.
Take, for example, Obama's comments after the recent UN sanctions against Iran. Even though the sanctions were watered down by China and Russia, Obama still came out and tried to portray them as tough sanctions while at the same time trying to convey to the Iranian people that the sanctions weren't really against them. That was, at best, milquetoast.
I'd say these sanctions are pretty tough to me.
And stating it's about the leaders and not its citizens is hardly "milquetoast."
At least Obama didn't make a two week bitching "Coward Watch" while ignoring the fact that he wouldn't have had to watch anything if he had simply backed his words up with face-to-face actions to begin with when he was called out (with witnesses), instead of backing down because of being frightened and now can't take the subsequent consequences that he was warned of.
And when you consider that Iran mocked the sanctions shortly after they were approved? Let's just say Obama doesn't exactly come out as looking like a strong leader.
Leave it to a patriotic right-winger to take the leader of Iran at his word, but never the leader of the United States (when he's a Democrat).
Again, right-wingers are all about Party Before Country.
Then, there are Obama's comments about Israel. Obama has talked tough about Israel, one of our staunchest allies in the Middle East, regarding the recent incident involving a flotilla and alleged humanitarian aid ships heading for Gaza. What did Israel do? Ignored Obama's tough talk, citing self-preservation as central to Israel's continued actions.
That's because Israel never acts like an ally. They ignored Bush, too.
When Obama talks tough, the world doesn't seem to listen. So, when Obama goes to Wall Street, does anyone think they'll be scared? I don't. If anything, Obama may want to show a bit more deference to Wall Street for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that he'll need Wall Street's help to rebuild the economy. But the biggest reason?
Obama's suckled at the teat of Wall Street, and they won't forget that.
You're full of it.
We got the health care reform.
We got the sanctions.
We got the financial reform.
We've accomplished more now, than in decades.
"All talk and no action", when it comes to our country, is from the right-wing playbook.
Thomas Lindaman writes:
I'm not usually the type to advance conspiracy theories,
Except that manmade global climate change is just a plot by scientists to get grant money.
And Swift Boaters.
Oh, and BPgate, AyersGate, SestakGate, FannieFreddieGate, Goldman-SachsGate, and... pretty much everything else you write.
but I got to thinking today and it lead me down an interesting rabbit hole.
This should be good.
It came out earlier this week that the Obama Administration is in favor of a measure that would prohibit citizens from filming police stops.
Regardless, it's already illegal in some states.
On the surface, it's not that controversial and might help the police do their jobs. What was striking about this announcement is that it came out a day or two after news of Israel boarding an alleged aid ship headed for Gaza was released.
What's funniest about this is, is that the video footage proved that the people on the aid ship didn't have guns. Which is something RIGHT-WINGERS are pissed about, not left-wingers.
The two issues may not seem connected, but they are in one significant way. Video footage can condemn the guilty and exonerate the innocent. If one cannot shoot video of an event, those who wish to keep it covered up can control the message. In short, they can create the reality of the event and sustain it as long as they can cut any opposing view off at the knees.
You know, just like the Obama Administration and its fans attempts to do?
And just how are left-wingers cutting off opposing views at the knees? By telling you you're full of shit, and having the evidence to back it up? Usually when that's done, you just say the source of the evidence is in on a conspiracy. You know, sources like SCIENTISTS.
Now, here's where things get a little scary. Let's say that Obama gets his wish to have a civilian force just as strong and as well-funded as our military. Since it wouldn't be a real military force, it's entirely possible that Leftist lawyers could argue that such a force could be considered to be like the police, thus falling under the auspices of the no filming allowed idea. That means this civilian force could be untouchable.
Are you high? Accidentally forget to take your blood pressure medication again?
You do realize that almost all police record what they do, right?
I hope I'm wrong, but if it makes me the Mayor of Crazytown to connect these dots in the way I have, so be it. But if I'm right, this could be the thing that makes Obama no different than Hugo Chavez.
Falsely accusing Democrats of taking away Americans' rights is something you right-wingers reallllyyyy need to keep quiet on.
What's hilarious about all this, is that you guys can't find real things, so you have to just make things up, like this. This one's so silly that it shows you should just stick to repeating Beck.