Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

GOP: Dammit, America Won Again...

Thomas Lindaman writes:

With Libyan leader Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi in hiding, it appears America...I'm sorry, NATO, may have scored a victory in Libya. Yet, I can't help but feel something's not quite right with the celebrations going on in Obamaville right now. Some would chalk it up to right wing disappointment at the victory, but they'd be wrong.

Back in 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter achieved a victory over the Shah of Iran. For those who don't remember or never learned, the Shah was an Islamic leader who was by most standards more moderate than his counterparts. However, Carter undertook the overthrow of the Shah, which opened the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic leader who was more radical. This, in turn, caused American-Iranian relations to deteriorate, leading to the Iran Hostage Crisis that ultimately doomed Carter to being a one-term President.

Call it deja vu, but I get a feeling President Obama has repeated the Carter mistake by siding with the rebels in Libya. You may not get it from the mainstream press, but the rebels are more radical than Qaddafi was. Whether this leads to another hostage crisis, time will tell. However, it cannot be ignored that again a Democrat President sided with a more radical group of Muslims than advisable. If America "wins" anything in this venture, it may be more contempt from the radical Muslim community worldwide for letting us do their dirty work for them.

There is one additional thing to consider, one that might make the Left put down their champagne glasses for a minute.

With the fall of Jimmy Carter came the rise of Ronald Reagan.

And that's one bit of history the Left doesn't want to repeat.

Yes, we know, Republicans: You hope America gets attacked if it means you can win an election. Party before country. We get it.

First, Carter did NOT undertake the overthrow of the Shah.

The worst Carter ever did was remind the Shah to exercise human rights, due to the fact Iran's secret police had thousands of prisoners due to suppression of political dissent.

Don't forget, it was Carter's reluctant allowance of the Shah into the US (due to the Shah's sickness) that was a major reason for the hostages being taken.


Carter had nothing to do with the overthrow of the Shah. It was inevitable at that point.

As for Libya:

Well! Here's something you don't see every day:

Unless Obama is president, of course.

So, the Republicans LIKE Quaddafi, and wants his regime to endure. Okay, I got it now.

"Obama was totally not responsible for the victory in Libya! But if it fails down the road, it's his fault!"

This is what happens when you put someone competent in charge, fire breathers who hate government and then proceed to work in government generally don't do well when in office.

Republicans like Lindaman can't stand the fact that a Democrat mobilized the armed forces for something justified (as Democrats are wont to do).

Civilians were suffering. But who cares, right? Why help in the smallest way possible for the maximum result? Screw them. Not our friends. Self-determination of a country's people is only okay if they pick the governance we agree with?

Certain people need to educate themselves about NATO and how it works. We come to the aid of our allies so that, if we need aid, they will come to ours. You know...I got your back, you got mine. That's the point of the treaty. And we are Constitutionally obligated to honor that treaty. But no, let's ignore the treaties we have signed because they are inconvenient to us at the moment.

Libya is the kind of shit we SHOULD be involved in - where the people ask for our help against a tyrant so they can install democracy. We've spent decades crowing about democracy, then propping up assholes, dicking around, and generally being hypocrites. Now we have the chance to live up to our word - to have the Democratic, Western world help these people establish a more free society for themselves. I'm for it.

Rebels had already taken the Eastern part of the country, and the leaders had already been overthrown in Egypt and Tunisia. There was no good play in backing Quaddafi.

By the way, here's what Mustafa Abdel Jalil, President of the Libyan rebel council, had to say at a press conference a few hours back:

"We are on the threshold of a new era ... of a new stage that we will work to establish the principles that this revolution was based on. Which are: freedom, democracy, justice, equality and transparency. Within a moderate Islamic framework.

"A nation in which all citizens are equal ... and which can include all factors and factions of society. From the east of Libya to the west. From the North to the south and the centre. We are all Libyans. We all have the right to live with dignity in this nation. We appreciate the cities that have been delayed in joining the revolution as a result of the siege.

"[...] We aim for a country where all people are equal, regardless of race or colour. And a country in which minorities have rights. And can practice their culture and their way of life. And take on their responsibilties. We would like to comfort all countries on the safety of their citizens and their interests in Libya.

"We would like to confirm to the international community that New Libya will take care to establish strong relations on the basis of mutual benefits and mutual respect and will work hard to become an effective member of the international community. And to uphold the international law and human rights. And to establish rule of law and to contribute effectively to international peace and security. And will take care and appreciate the nations that support this revolution. And which stood by the revolution since its birth until its end.

"These countries will have a special form of relations and Libya will have good and friendly relations with everyone.

"May peace be with you."

Now I realize it may just be rhetoric, but if that pans out, coupled with their oil money, I forsee a lot of prosperity in that nation soon. Maybe they'll be more friendly after this sorts itself out. Or, maybe not. Are you really so selfish that you'd only have gotten involved In WWII's European theater if the interests of Americans were at stake, regardless of what the Germans were doing? Maybe one should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing.

The problem that Conservatives have with this war is that it's too perfect. It's basically the Democratization blueprint they would want from a stable revolution. Power is and has always been invested in the elites of the county. There is a willingness to compromise certain local tensions for the common good. And there are outside powers directly invested in the future of the country. Sure, it's not going to be all roses and honey, but show me a revolution that was.

The Republicans in the House have had several months to make an official proclamation that they're against the war. Why haven't they done that? They secretly support the war but can't be seen agreeing with Obama on ANYTHING.

We wanted a President that could win wars. We got one. Bush is still 0-2.

It's the Republican way to start fights. Its the Democrats' way to finish them. President Obama and NATO have gotten more done there in mere months than our friends on the Right accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (unless you consider spending money an accomplishment).

Here's the Republican timeline on their treatment of Obama regarding Libya:
Attack him for not rushing in to the engagement.
Attack him for entering the engagement.
Attack him for doing too much.
Attack him for letting other NATO allies take over.
Attack him for doing so without congressional approval while blocking votes for congressional approval.
Attack him for spending money to do something you advocated.
Vote to approve spending.
After winning, attack him for not winning sooner.
After winning, hoping the United States gets attacked by Libyan's new government.

Conservatives are already praying that the Libyan people will continue to suffer just so Obama looks bad. I have a message to the Republicans/Libertarians/Independents from the American servicemen and women who risked their lives flying sorties and dropping supplies to the rebels, spent months away from their families working on aircraft carriers and bases supporting the operation, and special forces who went into enemy territory and helped train the rebels: Fuck you and your dead grandparents up the ass.

Whatever the outcome in Libya, it is what the population wanted and asked for help. It wasn't a question of intervening or not intervening. The Western world has sustained this dictator for decades by buying this oil, selling him arms and stashing his money for him. We bear responsibility for him being in power so long.

Taking part in a NATO led operation to assist a popular uprising against a dictator is not the same as the Iraq invasion or Afghanistan. Democrats opposed the Iraq war because it was a unilateral action based upon faulty intelligence, with no plan for fixing what we broke.

After the war in Iraq, a power vacuum was created in Iraq for years that spawned violence, which has only recently shown signs of stabilizing. In Libya, there is already a transitional council in place BEFORE Quaddafi has been killed/captured. HUGE difference between the two situations.

Instability in Libya (creating a refugee crisis in Egypt) threatens not only European (and to a lesser extent American) access to energy, but the Suez Canal and thus global trade.

Libya was handled in the most cost effective and diplomatic way possible. It is very interesting to look at the contrast between the way we handled Iraq/Afghanistan and the way we handled Libya. At least Obama did it with a level of competence. We just have to see what the new Libyan government does in terms of foreign policy. Hopefully, they will realize that we didn't shit all over their country, and might trust us a bit more.

Quaddafi falls and the other tyrants will fall too. Right wing religious authoritarianism cannot survive as society advances.

No ground troops. No American casualties. That's how it's done, people.

Vote Democrat, because it's been made very clear that the Republican party has no trouble killing our own troops, but lots of trouble defeating the enemy effectively.

Meanwhile, Republicans enable terrorists.

Monday, August 15, 2011

WHY Vote Republican?

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Now that the dust has settled in Ames, let's take a look at the winners and losers.

And I'll point out a few things about these people.

According to Lindaman, something as simple as windsurfing is enough reason not to vote for someone. Keep this in mind.


Michele Bachmann:
Although this one could have been considered a lay-up for her, the victory at the Iowa Straw Poll gives her two things she needs at this stage: momentum and credibility. Bachmann has been maligned and disregarded as a serious candidate by a lot of people (namely the Left), but it's hard for them to make that argument now she's had such a high profile victory, especially over the more established Ron Paul.

She wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security.
She's a Teabagger.
She wants us to drill in the Everglades for oil. But there's no oil there.
She's Anti Gay Marriage.
She's an Anti-Abortionist (including cases of rape and incest).
She's a Global Warming Denier (ie: Nut)
She claims Obama is "anti-American" with nothing to support that claim.
She helped spread the "death panels" bullshit.

On the other hand, she's a benefit to GOP in that she makes Palin look smarter... not by much, though.

And speaking of Dr. Paul...

Ron Paul: For better or worse, Ron Paul has a following in Iowa. He has the same issues Bachmann has, but on a wider scale. His second place showing in Iowa shows he still
has the groundswell of support for his candidacy, which will help him stay in the race longer.

He wanted the United States to ask permission from Pakistan before going after Osama Bin Laden.
He strongly favors allowing states to criminalize with harsh penalties women who have abortions as they see fit. Including rape and incest.
He thinks evolution is junk science, as is global climate change.
He thinks that the separation of church and state is the result of activist judges.
He thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God" (it doesn't have any at all).
He introduced a bill in Congress that would allow local governments to ban atheists from holding office.
He made racist comments in his newsletters for ages, admitted he wrote them, then later tried to blame it on an anonymous staffer.
He wants to remove all banking regulations.
He tried to pass a bill that would make every dollar and coin in US circulation instantly worthless.

Herman Cain: Cain had a pretty good showing at the Iowa Straw Poll, even in "predominantly white" Iowa, as the media loved to state in their reporting.

So stating Cain did well in a predominantly white state... is somehow a bad thing?

He may not have fared as well as he would have liked, but he's showing more than a little financial acumen with how he fared. While others spent and spent, Cain didn't, and still managed to come in a respectable fifth place with a shade under 9% of the votes tallied.

Thought Obama was "raised in Kenya".
Thinks no legislation should exceed 3 pages, because if it's longer than that it's just "too complicated." Then tried to backpedal on that.
Thinks the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was in the Constitution.
Opposed the building of an Islamic community center in Tennessee, because it he thought it was "an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion."

Sarah Palin: Yes, she's not an official candidate, but she did wind up having an impact on the Iowa Straw Poll. The media coverage she received from merely hinting at coming to the Iowa State Fair was enough to draw attention away from some of the candidates who needed the attention (see Tim Pawlenty). She wound up being a king (or should I say queen) maker in Iowa, that's for sure!

I'll refrain from stating the tons of things she has done and said that are worse than windsurfing. You're welcome.
She opposes same sex marriage.
She is against abortion, including cases of rape or incest.


Mitt Romney:
He shows up for a debate before the Iowa Straw Poll, and yet he bails on the Iowa Straw Poll itself? Granted, it's a fundraising event, but it doesn't bode well for the Romney campaign to ignore one of the early states in 2012. And as an Iowan, I know there will be a lot of Republicans with long memories. Then again, after he blew an easy question at the Iowa State Fair and got visibly upset, he might not have wanted to face people who could have handled the question better than he did.

I'll go easy on Romney, since he's the closest thing to an intelligent candidate the GOP has. That fact alone could ruin his chances.

Tim Pawlenty: With two people from Minnesota in the same race, Iowa voters were split. Typically, Iowans will throw their support behind a candidate from a neighboring state, and Pawlenty was counting on a better turnout than he received, which was a distant third behind Bachmann and Paul. Of course, anyone who followed Pawlenty's campaign honestly knew he wasn't lighting things up on the GOP side. His attacks on Michele Bachmann didn't help either because, unlike TPaw, Bachmann connects with Iowans on
fundamental levels. That was his third strike, and as of today, he's out of the race he was never really in to begin with.

The guy has no idea what he is doing, no idea how government works, and no idea how to run a campaign. He's probably the least crazy besides Romney, but that's only because he's not smart enough to be crazy. That being said, I'm not concerned about Pawlenty. His tax record and the bridge incident are enough to sink him.

Rick Perry: He's in officially, and...not many people care. Announcing his candidacy this weekend was a major stumble on Perry's part, and it could have been avoided if his campaign had given more thought to the announcement. Granted, there's good strategy in not announcing before an event where one of his rivals was presumed to walk away with it and his non-appearance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll left him safe from scrutiny for now. Having said that, to make the announcement when he did when
the media attention was elsewhere? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

NOW it's fun time! The REALLY batshit crazy one!

Come on, you know you wanna vote for him! The GOP loves people like this!

Rick Santorum: Like it or not, Santorum impressed a lot of people with his performance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll. That translated into a fourth place victory for him, edging out Herman Cain. So, why is Santorum with the losers? Because he hasn't run as solid a campaign as the frontrunners. On top of that, he's going to be going for the same voters as Michele Bachmann, but she's been out there stumping on her conservative beliefs, while Santorum hasn't. Assuming people know you isn't a good way to win over the hearts and minds of voters.

This is the idiot that tried to put Intelligent Design in public schools.
His hatred for gays is well known.

Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Thaddeus McCotter:
Collectively, the three of you got less than 3% of the votes at the Iowa Straw Poll. Mitt Romney, who didn't even show up, got 3.4% of the vote. Pack it in, guys, and leave it to the real candidates, okay?

I think Romney's being low-key to avoid pissing off the moderates and likely letting his batshit insane opponents flare out. There's nothing for Romney to win in Iowa, so he's not going to waste time and resources. He gets to concentrate all his energy and money on New Hampshire and other early states (South Carolina will be a big test for him).

Even Republicans are beginning to see the writing on the wall - that a Texan governor who openly rails against Social Security, Medicare, the direct election of US senators, and threatened to secede might well win the Republican primary... but is dead meat in the general. And their fallback is Mitt Romney, the guy the base hates with an intensity of a thousand suns.

Other highlights from this debate included right-wingers cheering executions, and booing a United States soldier serving in Iraq because he's gay.

Now, for the millionth time, Lindaman... I'm going to ask you the question you keep ducking: Could you please state why a person should vote Republican?

I know that the points I brought up about these candidates above can be considered good things to the insane branch of the right, but it still doesn't directly answer the question.

You have stated you are Republican. Then when Republicans weren't popular, you claimed to be Libertarian. Now you claim to be an "Independent (tm)".

And yet, throughout all this, you have done nothing but trash Democrats over things like:
1. Windsurfing.
2. Giving a gift to the Queen of England.
3. Birth Certificates.
4. Swift Boaters.

While gleefully endorsing Republicans like Bush and McCain, and Republicans in state elections.

So let's pretend that you're going to admit to still being Republican.

Now, explain. Why should anyone vote Republican?

Thursday, August 11, 2011

GOP: We Lost Two Seats! We Win!

Thomas Lindaman cries victory in Wisconsin!

This is what democracy looks like...



Of course, it's being bandied about by the Left that the Wisconsin GOP rigged the election (which would, of course, explain why 2 Democrats won instead of 0). Isn't it funny how the will of the people is paramount when it's something the Left agrees with, but insignificant when it's something the Left doesn't like?

Yeah, Republicans never speak of voter fraud! Idiot.

You guys were squawking all over the place claiming "union thuggery" about the election. Never mind that the GOP spent more than the unions did on the election.

On a larger scale, the failure of Wisconsin Democrats to get the 3 seats they needed to take over the Senate may resonate until next year, when these same Wisconsin Democrats vowed to recall Governor Scott Walker. It's a long time from now until January 2012, and this setback may take the wind out of the sails of the "Recall Walker" crowd. A lot will depend on how Walker rules and how motivated the Democrats are to recall him.

Are you aware that two of the four very conservative districts in which the conservatives retained their seats have not elected a Democrat since Grover Cleveland? Republicans kept their seats in conservative districts that haven't elected a Democrat in over 100 years.

And Republicans LOST two seats. Democrats GAINED two seats, and lost none.

Wow, what a victory for Republicans! lol

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

GOP: Ceiling? Let The Whole Building Collapse!

Thomas Lindaman weighs in on the budget dealings. Here and Here.

I love how its suddenly 'Obama's spending crisis'. the tea party crapped in the middle of the room in full view of everyone then tried to say Obama did it. I wonder...do the shills realize how pathetic their attempts to control their little world really are?

I guess Standards and Poors now has a liberal bias, too.

Here's the Tea Party plan. Here is the donor section from their website: http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/sponsors.php
It's a stupid plan that doesn't even balance the budget: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/18/news/economy/cut_cap_balance/index.htm

This was also a Tea Party downgrade. The polls reflect that, as well:

S&P's Chambers: Balanced budget amendment would do more harm than good.

Yeah, that silver bullet that Republicans will literally be campaigning on ended up in their own foot. They're not even trying anymore. They might as well defund the EPA and call it the 'Clear Skies Act' or lower the top tax bracket and call it a 'Fair Tax'. This facade is over, the curtain has been pulled back and everyone can see Big Business controlling the GOP puppet.

The bulk of the spending in the past few years came when the market and the banking system had to be bailed out. Wasn't that under a Republican party president? And didn't that president enter a war of choice, without raising revenue? In fact, didn't that president, with the support of a congress controlled by the Republican party, lower taxes in a time of war - a thing that has never before been done because it's, well, dumb? The statements released by the rating agencies didn't mention anything about "drunken" spending. Nope, they mentioned a willingness to default and an unwillingness to raise revenue - even through letting the "temporary" cuts expire or by closing loopholes. And which party did those two things? Why, I do believe it was the same party as that Republican President that spent all that money! Moral of the story: Never, ever vote for people from that party, or believe anything from people who support that party.

Three decades of GOP starve the beast fiscal sabotage produced an irresponsibly high debt to GDP ratio before Obama even took office. Reagan/Bush Sr. piled up $5 trillion in debt. But Clinton and the Democrats staunched the flow in 1993, when they passed what Republicans called the "worst tyranny of any kind whatsoever in history," a modest tax increase. Unfortunately, when the Republicans resumed power in 2001, they returned to Reagan style deficit spending, producing the above mentioned irresponsibly high debt to GDP ratio. When Obama and the Democrats took office in 2008, it was risky to deficit spend, because the GOP had already saddled the country with so much debt. But the alternative was letting the floor crash out of the economy, which would have produced an even deeper and more catastrophic recession than the one we are experiencing. Obama and the Democrats made the only responsible decision: they engaged in deficit spending to stave off total economic collapse. Even then, the debt downgrade could have been averted. But the Republicans took America's full faith and credit hostage. Worse, high profile Republicans indicated they didn't care whether America met its obligations. Even then, the debt downgrade could have been averted. But the Republicans refused to compromise even on a deal very favorable to their values, and one which would have satisfied S&Ps. The final nail was the Republicans' refusal to compromise until the very day of default. As S&Ps indicated, the most egregious conduct leading to the downgrade was committed by the GOP. What S&P did not do, was put the whole debacle into historical context.You can spout that Obama and the Democrats "spent like drunken sailors" all you want. But divorcing that spending from the economic realities that necessitated it only shows the weakness of your argument.

The downgrade was the Tea Party downgrade, and the stock market reaction was the GOP crash. The Republicans own the downgrade, and they own any weak economy following it.

As S&Ps indicated, the most egregious conduct leading to the downgrade was committed by the GOP. What S&P did not do, was put the whole debacle into historical context.You can spout that Obama and the Democrats "spent like drunken sailors" all you want. But divorcing that spending from the economic realities that necessitated it only shows the weakness of your argument.

The debt downgrade, and the ensuing economic chaos are:

The Republican Party's fault.

The entire Republican Party's fault, not just the Tea Party's.

Only the Republican Party's fault.

The downgrade was the Tea Party downgrade, and the stock market reaction was the GOP crash. The Republicans own the downgrade, and they own any weak economy following it.


"Given the nature of the debate currently in the country and the polarization of views around fiscal policy right now, we do not see anything immediately on the horizon that would make this the most likely scenario - an upgrade back to AAA again," Beers said.

The S&P downgrade of the United States can be seen as political commentary from a financial perspective, according to the head of California-based PIMCO global investment company, Mohamed El-Erian, who spoke on Bloomberg Television.

"The S&P downgrade is not really about the ability of the U.S. to meet its [debt] payments," El-Erian explained. "No one doubts the ability of the U.S. to meet its payments. It is about the ability of its policymakers to get their arms around the problems, and put the country back on the path of growth, jobs, and prosperity. And until they do that, we [the United States] risk further downgrades."

In other words, the head of the S&P reiterated that it's the Republicans and their shitty excuse for governance that are to blame for the downgrade.

The reason the country's credit rating has been downgraded is because the Republicans basically said "Default? Sure, fuck it." Their politics have always been toxic, it's just that now they can't pretend their way out of this. Life sucks when you don't have the ability to say 'this no longer exists' and pretend to be underdogs still.

Let's start by revoking Medicare's ability to purchase motorized scooters for the obesity disabled. How far do you think that will go in the Tea Party crowd?

Republicans are trying to destroy the economy, they will are not going to let any rational solutions to reform the economic problems be adopted because their constituency (corporations) will profit from a collapsed American economy. They should not be listened to, and in fact should be shunned and shamed for their nihilistic philosophy and apocalyptic behavior.

If you are still a supporter of the Republican party after the embarrassment of this Summer you are either malevolently evil or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They're out to stop Obama no matter the cost.

Here's the GOP solution: Tax cuts for the holy and blessed job creators! Never mind the fact that they aren't creating them, even though they actually have no reason not to now.

The Bush economic collapse caused the record deficits, not "Obama spending".

1. Bush fucked this country by plunging us into debt over two stupid failed foreign policy operations the current administration is stuck cleaning up

2. Bush fucked this country over by allowing a continued deregulation of Wall Street, and when the festival of greed was over, our economy got fucked.

Obama was not there when both of these things happened.

It was your "Grand Old Party" thinking they could do no wrong, all while bragging about how "fiscally conservative" they were.

Strange thing about that "lowering corporate taxes and they'll create jobs" bullshit... remember the last time corporations got a tax holiday? 2004? Corporate tax rates went all the way down to 5.25%, lower than most state sales taxes. The theory behind this was that jobs would be created, companies would invest in new machinery and other things, the economy would be stimulated from within, and more taxes would be paid to close some gaping holes in the budget.

Wanna know what really happened? Guess.

The corporations took all that money, all those billions.
No new jobs.
No new investment.
Same old tax revenues as before.
Peals of derisive laughter from the shareholders' meetings all the way to the bank.

Lowering corporate tax rates does not work.

It's all bullshit rhetoric designed to do just what it did in 2004.

Look at right-wingers. I mean, really. Look at them. They bitch and whine and try to divert the conversation, but it's just not working for them. It's not even hubris at this point, it's a mental condition. They really do believe they can change reality because they say so, like the entire world is some game of pretend that requires talking over people.

2011 has been the worst year ever for Republicans. They have completely lost their mind where they're crapping all over their major voting blocks to hold onto the psychos. It's hard to see these sacks of slime holding onto any power at the rate they're going. And it's for the best: the world really doesn't need these people.