Monday, August 30, 2010
Politico reports that President Obama blasted "lies" and "disinformation" recently. Although I hoped he was talking about his own Administration,
that hope was crushed when he started talking about the controversies surrounding his birth certificate and whether he's a Muslim. Although I'm not a "birther" or an "Obama is a Muslim" type,
Only because Glenn Beck isn't.
I do want to make a point about the President's handling of these issues.
Although they are relatively minor issues from the larger perspective, they persist and grow because the President hasn't definitively addressed them. Contrary to what the Left says, the President has not released a Birth Certificate yet. He has, however, released a Certificate of Live Birth, which isn't quite the same thing. And, no, it's not sufficient to quell the rumors that his Birth Certificate proves he wasn't a natural-born citizen.
This is where his actions come into play. Although he has tried to downplay the significance of the issue, his actions or his apparent actions that seem to underscore the validity of the charges. It's all about the actions matching up with the statements. Walking the walk, and talking the talk. When a leader doesn't walk the walk and talk the talk, his or her leadership is understandably questioned, even by people who might normally let him or her slide on other issues. That's a failure of leadership and that failure has come into play yet again with the "Obama is a Muslim" talk. By not walking the walk and talking the talk, Obama has invited the kind of speculation about which he laments.
The solution is easier than the President thinks or wants to admit: start walking the walk and talking the talk. Give a little, Mr. President, and put these rumors to rest for no other reason than to give everyone peace of mind. Plus, imagine what it would do to those people who have said "Obama wasn't born here" and "Obama is a Muslim." It would make them look absolutely foolish and unreliable, while you would come away from it looking more honest (which is something you really need to do right now...). That's a pure win-win for you, Mr. President. All it would require you to do is suck it up and lead.
Something tells me that won't happen.
He posted the exact same birth certificate that anybody else in the entire United States needs to prove they were born here. The fact it's not "good enough" just proves that the whole Birther Movement is from a bunch of racist right-wingers trying to play into people's fears. Do you think this would be an issue if he wasn't a black man with a funny-sounding name?
You're a damn idiot if you think Obama posting a "long form" birth certificate would change anything. They would just say it was forged, and you know it.
I'm just waiting for these goobers to explain explain the birth announcements. Why go to the trouble of bribing hospital officials to place announcements in two Honolulu papers when being born of an american mother automatically confers citizenship - whether you were born in Kenya, Panama or hickville, Iowa?
The Birther guys have nothing. If the Clinton machine couldn't dig up anything, a bunch of Teabagging hillbillies sure won't.
Pandering to a bunch of racists that wouldn't support him no matter what he did is not how to be a leader. The fact that you think it is, speaks volumes.
Republicans are just a bunch of nucking futs.
Glad to see that you're not a Birther, you're just "concerned" again. Once again, you sympathize with the wrong people because you're a partisan right-winger that can't find any real issues, so you have to manufacture more like "Obama's not a leader because he's not caving!" Ugh!
Here's some Derpitation for the Birthers (and concerned Birther sympathizers):
Thursday, August 26, 2010
In the "This Shocks Who?" Department, Shirley Sherrod declined the offer of a different job within the Department of Agriculture this week. While Leftists cheer her integrity for ask for Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to step down, there are questions to be asked about why she decided not to take the job. After all, she said she accepts Vilsack's apology, so that should be the end of it, right?
Not so much. As I suggested in a previous blog post, Sherrod appears to be an opportunist looking for any way to elevate her standing in the world.
And as I stated in response, you're full of it.
Going back to the Department of Agriculture, even after the media frenzy surrounded her firing, would not elevate her, no matter how high profile the job would be.
Plus, there's still the possible lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart to consider. With her recent payday from the federal government, she certainly has made money off playing the race card when it suits her needs.
How in the fuck is her suing the federal government for discriminating against minority farmers "playing the race card"? They got the money, didn't they? Are you saying they didn't deserve the money that they sued for? Why don't you tell us why those farmers didn't deserve the money, you racist?
I do like how, in that paragraph, you made it sound like Sherrod sued the government for herself, personally, and just put the money in her pocket. Were you hoping the right-wing tards wouldn't read the article you linked to?
If she accepted the job, there is a chance that her superiors might ask her to drop the idea of suing Breitbart, which would mean any potential payday from that venture would disappear. And seeing how she's played her firing so far, I don't think she'd allow that. Instead, she's passing up a sure thing for a chance at hitting the legal jackpot.
And that's a big risk, in my opinion. Filing suit against Breitbart may get her a big payday, but it has a greater chance of backfiring against her, leaving her with legal fees and no job, at least in the short term.
You sound concerned. How thoughtful of you. She's willing to take that chance. It's not just about the money.
And, really, who in their right minds would hire someone who took on her own employer in court?
People take on their employers in court all the time, while still working for them. Hell, it happens in Hollywood and the sports industry constantly.
Sherrod had a chance to show she has moved on, and she didn't take it. That, in and of itself, should show us all where her heart really is.
She should sue, sue, sue. And when she wins; maybe, just maybe... the people that tried to damage her character will think twice before doing it to somebody else.
But no, it's no big shocker... that you would take the side of right-wingers that tried to damage her character.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Left has never really been that keen on following the Constitution as written because they feel it is a "living document" (meaning that they believe the Constitution means what they say it means, regardless of whether it's grounded in the Constitution).
Oh, this should be good. We're already aboard the right-wing Hurr Train!
Now, the Left has taken the Constitution to a whole new level with the "community center" that is proposed to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero.
Notice how Lindaman put the words "community center" in quote marks, implying something deceitful and sinister. But he won't actually say it, because even he knows what horseshit that is.
The First Amendment gives Muslims the right to build the mosque/community center under the Establishment Clause, and if you disagree, you're anti-Muslim, stupid, or any number of other derogatory labels.
Aaaand, Lindaman starts with a strawman.
I do like how he puts mosque/community center with a slash. That way he can implant the word "mosque" in people's heads and can later backtrack and say "But I also said it was a community center! :-)" Even though it's not a mosque.
But the thing of it is...the First Amendment doesn't state or imply a right to build anything, let alone a mosque/community center.
The Left's main argument is that the construction of a mosque/community center is an extension of the right to worship.
Not really, no.
There are two main problems with that argument. First, a person of faith doesn't require a building to worship openly. In my faith, all that's required to establish a church is two people sharing their common faith.
Besides, given that there's a mosque within walking distance of the proposed site of the mosque/community center, there are options that are readily available for their religious needs. If the mosque/community center isn't built, nobody is denied their right to worship. It's not the building that makes the right to worship; it's the exhibition of faith.
And where has the Left said it wasn't?
Second, the Left is being contradictory with its position on the mosque/community center. When it's come to expressions of Christian or Jewish faith, the Left has firmly come down against public expressions of faith, especially on public land. Their logic in those instances is that people of faith should pray only in churches and synagogues since someone might be offended at a public expression of faith. In short, you can pray all you want, just not where people might take offense.
And building a mosque/community center where Muslim prayer will be allowed within a couple of blocks of an act of extremist Muslim terrorism isn't offensive?
Because the community center is not on public land. It's private property.
Put simply, the Left has no real Constitutional grounds under the Establishment Clause on which to defend the building of the mosque/community center.
There may be other Constitutionally-based arguments that could be made,
Gee, ya think?
but suggesting that the building of a mosque/community center is an extension of freedom of religion is intellectually dishonest and a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment.
They are American citizens. They have the permits. It's legal for them to build there, even if it was a full-blown mosque.
When those "America Hating" Leftists, as you call them, talk about Freedom Of Religion, we're not just talking about The Establishment Clause.
We're also talking about this: If it was a Christian church being built there, you wouldn't be trying to stop it. Because it has an Islamic base, you're trying to stop it.
You're trying to stop something from being built, that the builders have every right to build, because it's a religion you don't like. And you're even trying to get the government to intervene on that.
You. Can't. Do. That.
This. Is. America.
The government can't favor one religion over another.
You guys really have forgotten what it means to be an American, haven't you?
Monday, August 23, 2010
Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That's my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, "Well, this is Obama’s economy." That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. --- Barack Obama, July 14, 2009
What a difference a year makes. From "Give it to me," to "Don't blame me."
You can't get out of it that easily, Conservatives. He's willing to clean up the damage, but that doesn't mean you guys aren't responsible for it.
Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. President, but the economy is yours, not just because you're the man at the helm of the American ship or because you said the economy is yours. It's because you took decided action that impacted the economy. From the "stimulus package" that failed to stimulate anything but the wildest dreams of bureaucrats
Yeah, the stimulus certainly didn't help the private sector. You know, the private sector that is in the best shape it has been for a long time? Huge amounts of cash? No policies actually threatening them? Only not hiring out of pants-pissing fear, based on nothing? They've got the money. Now it's up to the private sector to actually create the damned jobs. The actual actions taken by the administration - you know, real things - have led to one of the best periods for business to act in. That's a fact. The private sector's failure to act, is not Obama's failure to give them the opportunity to act.
to the various spending proposals that will add to the debt without adding much to the economy, the current economic situation is as much Obama's as it is Bush's, if not more so.
Is stimulus some kind of magic bullet? Hell no. At best, it's an economic 'time out' so that the economy can retool to a new reality. Without the stimulus, we were bordering on another damned Great Depression. We slapped a tourniquet on the economy with the stimulus; it kept us alive.
Bush dug a giant hole. Obama has not been able to fill it yet. The hole is still Bush's.
But you'd never hear the President say that these days. Oh, no, he "inherited" this economy according to Obama, so he can't be to blame. However, who will be front and center to take credit for any good economic news? You guessed it.
That's the sign of a weak leader.
You keep saying this over and over again. Trying to tell others what constitutes a leader. And you're someone who is a follower. You punch in a clock and work for a boss. You can't even get followers on your own blog. You take soundbites from other pundits and use them as your own. You haven't lead anything in your life, and lord knows you've tried. You couldn't lead a lemonade stand. But you're the authority on what a leader is?
Although Obama and his followers like to compare the President to Ronald Reagan, there is a vast difference between the two men. Reagan didn't care who got the credit for getting something done as long as it was done.
What a whopper! Reagan took credit for the Iranian hostage release, when it was Carter's administration that sealed the deal. Reagan took credit for the fall of communism, as if Russia's crippling economy had nothing to do with it. Reagan took credit for halting inflation, when it was Paul Volcker who should have gotten the credit (another Carter official). He even took credit for many of Carter's defense programs! And when something bad was exposed (Iran Contra), he acted like he didn't remember! Accountability was never Reagan's strong suit.
Obama cares about getting the credit, but avoids any criticism, regardless of whether it's legitimate.
Yes, what a difference a year makes. Obama laid claim to the economy, but only when it makes him look good. The problem: he laid claim to it when he thought his plans were going to work. Now that they haven't, he's stuck with it.
He's taking responsibility for cleaning up right-wing messes, just like Democrats have done for ages. But taking responsibility for the clean-up, doesn't mean you can get a pass on who caused the problem to begin with.
This just in: the economy does not suddenly reverse itself when a different party takes control. It takes months to years to change the course of the economy with any economic policy. If you actually believe that the current recession is the fault of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, you either never took an economics course that went beyond basic supply and demand, or failed economics horribly. Calculus is a liberal conspiracy.
And it was fine for Reagan to blame his 1982 recession on Carter, but it isn't fine for Obama to blame Bush for a recession that began on his watch and has continued since that time.
I love it when right-wingers start mirroring the legitimate complaints against Bush with false ones on Obama, hence proving that Bush was an awful president and that his political party wants to get back into power and make everything worse.
While the President has tried to act upon his promises and sought to move the country in what he and the majority of voters saw as correct direction, the Republicans have continually yelled "NO!" at everything he's handed to them, with their idea of bipartisanship being "Do what we demand." All the while, as soon as the fallout of their screwups started to hit, they began pointing at the Democrats saying "See, all this stuff is coming down because of THEM!" Let's not forget that the Right was already declaring this "Obama's Recession" as early as November 2008, months before the man took office, days after his election. Would they dare take their share of the blame? Had the Republicans not become a caricature of themselves by proposing that there's not a problem so big another tax cut or tax credit wouldn't fix it, or by maybe acting like actual fiscal conservatives instead of market-worshiping, fear mongering war hawks, then maybe, just maybe, they'd have at least a shred of credibility remaining. As it stands, the same fools that are complaining about Obama now, are the same fools who mistake the Invisible Hand with No Hand.
People are going to blame Bush for things for decades. And guess what? Most of it will be justified.
The Party Of Personal Responsibility!
For the past couple of years, Iran has been making moves to build nuclear reactors, citing their desire to move away from an oil-based energy policy. The Left has cheered this move,
marking one of the first times in recent history that Leftists have actually cheered for nuclear power.
Liar. There's tons of people on the left that are in favor of nuclear energy. Heck, I'm not against it.
But, here's the funny thing. Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. And I can't say that Iran's done much to tap into that reserve. Why would they go nuclear when they have oil? I have a few thoughts on the matter, and none of them are as blissfully ignorant as the Left's thoughts on the same matter.
1) Iran knows they have the US over a barrel. An oil barrel, to be precise. It's no secret that America has a jones for oil. One of our sources of foreign oil is the Middle East, and one of the primary tanker routes is the Strait of Hormuz. And guess where Iran sits. Right along the Strait of Hormuz. Combine that with the fact about Iran's oil reserves that I referenced above and you get a situation that could create an artificial spike in oil prices if Iran decides to cut us off. Going nuclear allows them to hold onto more oil which they can sell back to us as economy-busting prices.
2) They're gearing up for an attack on Israel. It's not secret that the current leadership in Iran wants Israel out of the picture in the Middle East. One of the great advantages Israel has over their Muslim counterparts in that neck of the world is their military. One way to counteract that military is through bigger, more dangerous weapons. Like...oh I don't know...a nuclear bomb. And given that Iran has a deal with Russia to get the kind of uranium used in nuclear weapons instead of the uranium used in nuclear reactors, I'm guessing Iran's going to play a much bigger role in the Middle East's conflict with Israel very soon.
Meh, Iran's been saying that for 30 years.
Israel should not have nukes, either. Biggest mistake besides Pakistan. We bribe them 3 billion a year not to nuke people. And yet they keep pushing it.
Israel is a strong military power that prefers to dictate and hates negotiation. So it is in the interests of any opposing country to dull that spear with strategies to balance their own security and insure their other neighbors take them seriously. Look at Iraq. The Iraq that going to emerge is going to be, from Israel's perspective, just as bad or worse than the one Saddam administered simply because the situation and Israel's attitude to its neighbors does not recommend peaceful accommodation.
Military force should be used as a last resort. If Israel feels that it needs to preemptively strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, they'll do it with or without America's consent. Israel showed us in 1967 and 1981 that they will preemptively act if felt compelled to do so. Iran will retaliate to an attack. Even if Israel acts alone, Iran will hold the United States as an accessory and will retaliate accordingly. It is that retaliation that the United States might be drawn into a wider conflict.
Defending Israel is not a must in our foreign policy. American government should be serving Americans, not Israelis. I don't care how much money we give Israel, or if they give us a foothold into the middle east. Let them manage their own fights, it's not our problem.
3) Iran will be a battlefront in an impending geopolitical conflict akin to the Cold War. This is a radical notion, but one that has a basis in fact. The fall of the Soviet Union left great opportunity, but also a lot of hard feelings among the communists still there. Although we saw Russia moderate its relationship with the West early on, one would be hard-pressed to say that the relationship hasn't soured again. Blame Bush if you want, but it wouldn't have mattered who was President because they have been planting the seeds for this for decades. Now, consider China's growing influence on the global scene. The fact that China and Russia are on the same page is scary, especially considering both are actively supporting Iran's nuclear aims. Both countries have an ax to grind with America, and they're not above making us fight on ground that isn't theirs. If events continue to unfold like I think they will, once Iran goes nuclear, Russia and China will get more vigorous in their defense of Iran, which would embolden Iran to attack Iraq. That has the potential to draw us into a global war that we won't be able to afford and will most likely lose.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong on these (especially on that third one). But until we're willing to look at the facts and act accordingly, Iran's nuclear capabilities will continue to be the elephant in the room that we're trying to ignore.
You know what? You could be right about all those things. So, what's your solution? Do you want us to invade Iran or not?
Iran hasn't done anything worth being invaded for. There is no nuclear balance in the region. Currently it's Israel that has the nukes, and everyone else is screwed. None of them should have nukes. If we were going to attack anyone in that region for being aggressive, having dangerous nuclear aspirations, a hostile posture towards their neighbors, and an unwillingness to accept US arbitration, we'd have to attack either Pakistan, Syria, or...Israel.
Iran hasn't done anything except shout "Death to Infidels!" for the last 30 years, and even the Grand Ayatollah hasn't been very fervent about that lately.
What could possibly be gained from an invasion of Iran that couldn't be done through a thorough and extensive bombing campaign of military and scientific targets? We can strike if we need to. It very well could happen if Iran tries to pull a fast one. Before you know it, there will be purple fingers everywhere.
But a full-on invasion? Why destabilize a country where there were anti-government protests going on last year?
Honestly, Conservatives, do you really want a full-on occupation? The casualties would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a training exercise.
Conflict may be inevitable - but we don't need to be a part of this conflict. Israel has gotten themselves into this mess through violating international law and antagonizing the Islamic community. Yes, the Islamic community has antagonized back, but that cycle won't stop until someone stops it. If Israel has such a huge problem with it, then they should start the cycle.
Conservatives need to just stop treating Obama like he's anything other than what he is, a reasonably smart politician who consults with our allies on possible courses of military action that he think will best lead to advances in our national security. That's it. Then you won't sound shocked when he does something completely unremarkable like his cracking down when Ahmadouchebag tries to be clever.
Friday, August 20, 2010
And He's a SMART Leftist?
Boy, you sure love that blog title, don't you? "And they're supposed to be smart?" "And he's supposed to be smart?" You're running out of titles.
You guys are tards. It keep being repeatedly proven. No wonder you guys hate science so much.
My Leftist counterpart tried to rip me a new one, and I know he'll be reading this since he needs me for his own blog since he's incapable of original thought.
This blog is geared toward responding to your bullshit. Hey, at least I credit you by linking back, nor do I claim your comments as my own. You have no excuse.
But, as he often does, he misses the point completely.
Here is the blog post in question with comments from yours truly.
Without a link. hehe
As a reminder, this is Lindman's post. I'm focusing on his responses only in this post for purposes of quote clarity. See the link above for previous parts.
No. As we'll see, the Leftist blogger has little connection to reality.
That's the point. No judge can preside over this case, but Leftists forced the issue and managed to get a practicing gay man to preside over it. This raises the issue I referenced, and the Leftist blogger completely ignored because it he would have to concede the fact that I was right.
And what about Brown v. Board of Education?
Ooooh, sor-ray. As we've seen repeatedly (ex. Joe Lieberman, the small number of blacks allowed to head up the DNC in lieu of letting rich white men head it up, the Left's support of Margaret Sanger), the Left does discriminate much more frequently than the Right.
Joe Lieberman? So having a Jew like Lieberman as a vice presidential candidate is discrimination? Or do you mean we discriminated against a Jew because we liberals turned our backs on Lieberman for being a DINO? Or are you actually making the laughable claim that Lieberman is a "Leftist"? If you're going to use a DINO as a "Leftist", why not go all the way and use Zell Miller?
As far as blacks in the DNC: How many blacks are in the GOP? Are you saying the DNC is denying blacks because they are black? What are you basing this on? I could've sworn we've had a black surgeon general...
Margaret Sanger?! Margaret Sanger wasn't a racist! Oh, please don't tell me you're one of those freepers that copies those quotes from anti-abortion websites... like the one where she was against false rumors of black extermination, as if that somehow meant she was for black extermination. Or are you going to trot out the eugenics bullshit? Or her speaking at a Klan rally (her own comments about that rally speaks volumes of her feelings on the subject of the KKK)? If you're going to bullshit about Sanger, at least be more specific in the bullshit. Ah, "Pro-Lifers"... lying for Christ again. MLK supported Sanger and that holds more water than freepers with an agenda. Unless you think MLK was some dumb negro that got duped all that time.
But hey, I'll give you credit for not flipping me the "Byrd".
Actually, that's exactly what the Bill of Rights does by laying out the prohibitions of government to intrude on citizens' rights. And last time I checked, the Bill of Rights is considered part of the Constitution.
Exactly. The Constitution states what the government CANNOT do. It can't go into an exhaustive explicit list of details of what we citizens CAN do. The 9th Amendment clarifies that very point. The 9th Amendment states that the government can only restrict rights where it is given permission in the Constitution to do so, and to protect the rights of the majority of the people, all other rights are retained by the people and can not be infringed by the government. The right to marriage falls in those boundaries.
As I said before: What Prop 8 did was to declare that a certain segment of the population (heterosexuals) are entitled to special rights (in this case, marriage) for no other reason than that they promote the status quo, and you just can't do that under the Constitution.
Marriage is a civil right and a fundamental right, there's legal precedence. And thus the 9th Amendment is in play. And laws prohibiting gays from marrying is a violation of the 14th Amendment unless there is a rational basis for the prohibition. There's no rational basis, thus Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Under your logic, a straight man has the right to sue a lesbian if she denies his "right" to marry her. Under my logic, the case wouldn't even get to trial because no judge has standing to deliver a just verdict.
You call that logic? In order for your mangled theory to work, you would have to define marriage as non-consensual. Granted, that may be the only way you could get married. Maybe wayyy back in the day you could've made a case for that. Conservatives love old traditions, after all, including forced marriages.
By your idiotic logic: I guess the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to sue you for not giving me your guns for free. I have the right to bear arms, after all.
Marriage is a fundamental right in The United States, and there's plenty of legal precedent for it. Such as Zablocki v. Redhail and of course Loving vs Virginia.
How about the fact that the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law? Inventing a right out of whole cloth so that gays can "marry" violates the 14th Amendment at its face, as it does not provide equal protection under the law since it elevates one portion of the population above another.
This isn't "inventing" a right. The right to marry is already a fundamental right. Prop 8 was trying to violate the 14th Amendment by stating a certain portion of the population (gays) cannot marry. Shooting down a law that violates the 14th Amendment is not "inventing" a right any moreso than Loving vs. Virginia was "inventing" a right.
And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the authority to rule on this matter since the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to rule on this matter and the states haven't given up their authority to the federal government.
Oh, wait. I just did. Sorry.
When it comes to civil rights, the feds can override the states. Just as they did back in the 1960's when Conservatives tried to pull the "states rights" issue when it came to (un)equal rights for blacks.
Hey! The Lindaman passive-aggressive smiley (tm) has appeared! Usually you reserve that for chatrooms when you're getting your ass kicked.
Awww...two personal attacks in lieu of an intelligent comment on the issues I raised? I'm flattered!
"That's not a denial."
Of course, this lame attempt at slandering Limbaugh would make more sense if I had said Limbaugh was the judge in this hypothetical example. After all the times the Leftist has blasted me for "mistakes" from a "lack of reading comprehension," one would think that he wouldn't have made such a glaring error. But why let intellectual consistency get in the way of spreading another Leftist lie?
Actually "to the Right of Rush Limbaugh" just makes it funnier.
Limbaugh wasn't in the Dominican Republic with Viagra for a book tour, that's for sure. The place is only worth visiting for cabana boys, not cabana girls.There's no other reason to go there. According to you, a person has to walk the walk before they're innocent. Rush doesn't walk the walk, so he deserves to be accused of blowing little boys.
So, by raising a legitimate question about whether a practicing gay judge can deliver impartial justice to all parties involved and by questioning whether anyone has a right to marry, the Leftist calls me homophobic. That's illogical, even for the Left. Under the Leftist definition of homophobia, wouldn't I have to exhibit a clear hatred for gays? And, no, questioning a "right" of anyone to marry doesn't constitute homophobia, as it covers both straight and gay people. Try again.
You're not "raising a question". You're explicitly stating he's an "activist judge" for no other reason except that he's gay, and struck down a law that you agreed with. While ignoring the facts that the judge is a Libertarian, that he was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush, that Pelosi led the defeat to his first nomination, and that his original nomination was by Ronald Reagan.
Oooh, sor-ray. See, civil rights cases involve more than just blacks, so a black judge can rule on a civil rights case if the particulars of the case are such that the judge can avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Which is the point I've been making all along.
Ah, I see. Well, since you're being deliberately obtuse: Can a black judge rule on a civil rights case where a black man was discriminated against? I guess a lot of cases have to be reversed in LindamanLand.
What most interesting here, is that these arguments from Conservatives sound a lot like the arguments they made in Loving v Virginia in 1967.
Actually, it wasn't. The Leftist's own masthead states he is "Exposing Right Wing Lies and Lunacy." Yet, the vast majority of his posts deal with...me. Unless I'm the only "right winger" who lies and is a lunatic, then one could conclude that one of his statements (his masthead or the portion quoted above) is a lie.
Are you not a right-winger? So because I cut you a break and didn't say "Exposing Right Wing Lies And Lunacy... ESPECIALLY THOMAS LINDAMAN!!", this somehow makes it a lie? Even when I make posts that have nothing to do with your views? Just a few posts back you made a post urging Conservatives not to make a big deal about Obama being on "The View". My response post was to right-wingers that WERE making it a big deal. Remember that? Or are you having memory problems again?
And given that he's purposely misstating the purpose of my "Leftist Coward Watch" (which was to point out how it was hypocritical of him to post comments but not allow others to post), it's clear who the liar really is.
"Misstating your purpose"? The blog wouldn't have been created in the first place if you hadn't backed down from a face-to-face! I saw it happen. You made a personal attack on someone who was asking a legitimate question about the Bush administration, and did not personally attack you. I wasn't on the receiving end of the attack, but I was there and saw it. You were called out to a face-to-face, and you backed down (but it sure wiped that chatroom smiley off your face since tons of people saw it). Since you weren't willing to fight him or apologize, this is the result. And you don't like it... good. And even so, you still get full credit and linkbacks to your responses.
Funny, but I didn't lie about that.
You absolutely lied about it, you lying liar. And I can prove it. Read on and see.
Besides, why make it a condition that I accept your discredited premise to allow for me to comment? Shouldn't you want an intellectual exchange if your ideas are superior?
Here's the proof that it's not a "discredited premise":
I'm going to go through this VERY clearly. One step at a time. There's no wiggle room for you here.
For those just tuning in, Lindaman stated in THIS post by him, in response to my truthful statement that Lindaman couldn't come up with a single climatologist to back up any of his anti-AGW assertions, Lindman states:
And no matter how many times you repeat "97% of scientists say man is causing global warming" (with no links to back up the claim, something you've whined about me never doing and that you've used to "prove" that I'm not telling the truth), it doesn't make it so.
This is a lie. Because I did link to the source.
This was the source.
I linked to that source right from the very beginning. This was the post where I provided the link.
The source link is toward the bottom.
So that's Lindaman Lie #1.
In that same blog post, Lindman stated this:
By the way, Mr. Leftist Blogger, are you aware that a chunk of your "97% of scientists" aren't climatologists, either? I guess when you're so desperate to "prove" a myth, you'll cling to anybody with an impressive sounding title to give your lame argument intellectual heft. Of course, I'm sure you could show us all the hard-hitting climate research done by pediatricians and veterinarians, two groups of "scientists" who have signed onto AGW.
But that very source, which I did link to, explicitly states that it's climatologists. Not "pediatricians and veterinarians" or other generic scientists. Climatologists.
So that's Lindaman Lie #2.
So in response to these two lies, I pointed out Lindaman's two lies to him in THIS post.
When faced with two proven lies, what does Lindaman do in his very next post in response?
Lindaman did what he always does. He repeats the same lies again. And again, I can easily prove it.
This is Lindaman's very next post in response to my post to him:
In it, Lindaman states this:
And while we're here, Mr. Leftist Blogger, I notice you haven't taken up for the "scientists" (read: pediatricians and veterinarians) who have signed onto AGW as being man-made. I'm sure you can provide us a link to a study done by, say, a pediatrician that has been peer reviewed and shows all the scientific heft your side claims to have on this subject.
You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to man up.
See? Lindaman deliberately says the same lie, again. Even though he is directly responding to a post where I proved that it was never just "scientists", but climatologists.
And as you can see, in that same post, Lindaman has the audacity to tell others to "man up", when he always clams up when his lying is explicitly pointed out. He just pretends it didn't happen.
When offered open commentary when he explains why he lied over and over again on this particular subject, he just denies it, again.
And to this very day, he still won't admit that he was lying, and won't admit that he repeated the same lies when proven wrong.
And that, Lindaman, is why you don't deserve open commentary. And also why you don't deserve to be a famous pundit.
I bet when this blog first popped up, you thought I would just be one of those "Bush is teh antichrist!" trollers, didn't you? Wasn't the case, was it? I do my research better than you. And I have a much better memory than you do. Not to mention that I have reality on my side when you're forced to blow it off due to having to align with the radical right-wingers.
Of course, the Leftist missed the point Karl made. Karl actually agreed with me. Unless he wanted me to post "dittos," there really isn't a need to respond.
Unless, of course, the Leftist is trying to set up a straw man argument in lieu of an actual argument...
Except for the fact that Karl agreed with me. Why would I insult someone who agreed with me?
Ducking a comment I agreed with? That makes no sense, even for a Leftist. :-)
Nice try, Lindaman. You said neither a homosexual or a heterosexual can preside over a case like this. Karl is stating that isn't practical. Now you're somehow conflating this as agreeing with you? Karl's not stating such cases can't be argued! He's not agreeing with you. And you know that, too. Because you had to throw out a Lindaman smiley (tm) which you always do when backed into a corner.
Now that I've spent far too much time pointing out the Leftist blogger's intellectual failures,
You'll lose every time, Lindaman.
I think we can all see he doesn't allow comments. He's afraid that a commenter will take him to task for his dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Want that open comment box? You know what you have to do. Still waiting, Lindaman.
Or will you just pretend this post didn't happen either?
Coming up next: Why animal cruelty cases can never be made, because a horse isn't the judge!
UPDATE: Lindaman, as expected, clammed up and didn't respond. Again.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What do humorist Mark Twain and soon-to-be-ex-talk radio show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger have in common? The answer may surprise you, but we'll get to that in a bit.
First, I have to say that I'm not a Dr. Laura fan. In the few times I've listened to her, I've found her to be sanctimonious, condescending, and above all else, unoriginal. Every problem seems to have the same answer: listen to Dr. Laura's brusque advice. And while we're here, if you rely on a talk radio host as your moral authority, you have bigger problems than shacking up with someone to worry about.
She's full of hate and goes out of her way to make entire groups of people (especially gays) feel bad about themselves.
Having said that, I feel the controversy surrounding her use of the n-word is nonsense contrived by the Left to try to take down someone who has been a thorn in their collective sides. It's spiteful at best, but at worst it's dangerous to free speech. Like it or not, racism (even imaginary racism) is protected speech. The thing about free speech is that, although you are guaranteed a right to speak, you are not guaranteed a right to an audience. If you don't like Dr. Laura, turn on NPR, and vice versa.
She has the right to say it, and we have the right to call her out on it. The First Amendment doesn't require that Dr. Laura continue to be paid for being a racist, worthless, homophobic, hairy-bushed twunt.
And of course the Conservatives equate criticism of a racist skank as "stopping free speech." CEO Steinhafel of Target just made the same bogus claim, "People boycotting the store are attacking my freedom of speech blah blah blah." Actually, they're just exercising their own freedom of speech, and choice, which allows them to disagree with his retarded ass and show it.
Everyone CAN use the word. Knock yourself out. However, you don't have the right to dictate how people will react to it. Your "fair's fair" argument might not get you too far.
This is not to say Dr. Laura's without fault here. As a target of the Left, a political group that has no problem taking comments out of context and railing against them (ex. Media Matters talking about Glenn Beck),
ROFL! What's funniest about that Media Matters issue about Glenn Beck's staff, is that the right-wingers would never have known about it if Media Matters hadn't corrected the error themselves (almost immediately, I might add). It's called accountability. Look into it, right-wingers (especially you, Breitbart... who instead of taking responsibility, accused the white farmers of being liberal plants). But hey, that's totally the same as dropping the n-bomb over and over!
she should have known the use of the n-word would have gotten them salivating and calling for her to be taken off the air.
Dr. Laura didn't even bother to address the issue that the lady called about. She just took a right turn and went on a rant about who is or isn't allowed to use one of the most offensive words in the English lexicon. She was all about her gleefully being able to repeatedly say the n-word and get away with it, and then giving the caller shit for being offended. She then makes a racist statement to her about her marriage, and cuts the caller off.
Wow, right-wingers defending a white right-winger for repeatedly being mean to someone in an interracial relationship, and baiting her by using the n-word repeatedly in the process, as well as making racist statements to her? The racist is the victim to the right-wingers? Color. Me. Shocked.
But seriously, I'm truly surprised that Dr. Laura didn't say that she was an "just an entertainer". That excuse works so well for other right-wing entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
She unwittingly gave the Left what they wanted: a reason to take her out of context and then take her down.
Yeah, it's only geared toward right-wingers. After all, look at how well the left embraced Brad Garrett and Michael Richards.
Of course, the Left never lets a little thing like context get in the way of a good narrative. It's like how the Left has railed against Huckleberry Finn in the 90s. They didn't bother to understand the setting of the book or the context of the use of the n-word. All they saw was the n-word, and on that, they called the book racist. Yet, the book makes a serious point about being colorblind when it comes to racial relationships and points out the hypocrisy in those who saw (and continue to see) only race.
Guess you never saw that Family Ties episode...
Actually, the earliest reasons Huck Finn was criticized was because it had an interracial friendship. Yep, racists hated it. They love it NOW, of course. Certainly not because of it using the n-word 215 times and slave Jim being used for minstrel-like comedy, of course.
So, what do Mark Twain and Dr. Laura have in common? They've both been criticized by the Left for making a valid point about race relations that the Left was able to take out of context.
Dr. Laura, out of context? LOL And just what major left-wing media (or mainstream media, since it's the same thing to you guys) stated she called someone the n-word? Let's not forget how she ended the call. That was the truly offensive piece. She told the caller "If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry outside of your race." Dr. Laura can't even make assumptions about the caller's sensitivity, considering she was hardly even given a chance to explain her feelings. This is just the typical blatant racism of her kind, and (of course) you right-wingers defend it.
Right-wing racists are just mad they can't say the n-word any more without facing social ramifications. Yeah, we get it. "She should be able to say n_gger without some n_gger getting offended like a typical n_gger."
This is just like the Islamic community center two blocks from the WTC site. They didn't give a damn about the 9-11 survivors when Ann Coulter bashed them. It has nothing to do with 9-11, this is their "Muhammed cartoon" moment. Yes, they are that petty.
I am honestly surprised that the political right has not yet called on President Obama to denounce the word "honky".
Why don't you ask what black people feel about what Dr. Laura said? Yet again: Fat white right-wingers, who have absolutely no idea what it's like to live in this country as a black person, believe they know just what every black person should think, feel and do.
"You just don't get it!"
I have to laugh when I hear perma-fried white trash make that lame ancient-ass argument. "How come 'they' can say it and we cain't?" Really? You don't know? You honestly can't grasp why? You really can't figure out that it's highly unlikely that a black man saying "What up, my ni__a?" does not mean "What are you currently doing, my genetically-inferior personal property?"
So continue to shed those tears for yet another right-wing racist, bloggers. Call me when Dr. Laura is being charged with a crime for repeatedly dropping the N-Bomb on public radio. Ah, Republicans: The party of personal responsibility (where everything is always the fault of "liberals").
Criticism? I thank Dr. Laura for yet another example of right wing racism. We should be thankful every time some idiot accidentally shows their ugly side, and their defenders do the same in response to criticism. It exposes all of them and their toxic ideas to sunlight, which is the best cure in the long term.
With former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich being found guilty of 1 out of 24 counts, a lot of people are focusing on one juror, Eric Sarnello, as the reason the jury was deadlocked.
NOBODY is saying Eric Sarnello is the reason the jury was deadlocked. Not even your own link says that! Again, do you even check your sources?
Eric Sarnello is just one of the jurors that was willing to talk to the press. It was a delusional female juror that kept the vote locked at 11-1 for the "selling seat" issue, which was the important one.
However, one person seems to be escaping what I feel is well-deserved scrutiny.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
The Blagojevich trial is the second high profile case Fitzgerald has botched, the first being the investigation into who "outed" Valerie Plame. Even after it came out that Richard Armitage "outed" Plame, not Robert Novak or Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald went ahead with the prosecution of Libby and won a conviction over an immaterial point, and only after the jury was stacked and admitted they didn't have any real reason to convict Libby, aside from a desire to see someone take the fall for it.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It is illegal to lie to investigators, even if it turns out that no crime was committed. The whole 'no underlying crime committed' is a bogus argument. Ask any lawyer, judge or policeman.
If there was no underlying crime committed, then why did Libby lie?
Perjury, if proven, should carry a huge penalty. How can we rely on our courts if they are not given the correct information to make a decision? How can we entrust them with the duty of justice if they are basing it on lies?
Libby must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch alive to lie about something that wasn't even illegal. It's either that or he must have had a very, very good reason to lie to investigators and ruin his career.
I wonder what that reason could be. Hmmmm?
He was convicted of four out of five counts, and would've been ass-raped in prison if Bush hadn't have pardoned him from serving time. I'd say that was a success.
And now, he earned a similar meaningless conviction against Blagojevich.
Uh... there's going to be another trial.
At some point, shouldn't we be expecting a federal prosecutor to, oh I don't know, win a meaningful conviction every so often? I know he's a government employee, but damn! Even they have some performance standards.
Fitzgerald's handling of the two big cases on his recent resume shows he's not capable. He seems to love the sound of his own voice, making statements that backfire on him on a regular basis and make him look foolish. Just like Joe Biden, only with the power to prosecute you...badly.
If we were serious about cutting government waste, I'd say a good place to start would be to fire Fitzgerald.
11-to-1 in favor of guilty (and that one being a deluded twat) on the key issue (selling Obama's seat) is pretty damned good. When the retrial happens, we'll see. Won't we?
You're just mad because Blago's tape exonerated Obama of any involvement. Rod's hyper-pissed at Barry for not playing ball on who gets his seat. So much for Obama being "another Chicago machine hack".
Monday, August 16, 2010
With everything on his plate, President Obama is trying his hand at stand-up comedy.
No, he's not. Liar.
During a speech at a fundraiser, Obama said that the slogan of the Republican Party is "No, We Can't." Wow. I'd slap my knee, but it would require me to actually think such a hack line was funny and I'm afraid all the hopeity-change in the world isn't going to make it suck any less.
He wasn't making a joke (not even the article says that). He was stating a fact. Yet again proving that right-wingers have NO CONCEPT of humor.
You, on the other hand, ARE trying to be funny with your "hopeity-change" line, which IS hack and has been said a million times by right-wing bloggers. That's why Obama's known for being well-spoken, and you're still a nobody that has to pay a company to make people hear you speak.
It's nice that the President is taking the time to take swipes at the Republican Party for being negative, but I think he should spend a little more time looking at the Congressional makeup. His party controls both houses of Congress and they have the votes (at least the House) along party lines to push through anything they want. Calling the GOP the "Party of No" may win you points with the Daily Kosmonauts, but it doesn't work with people who actually pay attention.
In other words, anyone who isn't a Leftist.
Oh, yeah. You pay SUCH close attention to detail.
If you actually paid attention instead of being a douchebag, you would know that the GOP can still filibuster.
And while we're here, why don't we take a closer look at what the GOP has said "no" to and why.
- Republicans said no to extending unemployment benefits recently because keeping people on unemployment won't get them back into a job. And right now, we need people employed more than we need them beholden to government. What will happen after this extension runs out? Wanna bet there'll be another bill to extend benefits out further?
So, are you in favor of having no unemployment insurance at all? After all, that would get people to work EVEN FASTER, right?
It's called unemployment INSURANCE for a reason. You pay into it just like any other insurance. Your logic is like saying having car insurance gives you incentive to get in a car wreck.
- Republicans said no to a health care reform bill written by the very industry that the bill would allegedly regulate because there was very little actual reform in the bill. Gee. Maybe that's why the health care reform bill was supported by the insurance industry so much...
Then why did the insurance industry whine like little bitches, and lie their ass off saying the reform bill would make rates go up?
You guys said no to a bill that DID reform a lot. Now lie your ass off some more and say that THIS isn't reform. Including no longer letting insurance companies deny people with pre-existing conditions. I know you guys don't give a shit about sick people over corporations, but that change ALONE makes the Dems better than you. And just wait till the trigger kicks in.
- Republicans said no to a stimulus package because they realized that it was the federal equivalent of a "honey do" list. The more we dive into how the stimulus funds were allocated and spent, the more we realize just how misguided it was to give away the money in the first place. All it did was make busy work for people who would vote Democrat anyway without actually doing much economic stimulation.
Covered that already. Not to mention we already covered how the right-wingers that opposed the stimulus take credit for it.
- Republicans said no to a government takeover of the automotive industry because government control of anything tends to make it less efficient and more costly. Plus, with the government's thumb on the scales, it's hard to know for certain whether the automakers who took bailout money actually stayed afloat on their own or solely because the government kept pumping money into them. Seriously, the Chevy Volt? It's a pimped-out Prius!
Meh, you can't afford a Volt anyway.
I love the right-wingers: To them, bailing out the American automotive industry and saving American jobs: Bad! Bailing out BP and sticking tax payers with the cleanup cost: Good!
And again, when the bailout did help... guess who tried to take credit? The GOP, of course.
- Republicans said no to Wall Street reform because...well, because it was exactly like the health care reform bill, only with "Wall Street" being substituted for "insurance providers."
Yep, just like health care reform. As in: It actually has reform, but right-wingers will lie and say it doesn't. Here's a few examples.
- Republicans said no to a mosque/Muslim community center possibly being built two blocks from Ground Zero because they understand that it's not about religious freedom; it's about radical Islam fooling enough people to allow them to put a mosque near the site of a terrorist act that they committed. Is there anyone on the Left who sees the problem with the location of this community center? I hope so, but I fear not.
Yes, it IS about religious freedom, you bigot. These are AMERICAN CITIZENS. They have the permits. They can put the center there.
1: It's not at Ground Zero, it's around the corner.
2: It's not a mosque, it's their equivalent of the YMCA
3: The man organizing this center was sought out by the previous president because he was a moderate imam who had been active in denouncing the actions of extremists such as Al-Qaeda.
This entire issue has been raised because the right-wingers know they can exploit the xenophobia and anti-Islamic sentiment within it's core constituency (racists, bigots, homophobes, hillbillies). To frame it as anything else is fundamentally dishonest.
Below is an example of why the right hates Olbermann. Stupid facts and shit:
Seems to me that the "Party of No" is on the right side of these issues. Sometimes saying yes to everything is the worst thing you can do. It's like asking an alcoholic who is having a rough go of sobriety whether he or she wants some booze. Once you say yes to something like that, it gets harder to say no because you're feeding the very thing that threatens to destroy us. All it takes is one moment of weakness for the slide down the slippery slope to begin.
That's hilarious, considering you guys had eight years to do something about all of the above issues, and wound up fucking it all up. You guys are alcoholics that already wrecked the goddamn car. But yet again, Democrats have to clean up the mess and bail you guys out.
As far as the slogan, Mr. President, let me help you. The Republican slogan isn't "No, We Can't." It's "No, We Shouldn't."
THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
But what is funny, is that you claim Obama was trying to be funny (he wasn't). Then you try to be funny by stealing quotes from him, then failing at your attempts to be funny.
And they'd be right.
In your dreams, big guy.
You know what's interesting about right-wingers? They always have bad things to say about the left, but they can never say what's good about their own political beliefs (aside from "we DON'T do this, we DON'T do that..."). I guess it's because if they actually say it, the absurdity would be more obvious.
But hey, how about some more knee-slapping cleverness? You know, like saying "I'm not holding my breath!" again?
Friday, August 6, 2010
With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.
When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.
What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.
Uh... so what judge CAN preside over the case?
The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.
Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds
That's because... THE LEFT DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE LIKE THE RIGHT.
(even though there is no civil right to marriage).
There's no constitutional right for ugly, obese bigots to get married, either. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to explicitly list which rights you have. The purpose is to place restrictions on the federal and state government's ability to limit your rights. What Prop 8 did was to declare that a certain segment of the population are entitled to special rights for no other reason than that they promote the status quo, and you just can't do that under the Constitution.
The burden isn't to prove why there should be a right to gay marriage, the burden is to prove why it is okay to keep gays from exercising that right.
There is only a right to marry, not a right for heterosexuals and a separate one for homosexuals. Excluding people from that right without a legitimate government interest is unconstitutional, as anyone with common sense knew all along. The words "No Rational Basis" mean something.
Of course, nobody loves you from either gender... so naturally you're going to be bitter.
But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.
ROFL! Considering Rush Limbaugh's preference for Dominican boys, that's not a good right-wing example.
You know, like the Right is doing with this case?
The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.
Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want,
Okay! "Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe!"
Your attempts to stop being called a homophobe by saying "Call me a homophobe!" doesn't change the fact you're a homophobe. But hey, you've already exposed yourself as a bigot and a racist, and even support anti-semites. So I guess it was about time that you went all the way to the Right and exposed yourself as a homophobe, too.
but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.
And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.
We can say plenty, liar. For example:
And as far as the age-old right-wing meme of "activist judges!": Should a black judge recuse himself from a civil rights case? Debate over, in one question.
Oh, look! After all this time, Lindaman finally has a commenter! Now we get to see that "open discussion" you kept whining about on your little "Leftist Coward Watch". Remember that?
For those that are just tuning in: Thomas Lindaman went on a two week bitchfest because I wasn't opening this blog to comments, and he called it a "Leftist Coward Watch". He kept leaving out the fact that this blog was created because he repeatedly backed down.
And even so, I did offer to open a comment box for him, if he would answer the question as to why he lied about 97% of climatologists being "generic scientists", and why he lied about it again after being faced with that fact. He never acknowledged any of those three facts during his two weeks of bitching. And he still hasn't.
Anyway, now he FINALLY has a commenter on his blog. Let's see what the commenter has to say:
"Karl: It seems the only option is to find a bisexual or asexual judge to avoid the conflict you speak of. Good luck with that. Practicality has to enter into the equation at some point."
Oh, SNAP! This guy ain't one of your good close racist AOLers! That comment is... rational! And a tough one for a right-winger to respond to! Will Lindaman rise to the challenge?
Now, let's see what Lindaman had to say in response to him, after TWO WEEKS of waiting...
Hmm... Lindaman replied with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Lindaman... you mean you aren't even going to do what you've done before in your comment boxes, and call Karl a "slapnutz"? Which is an insult that doesn't even make sense, and in fact exposes you as a self-loathing closet case?
Of course, now that you've been exposed as ducking a comment, you might scramble for a response now. It won't be easy considering you don't make passive-aggressive smileys on the blog like you did chatrooms.
And in conclusion:
Monday, August 2, 2010
Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's abhorrent for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath.
Those words came from one Nancy Pelosi after former Republican House member Mark Foley was caught trying to get a Congressional page to meet with him for what was believed to be a sexual encounter. Although Pelosi's point was hysterical hyperbole (since only teenagers can be Congressional pages),
"The age of consent is 16, so that's okay! It's PELOSI'S fault!"
her larger point was that Republican leaders knew about Foley's actions and didn't act on them.
Why do I bring this up almost 4 years later? Charlie Rangel.
Anyone who has followed Rangel's Congressional career knows that he's done some pretty shady things over the years, only some of which are coming to light now. And under Pelosi's standard as presented above, knowing about it for years without doing anything about it is wrong and worthy of being hauled before the Ethics Committee to testify about what was known and when it was known.
So, will Madame Speaker live up to her own standard? Will she voluntarily go before the Ethics Committee to testify under oath about what she knew about Rangel's legal issues and when she knew about them?
Let me put it this way. I'm not holding my breath for her to act accordingly.
Oooo yeah! Two whole years have passed (during which ethics investigations have been ongoing). That's totally the same!
You're going to find individual dirtbags all over the place. Democrats are still nowhere near Tom Delay Congress levels.
Not to mention: Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Trent Lott, Richard Baker, Joe Scarborough, Karl Rove, John Doolittle, Rick Renzi, Paul Wolfowitz, Bob Ney, Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, John Ensign...
The fact that Democrats are trying to get rid of their dirtbags is proof enough of that.
There's an old saying: "When it rains, it pours." Usually, it's a saying that's invoked when a series of unexpected negative events happens in a short span of time. And given some of the issues that have come up recently, Democrats have to feel like they're caught in a monsoon.
Although it may be raining cats and dogs on the Left right now, there is an element of repetition in the bad news that is coming their way. I get the feeling as this election season rolls on, we're going to see more than a few of the following situations come back over and over again.
- Charlie Rangel's ethics violations. When Nancy Pelosi was preparing to take the reins of power in the House, she promised to "drain the swamp" to take a bold stand against the "Culture of Corruption." With Rangel being brought up on a number of ethics violations and welcoming an investigation into said charges in an attempt to clear his name, Congressional Democrats have to be praying that Rangel will either step down voluntarily or that the investigation ends quickly. The longer it goes into the election year, the worse it looks for Congressional Democrats.
I give the president HUGE props on doing the right thing here. His standing up and LEADING in this instance is what we needed. Throw the bum out, and by doing so, you send a signal on both sides of the political spectrum that at least you stand for what is right.
The GOP could stand to learn something from Obama and the way he's handled Jeremiah Wright and Charlie Rangel: instead of embracing whack job preachers and corrupt slugs, Obama threw them both under the bus. The Republicans however defend people like this in their ranks, even elevating them (looking at you, John Ensign).
- Maxine Waters' ethics violations. Same as above, but with Maxine Waters instead of Charlie Rangel. And what's worse for the Democrats is that the Waters situation is just getting started. Not good.
Waters helped an association of minority-owned banks get a meeting with the treasury secretary, and she has a track record of helping build and maintain black-owned businesses. Waters' husband's stock holdings in the bank represent less than 10 percent of their personal assets.
Waters' family assets are invested in her community. Lots of banks were hit hard by the home loan debacle. On the face of it, it seems like she did her job.
The Community Bank bought stock in two supposedly safe assets. If the regulatory agencies were doing there jobs, maybe Fanny and Freddy would not have been sold fraudulent loan packages. It is not like the banks make "risky" investments. Moody's said they were AAA.
Anyway, as far as this story, I treat it about the same as the Chris Dodd stuff a couple years ago where he openly stated his position as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when getting loans from Countrywide to get good deals, and then when the system was melting down was quick to try to protect Countrywide in particular from crashing. He was doing what anyone would probably try in his situation, attempting to use what influence he had to protect his own interests with the mental justification that it would help others as well, but at the same time we shouldn't just accept this behavior and abuse of power should be identified and called out. In fact, the most offensive part of the Dodd affair was that he tried to plead ignorance that the CEO putting him on the VIP program would suggest that he was getting any preferential treatment.
As far as Waters goes, it sounds like she at least did all her stuff out in the open; these meetings weren't held in secret, and she disclosed her husband's relationship to these entities from the beginning.
But don't worry, Right-wingers will make her the Antichrist. Unless Obama says something negative about her, then she'll be a helpless victim.
- Shirley Sherrod. On the surface, the Left thinks the Sherrod situation is a winner for them, but from a larger perspective, it could wind up being a loser. And the sad thing is that they could have seen this coming if they had paid attention to the red flags that were being raised. When Sherrod couldn't decide whether to take a new position within the Obama Administration but decided to sue Andrew Breitbart relatively quickly, that should have made someone at DNC headquarters say, "This is going to come back to bite us." And I think it will because it reflects a level of incompetence by the Obama Administration that won't help the party make a cogent case for reelection in Congress.
Not just a river in Egypt, folks. The Sherrod situation is not good either way, because it hurt an innocent person (not that right-wingers care about thing like that). But it at least further exposed the more racist elements of the GOP (file that under the "Well, DUH!" category).
- The economy. Joe Biden's overly optimistic (and often contradictory) statements about the economy aside, we aren't seeing much positive activity with the economy. Elections are driven by voters' pocketbooks, and there are a lot of people who are out of work and wondering when the Obama Administration and Congress are going to do something to help them get back on their feet. And they aren't seeing anything happening. What they're seeing is a bunch of promises that aren't being fulfilled. TARP,
Is that why the GOP voted to keep TARP going? Heck, even Palin supported TARP. Bush initiated TARP.
TARP was unpopular, but it was necessary; because the alternative would have been far, far worse given how the recession was.
the stimulus package,
Government did what it could. It put money into the private sector. Now it's up to the private sector to actually create the damned jobs.
3 million jobs were saved and/or created thanks to the stimulus. But no, that's a failure to the right-wingers.
Helping prevent 390,000 foreclosures is "doing nothing"?
nothing seems to be working, and all the Administration and Congress can do is pat itself on the back for averting a disaster that they can't tell for sure they stopped and won't admit they had a hand in causing.
That didn't even make sense. "You can't prove it stopped problems (even though it has been proven). But I'll say you caused problems (based on nothing)!"
- Attacks on the TEA Parties. The Left's attacks on the TEA Parties have gone from the ridiculous (the TEA Parties are whites-only events) to the sublimely ridiculous (the TEA Parties are irrelevant). As it turns out, public opinion is largely in favor of the TEA Party movement because the TEA Parties echo the sentiments of a wide swath of the population. Calling it racist or out of touch or irrelevant is like saying those things to most of America, and the Left isn't going to win by torquing off voters like that.
Yeah! Look at the Teabaggers' latest PR ploy to duck the racism issue: Uni-Tea! That sure proved how diverse you guys are, right? LOL
- Immigration. Although the Obama Administration may have won a judicial victory by having portions of the Arizona immigration law suspended by a judge, there are a number of ways it could come back to blow up in the Left's faces. By standing against the Arizona law, the Left has stood against the opinions of a majority of Americans,
Hey, right-wingers: "Majority rules!" doesn't work when it comes to civil rights. The "majority" were in favor of slavery, remember?
but has also risked losing support of union workers since they will be the ones directly impacted by letting illegal immigrants stay here and take jobs that could go to union workers.
Oh, yeah. Unions are so anti-Democrat. Just like black people! Because Democrats never help those guys!
Aren't you Democrats scared yet?
And that's not counting other ways that the Arizona situation can come back to haunt Democrats, such as whether local and state officials will be allowed to act on potential terrorist activity given the judge's ruling. Let's see how that works out.
Ah, the usual fearmongering from the right. Gotta love it!
- The growing rift between the Obama Administration and Congress. As I stated in a previous blog, the Administration and Congress aren't getting along as well as expected. The health care reform debate exposed a disconnect between the Obama Administration and Congress, much to the chagrin of Congressional leadership. When Obama pushed for health care reform, Congress expected him to take the lead on it, but instead he took his hands off the wheel and allowed Congressional Democrats to try to steer it. As we saw, they didn't do a very good job, which made the approval process that much longer, and did far more damage to Obama and Congressional Democrats. It's gotten to the point that many Congressional candidates don't want Obama anywhere near them, which is something the Left reveled in when it happened to George W. Bush later in his Presidency. Now, they're experiencing what they mocked, and it's not working out well for them.
"They hate him! Really! I can't back it up with anything, just like I couldn't back up that climatologists are all in a big conspiracy... but believe me anyway! They hate him! Wouldn't you hate a leader that's getting more programs through than any other in decades? Huh? Huh?"
These, and others that I haven't mentioned, may become the Left's Waterloo in November.
Ugh, now Lindaman's doing the old "Waterloo" GOP soundbite? NOW? After all this time?
"That's so fresh too. Any Titanic jokes you want to throw at me too, as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity? God you're so funny!"
And I, for one, will be enjoying the fireworks.
Okay, revolving doors... rain/pours...Waterloo... fireworks...
In addition to journalism degrees, you must also have a doctorate in mixing metaphors.
Politico reports that there is a debate brewing within the White House Correspondents' Association over who should be allowed to occupy the seat once held by Helen Thomas. The contenders: Fox News and National Public Radio. As can be expected, people have varying opinions on who should get the seat, as do I, but I'll share mine in a bit.
First, let's take a look at Fox News. Supporters say it is one of the most fair and balanced cable news networks out there, and it can be argued on both sides as to the veracity of that idea. Critics tend to fall into two categories: those who think Fox News is nothing more than right wing propaganda, and those who think Fox News isn't a real news organization. It should be pointed out, however, that for many years, Helen Thomas was allowed to sit in her vaunted seat without being a reporter. Yes, my friends, for a good chunk of her later career, she was...an opinion columnist. For those who bash Fox News as right wing propaganda, the problem is that the WHCA has set the precedent for Fox News to take the seat, and complaining about their slant now doesn't justify their silence on Thomas' slant for 20+ years.
Next, there's National Public Radio. Supporters say that they are one of the best news organizations out there and without much of a bias. Critics point to the fact that for many years NPR was taxpayer funded (although more recently, they've become much more publicly funded). I've listened to NPR for a number of years, and they do a good job in reporting. However, they do show a leftward bias in subtle ways, from what stories they cover to the way those stories are covered. They're not as bad as MSNBC, but they do occasionally let their personal opinions get in the way of straight reporting.
Is that why people who listen to NPR consistently poll as more informed than people who get their news from Fox?
People who listen to NPR, generally get news from many sources. Odds are if you're listening to NPR, you already have most of the information from other sources. If Fox is your sole source, your likely not getting a lot of information cause the fact to fluff (whether thats opinion or gossip crap) ratio is pretty low.
As for MSNBC, is there anything to back that up? Besides coming up with cutesy anagrams (ripped off from Michael Savage)?
This leads to the heart of the debate: what constitutes a news organization in today's environment? NPR still reports using old school journalism while Fox News relies more on flash. On the other hand, Fox News has made a bigger impact on journalism in recent years than has NPR. (Whether that impact has been positive or negative is subject to debate, but their impact is undeniable.) Should the seat go to a left-leaning old school journalism outlet or a right-leaning new journalism outlet?
I say neither of them deserve the seat.
The journalism game has changed so much that few people are actual journalists anymore. What they've become is PR agents for a side or a cause, merely repeating what they or their editors believe. And why? So they can get invited to the Washington parties. Reporting the facts has taken a back seat to hobnobbing with the elites, and journalism as a whole has suffered. When a venerable newspaper like the Washington Post has to do a mea culpa for not covering the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation story for over a year, and another venerable newspaper like the New York Times not even doing that much, it's clear that the journalism profession is seriously broken.
They didn't cover it because the New Black Panther Party dicks didn't threaten anybody. It was a non-issue.
So, I don't think NPR or Fox News deserve Helen Thomas' seat, but that's only because I don't think the majority of so-called journalists deserve a seat in the White House Press Room.
Helen Thomas had the front-row seat because she used to be a real news reporter for UPI when it used to be a real news wire service. It was based on the fact that her reporting was disseminated to an enormous number of readers. She kept the seat after she became an opinion columnist to honor her unmatched seniority in the White House press corps, although an opinion columnist would not otherwise have been seated in the front. Now that Thomas is retired, front row seats should again be assigned to straight-news reporters based on the number of eyeballs or ears they reach. Cable news does not reach nearly as many people as network news, big-city local news, radio news, or wire services, so I don't think Fox News gets it.
Fox News is a right-wing propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news agency. In recent weeks the network has turned the volume up on its race-baiting political agenda. The media assault on Shirley Sherrod is just a latest in a series of racist and politically motivated attacks on targets like Van Jones, ACORN, and Eric Holder's Department of Justice. But they are "Fair and Balanced"...you wouldn't be constantly hearing that reference from them unless it was true. Right?
Reality has a liberal bias. That's why right-wingers hate facts (AGW, for example). We have facts on our side, and the news is supposed to report the facts. So to conservatives, any organization that states facts instead of right-wing noise, is "left leaning."
Meh, give it to Fox; so I can find out once and for all which condiments the president actually prefers.
Why would Fox want the seat in the first place? Fox can write opinion from anywhere, and they don't need to actually ask questions. Their pundits may say, "I am only asking questions" but it is to cover a logical fallacy rather than to get an answer.
On second thought... Why not give it to the Christian Science Monitor? They're pretty unbiased, and the name will confuse Teabaggers.
The Charlie Rangel situation is getting more and more interesting. While Rangel himself is digging in his heels and welcoming the ethics investigation into his alleged crimes, President Obama has taken a different position. He said the following in an interview with CBS News:
I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served -- his constituents very well. But these -- allegations are very troubling. And he'll -- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that -- what he wants is to be able to -- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that -- it happens.
Set aside the disjointed sentence structure and rampant ageism by the President for a moment
Ageism my eye. Congress seems to be the only place in America where nobody over the age of seventy-five ever retires gracefully. Eighty year old men have no business in Congress. He and so many others need to step down because, like so many, they are all the same pack of useless sellout hacks that couldn't write a bill to help the people of this country if their lives depended on it. Obama clearly wants Rangel to step down. Otherwise we'll see how well an eighty year old does in prison.
But these are right-wingers, who are people that prop up zombie politicians like Strom Thurmond, and support having America run by a president that had Senile Dementia while still in office.
And another that had Presenile Dementia, and took "disjointed sentence structure" to a new art form, even when rehearsed and teleprompted. Hint: He was the President before this current one.
Pretty funny hearing cries of "ageism" from someone who is a bigot, a racist, and uses a proven anti-Semite as a source. Not to mention being part a group that mocked a vietnam vet when he ran for president. Then tried to counter this by implying that "the liberal SNL" made fun of Bob Dole's war injury (which they didn't, you failure).
As for his sentence structure: Maybe he should join Toastmasters! Nah, that's only for people that don't have the talent to get paid to speak, and instead have to pay to have others hear you speak.
Watching the ACTUAL VIDEO shows there's nothing disjointed with Obama's sentence structure, especially since it's not rehearsed:
But hey, that's Ben Smith for you.
and really think about the implications of Obama's statement in the context of the rising tension between the White House and Congress. It's safe to say that Congressional Democrats and Obama aren't getting along like they used to anymore because the former can't seem to get the latter's help in supporting his agenda. The President talked a great game about health care reform, but left Congress to try to make the sale to its constituents. That didn't go well, and Obama did little to help them. This made the Congressional Democrats look bad, and I firmly believe it caused the health care reform bill to stay stuck in Congress far longer than it should have been. But it wasn't Obama who took the heat for that. It was Congress. And given some of the egos in Congress, that's not going to sit well.
Wow, that was a big, chunky pile of bullshit right there. Obama even spoke to Congress directly in a joint session, which is EXTREMELY rare.
After ALL that he did, you're going to sit there and claim Obama didn't help healthcare reform? Really? You really believe that? But hey, this is coming from a guy who believes Swift Boaters (the day you said you believed the Swift Boaters, was the day I knew you were beyond help).
There are a lot of other dynamics in play here, but the tension between the Obama White House and Congressional Democrats are going to get worse in the light of Obama's statement against Rangel before they get better.
You can put your tinfoil hat away. You can keep repeating "Democrats in Congress hate Obama, really!" but you can't support that. They love the guy (well, maybe not the Blue Dogs... even though Obama is closer to an Eisenhower Republican than a Liberal Democrat). You'll just have to get over that.