• CLIMATE CHANGE AND GOP STUPIDITY

    Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One
  • RIGHT-WINGERS BLAMING THE VICTIMS

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops
  • STILL NO SCANDAL

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi
  • EBOLA AND ISIS

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Monday, December 31, 2012

Happy New Year!



Sunday, November 4, 2012

Bigotry is LOVE!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

 Restoring Love Vs. Embodying Hate

An estimated 65,000 people attended Glenn Beck's Restoring Love event in Dallas Cowboys Stadium yesterday with a simple, yet powerful message of love. Love of God, love of country, love of service, love of our fellow human beings regardless of our differences.

Meanwhile, gay marriage supporters (not all, mind you, but a number of them) are spreading a message of hate against Chik-Fil-A. And why? Because the president of the company, Dan Cathy, said he and his company believe in "the biblical definition of the family unit" and gives money to causes that reflect that view.

Humans are emotional creatures without question. It's what we do with those emotions that matter.

With love, we can help people in need. With hate, we can destroy people, including ourselves.

With love, we can bring peace to the world. With hate, we can bring war.

With love, we can fix problems. With hate, they fester and get worse.

With love, we can accomplish almost anything. With hate, we accomplish nothing.


Which emotion do you serve?


I'm going to go easy on Lindaman on this post, since he has a girl now.  I wish him well and hopefully he'll become a better person because of her.

Now, with that being said...

First, the Glenn Beck rally:

Basically, right wing Americans go to a rally to make public donations, to protest evil socialism like government aid to the poor, because a washed up morning zoo disc jockey told them to.

Sorry, baggers, but you probably shouldn't wait for Bob Dylan to write a song about you.

Why would anyone listen to a man like Beck, who does things like joke about poisoning members of Congress, about "love"? 

Beck also lied about American history at that rally, since he sources people like David Barton who distort American history to a twisted view.

Not to mention Beck having Creationists like Hovind teaching ignorance at that rally.

There was only one reason for Beck's Texas revival show, and that was for self-promotion.  He holds rallys all the time.

And if those right-wingers truly felt love for the poor, they would donate anonymously, not do it to protest government help for the poor, by following a hatemongering right-winger that's trying to be the Mormon version of Pat Robertson.

Sorry, Beck, but this ain't "love."

Now, onto your strange assertion that boycotting Chick-Fil-A is "embodying hate"...

Explain to me how boycotting Chick-fil-a is a bad thing? Because it made some bigots feel bad?

"How dare you be intolerant of our intolerance!" is a pretty common bigot refrain.

There's a serious cognitive shortcoming in the minds of most bigoted people which allows them to believe that not only are they not bigoted, they are the ones being discriminated against.

You really think people were boycotting and criticizing Chick-Fil-A just because their COO and President Dan Cathy said they support Christian values?  There's also the fact that Chick-fil-A donated more than $2 million to anti-gay causes in 2010.

And Chick-Fil-A has consistently been one of the three top corporate sponsors of dominionism, and particularly anti-LGBT dominionism, political groups for almost as long as they've been in existence.

I don't eat at Chick-Fil-A because I already knew their anti-gay stance, and I knew their donations were contributing to the death of homosexuals in Uganda as well as the suffering of gays all over the world, including the United States.

But Dan Cathy's recent comments shed more light on their stance, so now people are taking more notice of them.

Dan Cathy said: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

So, yeah.  Fuck Dan Cathy.  And fuck Chick-Fil-A. No matter how you right-wingers try to spin it, the company is owned by an old man that believes certain citizens don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Your idea of "embodying hate" are people who responded to Dan's comments with:  "Wow, that's a dick move. I don't want to give my money to a place like that."

The fact that Chick-Fil-A recently backpedaled based on the financial impact of their dickish values isn't compelling enough to stop boycotting them, either.  Because they still have the same homophobic values. In fact, people on both sides of the issue have lost even more respect for Chick-Fil-A, because their backpedaling shows that their so-called "Christian values" only are important to them until they see a dip in profit.

"Biblical definition of the family unit"?

Ah, obliviousness, so sweet and liarly...

Do Christians ever actually read the Bible?



That same bible is in favor of multiple wives, concubines, incest, and rape victims being forced to marry their rapists (provided the rapist forks over fifty shekels).

If you learn your sociopolitical skills from some desert death cults, nothing good can come of it.

What's even more pathetic than Cathy's comments, and backpedaling, is the "EAT MOR GAY-HATIN' CHICKN" day you right-wingers had under the guise of "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day." 

I'm actually very glad you right-wingers exposed yourselves for what you are on that day.  And I'll tell you why...

See this picture of racists' actions on the 1960's sit-ins on discriminatory businesses?  See them pouring food on civil rights protesters?  There's lots of pictures like this.



I bet, at the time, these racists were proud to have these pictures in newspapers. 

But now, they have shamed their families.  What do you think the offspring of these racists think of these pictures now?

Now, there's pictures all over the place of people proudly protesting gay marriage under the guise of "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day".  They're posting these pictures on Facebook and all over the place.



I'm sure they're very proud of these homophobic pictures, now.  But these pictures will never go away.  They will shame their family name in years to come.  Their generational offspring will be humiliated by these pictures.

You can never get rid of these pictures, folks.  These pictures cannot be erased, and what these pictures were taken for, will never be forgotten.

Once gay marriage is inevitably legalized, good Americans will be able to sit down with their grandchildren and tell them "Kids, there was once a time where gays actually weren't equal under the law in America.  People actually publically protested gay equality.  Here's the pictures to prove it."  And then, they can show to those dumbfounded kids, these pictures of Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.

So you see?  In decades to come, your right-wing faces will (yet again) be a symbol of hate.  You will humiliate your families, and America, forever.  Hope it was worth that greasy chicken sandwich!

And in the end, the homophobes lost anyway.  Chick-Fil-A will no longer be donating money to hate groups.  Sorry, hatemongers.  You lose.

This whole thing is like egg on the face of the entire "pro-family/traditional marriage" movement. They thought they had found mainstream commercial support for their agenda, they organized events specifically to highlight this meeting of the minds and to voice their shared support for "traditional values", and not even a month later the very object of their affection comes out and announces that they'll no longer be supporting these very same groups.

Way to back down, Chick-Fil-A. Not only are you homophobes but you're pussies as well.

This is the best possible outcome that anyone could have hoped for. The public was made aware of an otherwise unknown issue, people became upset, and Chick-fil-A was essentially forced to change their policies. It acted as a learning experience for a lot of people out there who thought they had found mainstream justification for their bigotry.

Zaxby's is better anyway.  You know this to be true.

Let's just hope your new girl snaps you out of this deluded right-wing reality-free bubble where one thinks intolerance to bigotry is hate, and hypocritical grandstanding and bigotry is love.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

"Why Do These Bitches Hate Us?"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

If you're like me, you've been sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for who pro-abortion

"Pro-abortion"?  Lindaman, when in the world has Fluke ever stated that abortion is the desired outcome?  That would be "pro-abortion."  Fluke is pro-choice.

There are tons of men and women who are pro-choice that happily have their own children.  If they are "pro-abortion" then how is that possible?

Do you have any journalistic integrity at all?

and free (at least to her) birth control advocate Sandra Fluke

"Free"?  Again, Lindaman is a liar.  Fluke is paying for her health insurance.  That is what should be covering birth control.  The health insurance that Fluke is paying for.

Since when is paying for something, free, you economic dunderhead?

was going to endorse for President this year. My friends, the wait is over.

Fluke's endorsing President Obama.

Whew! Now that we have that taken care of, let's focus on who former American Idol singer Adam Lambert is going to vote for this year!

That was three years ago.  Why not use the name of Phillip Phillips, who won this season?  Is it because you're always years behind when it comes to pop culture references in your posts?

Or... is it because Adam Lambert is gay?

Really? Was there any doubt Fluke was going to support Obama given how Fluke has connections to the Obama White House?  Isn't that like the neighborhood thief endorsing the police chief who turns the other way when there's a rash of thefts in the robber's neighborhood?

Wow, way to go "investigative journalist". How did you discover this extremely public information?

Dunn's firm in DC (Squier, Knapp, and Dunn), where she was a senior partner since 1993, merged with the Kinickerbocker firm in NYC a couple of years ago.

So basically, Anita Dunn left the White House over two years ago. These conspirators must be awfully patient to let that much time go by before executing their plan.

Ms. Fluke's choice of this Public Relations firm means absolutely nothing more than the fact that it is an effective firm for Progressives, with offices in both DC and in New York City.

Did you Republicans really think that Ms. Fluke would be entrusting herself to a Right Wing Public Relations firm?  Surrrreee...

Dunn's PR firm started representing Fluke in early March 2012. Prior to that, she was fielding media requests herself, which effectively destroys the conspiracy theories that the White House has been "orchestrating" the Fluke saga through Dunn's firm since the beginning.

You right wingers have only yourselves to blame for Fluke becoming well-known, thanks to people like Rush Limbaugh calling her a slut that wants birth control (for sex) for days on end.

But let me take it a step further. Fluke's endorsement of Obama is indicative of how the Left turns a blind eye to women's issues. Sure, Democrats love to talk about the "Republican war on women," but what
exactly has Obama done for women since becoming President? I mean, aside from paying his female staffers less?

Again, liar: Obama makes the most money, since he's the president.  And he's a male, and that skews the median.  Show us a specific case where a female staffer with equal level and experience gets paid less than a male staffer.  Watch the deafening silence, folks.

The Obama administration has more female members in the Cabinet than any president in history.

The truth is he's done...nothing substantial. One of his first acts as President was to sign the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which Leftists love to crow about when talking about the Left's commitment to women's rights. Yet, by his own actions, Obama is a fair-weather friend to women.

Except for... signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  But let's ignore that, right?  lol

You guys won't even do that.  So that fact alone crushes the Republicans.

He also established the Equal Pay Task Force to enhance enforcement of equal pay laws.  He helped increase the participation of women and girls in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math). He passed the Affordable Care Act so that being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition. 



And he’s fought against Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, one of the largest providers of women’s health services in the country.

You guys?  Nothing.

Remember "Julia," the fictional female cooked up by the Obama reelection team to show how Obama's record on women's issues was superior to the Republicans' record? If you paid close attention, you saw Julia rely on government at every stage of her life. As I pointed out previously, the underlying message is the Left believes women need government at every step because they're not capable of doing it themselves. That, my friends, is pure misogyny, wrapped up in a Obama/Biden campaign package.

Leftists like Ms. Fluke have been conditioned to be just like "Julia": victims that can only succeed through government intervention. And thanks to media outlets like CNN and MSNBC, Fluke can continue to milk her infamy a little while longer. Put another way, the Left keeps using Ms. Fluke and she keeps talking, all the while ignoring or completely missing the irony of her media-driven empowerment being used by the media to strip women of their true power by trying to reduce them to little girls who need a Daddy to help them.

A Daddy like...Barack Obama.

It's no surprise how that works out, is it?

Nice try, Lindaman.  Helping people isn't hating people.  So I guess you guys really despise Jesus's philosophy. lol

This is the same nonsense you right wingers spew when you constantly claim Democrats are making black people "slaves" because they are in favor of terrible things like equal rights and affirmative action.

We know what you're really saying, so don't try to hide it.  Just come out and say "Why don't these dumb n-ggers and bitches like us?"

What has the GOP done to help women, besides blatantly saying "Fuck you" to them?  And raping transvaginal probes?

Get back to us when you guys establish a White House Council on Women and Girls.

And increase funding on prevention of Violence Against Women.

When you guys stop fighting anything that benefits women, maybe women will take Republicans seriously. 

Until then, you're in big trouble.

But hey, there's always lunatics like Warchickenhawk, who writes:

"I'll bet Da Fluke us for legitamizing [sic] pot and forced fagotry [sic] too..."

Does this even make a lick of sense? 

Resa, you're so stupid you're not even a good bigot.  Lindaman, this is your posse.  You should know you're in trouble when even extreme right-winger Freepers think Resa is fucking insane.

And if you're still too stupid to figure out why right wingers are anti-women, let's take a look at a lovely factual version of "Julia" that reflects the conservative side, brought to you by Suzie Q:

"The Life of Mary"

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

"Why Aren't They Saying GOOD Things About Bain Capital?"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

With the 40th anniversary of the Watergate story, the media have taken a look back at the state of investigative journalism and they're not happy with what they've found. They're shocked, shocked I tell you, that investigative journalism has gone the way of the 8 track player! Sure, there are a handful of little-known sources they've found, but they're the exception, not the rule. "We need investigative journalism!" they cry from their computer keyboards!

Let me ask you big-time mainstream media advocates of investigative journalism a simple question. Have you looked in the mirror lately? As much as you whine about the lack of investigative journalism, you fail to see the reason for its alleged decline is, well, you. The journalism profession has become little more than a public relations firm working for the Left and any cause it deems vital, no matter how apathetic the public is about it. While media sources spent precious minutes on Mitt Romney's stupid behavior in high school, not even a microsecond was spent doing a serious story about the national security leaks coming out of the Obama White House.

Except on every major newspaper and news network.  You're just angry because they can't somehow tie it to Obama. 

The right-wing media is doing what it does best: Trying to connect the leaks to the White House (since there's a Democratic President in there right now), based on absolutely nothing.

To Lindaman, this is "investigative journalism."

Remember the story about Obama bullying a student in school? No? Not surprising because you guys didn't think it was important enough to address. But Mitt Romney? Why, he's fair game!

Lindaman, as usual, is parrotting the "Obama pushed a little girl, so he's a bully too!" story that right wing websites are desperately trying to spin.  There's some "investigative journalism" for ya!  Way to go, NuBreitbart!



Let's see here... In a book that's been around for ages, that also has a disclaimer about composite characters, Obama himself states he pushed a girl, one time, when he was eight years old, and felt horrible about it.

Romney assaulted a classmate when he was seventeen years old, held him down (with the help of other bullies because he's a coward), and cut off his hair with scissors while he was screaming terrified on the floor... because he acted gay.  And now he gives a non-apology of how he "doesn't remember" it.

Lindaman thinks these events are exactly the same.  This is how Republicans think, folks.

As far as the Romney bullying incident... The simple fact is: Five eyewitnesses, many of them friends of Romney (such as Stu White, who Romney described as his oldest friend.. and was contacted by Romney's brother to serve as a surrogate to defend Romney against this... but who refused to do so) have confirmed that the bullying incident happened, Romney was not punished for it (think his dad may have something to do with that?) and that they took part, and feel awful about doing it now.  That's not my definition "flimsy investigating"... that's more like "incontrovertible fact."

Romney's response is that he didn't remember. We're talking about multiple people holding a boy down, as he cries and struggles, for the sole purpose of humiliating him.  The boy was terrified!  One member of the small mob said this has stuck with him and has always troubled him. But Romney? He can't even recall the story. Either this sort of thing was so typical of him that this particular event was unremarkable, or he isn't troubled by his actions. It hasn't stuck with him. What kind of weapons-grade psycho do you need to be, to not remember doing this?!

It figures that Romney would need a group of people to help him hold down a skinny effeminite kid.  Romney dodged the Vietnam war, but doesn't hesitate to be a hawk from the safe sidelines. He eggs people on, but doesn't endanger himself.  Yep, he's a Republican.

Also, the fact that this story has not died is all on Romney and his team, not the fantasy "liberal media", you conspiracy nut.  Romney could have handled this in a way that showed he had grown since then, and has stronger character. He didn't. He just giggled and said he doesn't remember it. Which means he's lying, or he really doesn't remember it (which means he's a narcissistic sociopath).

You just don't get it, Lindaman.  It's the way Romney is handling the bullying story now that demonstrates his complete lack of moral standing.

Romney has come out as being anti-gay equal rights, and has said he doesn't believe in civil unions or gay marriage. And surprise, he has a history of being a homophobe.  But yeah, this is a non-story.  At least according to fellow right wing homophobes.

One last thing: Lindaman claimed in an older blog post that he himself was bullied in school.  This new desperate reductionist post by Lindaman, proves that Lindaman was in fact not bullied.  So, the one old post that Lindaman has made that was actually pretty good, is now proven to be just more Lindaman bullshit. 

Lindaman, you weren't bullied in school, just ignored.  Just like present day.  And there's plenty of "investigative journalism" to back that up.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), bloggers are doing what Woodward and Bernstein were doing during Watergate. I know you media types don't consider blogging to be legitimate journalism because of the lack of accountability when a story is factually wrong (by the way, has the New York Times recovered from the Jayson Blair fiasco?).

Why is Lindaman bringing up this particular event, out of many others?  Because he hopes it'll crush affirmative action.

However, the blogosphere is proving you don't need to go to Columbia to point out corruption in the world around us. And given the state of what passes for mainstream journalism these days, the blogger sitting at home in his PJs is out-hustling the big name reporters you rub shoulders with at dinner parties where the topic of the so-called death of investigative journalism is discussed over brie and Chardonnay.

Maybe the reason the media are lamenting the "death" of investigative journalism is because they're afraid to dig into their own side's misdeeds. After all, it's always much more fun to try to take down the high and mighty when you have a personal vendetta, right? Ah, but when you realize your side, the one you've put so much personal stake into, is no better than the side you hate, it's not so fun, is it? There was a time when investigative journalists would put their feelings aside and go after the crooks, letting the chips fall where they may. But when you can't separate the personal from the professional, you're going to play favorites and, in doing so, help to kill investigative journalism through politically blind neglect.

If you really give a damn about investigative journalism, stop playing favorites and start sending out reporters to shine a flashlight into the dark corners of the Left. Sure, you may not get invited to as many dinner parties with those Leftists, but at least you won't get scooped like the National Inquirer did on the John Edwards story.


You're a liar.

Solyndra was a story broken by ABC News.

Fast & Furious, which is now resulting in Congressional investigations, was a story broken by CBS News.

The faces of modern media are... Rupert Murdoch and Limbaugh.

The right's idea of "investigative journalism" is heavily edited videos (Breitbart) and talking points issued by their party (Fox News).

The reason Lindaman's mad, is because there's no big scandals with the Obama administration.

So the "investigative journalism" on the right has been reduced to birth certificates, social security numbers, ancient irrelevant nonsense like Reverend Wright and Ayers, tweeting dick pictures, and what kind of mustard Obama uses.  Not that this is anything new.  Right wingers, including Lindaman, trashed John Kerry for... windsurfing.  So where's Lindaman's outrage about Romney jetskiing?

Yes, the media is to blame for all this. For decades now.

According to right wingers, there is nothing actually morally bankrupt about the outdated, mean spirited misanthropic right wing philosophy.  It's... the media.  How dare the media recognize these destructive elements in our society?

Sorry, Lindaman... you lost any and all credibility about investigative journalism, when you kissed the Swift Boaters' asses.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

"YAY, WE WON! ... A Recall Election..."

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The Wisconsin recall effort is over, and the Left is scrambling to put the best possible spin on their failure to unseat Scott Walker. Naturally, they're pretending the whole thing never happened, but for those of us in the real world, it happened.

It's Wisconsin. Not exactly America's shining star.

As the population of the flyover territories dwindles to nothing (as agribusiness is closing in on a point where 5 guys at computers could run the farms of the whole region), it's easier to buy Representatives and Senators. They now have increasingly disproportionate influence on the country based on their population.

To my friends on the Left, I offer the following reasons why the Wisconsin recall effort matters on a bigger scale.


"We can't accomplish anything big, so let's spin the little stuff into big stuff!"

The exit polls were wrong...AGAIN! To hear the commentators on MSNBC (including woman-hater Ed Schultz)

Nice failed attempt to slip that through.  Laura Ingraham is a worthless ditz.  Get over it.

speak of the recall election, it was going to be tight. And in the end, the only things tight were the throats of the MSNBC folks as they choked back tears and more than a little crow announcing Scott Walker had won. When the media do exit polling, they tend to stay in friendly territory as to support their preconceived narrative.


"Stay in friendly territory"?  What does that even mean?  Can you back that up with anything?

Do you really think people are going to admit voting for that shithead?

This time, just like in 2000 when the media relied on exit polling and screwed up,the polls were wrong, and so was their coverage.

Again, do you really think people are going to admit voting for that shithead?

Just let this sink in for a second: New Republican candidates haven't won the popular vote in a presidential election since 1988.  No polling will alter that fact.

Union power in political matters is waning. The unions used to be a powerful political force in elections, especially for Democrats. However, as their relevance to actual work has waned, so has their effectiveness in achieving political ends. When the unions starting gunning for Scott Walker last year, they were fired up and ready to storm the Cheesehead Bastille. They faced a problem, though: time. Because of the steps necessary to recall a sitting Governor, the unions had to wait. As time went on, their presence waned to the point only people in Wisconsin knew there was even a recall effort going on. When push came to shove, the union efforts failed. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

One group represents teachers and sanitation workers and firefighters and cops (people who work for a living and live next door to us) and are trying to influence elections in order to advance their own interests.  The other group is largely controlled by a handful of people with the aim of consolidating wealth and power by influencing elections and advancing their own interest.  The right group... is not with the right wing.

We have, what, 10% Union enrollment countrywide public and private? There is no Union power in this country, and the right wingers won't stop until the whole concept is wiped away from the table. You'll take lower paying jobs and like it! So what If I entrust you to patrol the streets, to run into my burning house, to teach my children, I will pay you the absolute lowest I can pay you and if possible fire you and let a private company control all of that. Great system, great values. Thanks GOP!

Sorry that the Republicans will not get union support.  Maybe the unions just happen to prefer backing the party that does not want to screw the workers up the chute? Maybe some of the unions have people bright enough to realize that the only interest the Republicans serve are that of corporations.

Corporations = Maximum profit
Unions = Maximum compensation
Their 'thuggery' is justified and necessitated by the system of capitalism.

Anyone that thinks otherwise, is a sad pathetic tool.

So, Lindaman, when are you going to sign this card?


Democrats may cede elections they can't win. Something missing from the recall effort was the presence of Democrat support, especially monetarily. Say what you will about the amount of money Walker raised as compared to his opponent Tom Barrett, but the fact remains the Democratic National Committee didn't see the recall election as that important (even after saying it was very important when Walker's favorability ratings were in the tank).

Barett spent $4 million of mostly in-state money... and Walker spent $30 million of mostly out of state money, and Walker only managed to squeak by.

Walker, as a sitting governor facing recall, is not subject to the state's legal limits on campaign contributions under Wisconsin law.

This was a Wisconsin matter, it should be handled with Wisconsin money. Walker is the asshole here, taking gobs of out of state money, not the Democrats for not wanting to flush good money down a nearly endless rabbit hole. Especially when it's very likely Walker will just be indicted soon anyway.

In an effort to try to spin it, Democrats are saying it was just a statewide election with no impact on the larger political battleground. Perhaps the reason they felt that way is because they didn't want to spend money on a losing cause in favor of saving their pennies to try to save their favorite losing cause, Obama/Biden 2012.


This is coming from the guy that said Obama would lose against McCain. lol

This is what democracy looks like? Not so much. The anti-Walker chanters from last year must be scratching their heads at how they could have lost. Either that, or it's the head lice.

Because people who supports worker rights are obviously dirty hippies.  I'll take a dirty hippie over an inbred ignorant racist any day.

What they missed out on was the fact democracy isn't standing up, chanting stupid slogans, and making asses of yourselves. To truly enact change, you have to act on it. The recall effort failed in large part because the chanters became a nuisance instead of a sympathetic group willing to take action beyond signing a petition and heckling politicians.

What did you want them to do?  Shoot people? 

On the plus side, though, you had the "pathetic" part down pat. But don't be sad. Soon you'll have a bunch of Astroturf Wall Street folks joining you Lotta-Pa-Losers.


But hillbilly, you said billions are being poured into OWS by gazillionares.  So why didn't they beat the Koch SuperPAC for Walker?  Hmmmm?

But you would know what a loser is, wouldn't you?



You already proved yourself to be completely clueless when you tried to claim Soros was funding OWS through the Tides Foundation, and that blew up in your face.  So, where's the billionaires that are astroturfing? And for that matter, I'm still waiting for Warchickenhawk to back up any of her statements!  Hell, I'm still waiting for you to say how I was pimp-slapped.  You guys have had weeks to answer these questions.  And you've come up with... nothing.



The TEA Party isn't dead. Some of Walker's most strident supporters were members of the TEA Party. They may not have had the media coverage for the sheer body count of the anti-Walker forces, but they made their mark in small ways (such as cleaning up the Capitol after anti-Walker cretins made a mess of the place)

That's because Teabaggers are morons that believed it would cost $7.5 million to clean up the nonstick residue painters tape from the marble.  After all, Walker's government and Fox News said so. lol

Protesters had set up an elaborate system of maintaining cleanliness in the building.  OMG see the filth

ROFL, you easily led idiots.

and in big ways (like cleaning up the Leftist scum by kicking Barrett to the curb for a second time in two elections). Just because a movement is dormant for a time doesn't mean it's dead. It could be waiting for the next moment to make an impact on the country.


That's funny, coming from the guy who said OWS was dead when shitloads were walking the streets just a short time later. lol

You're nothing but a bunch of fat, loud, middle-age dimwits rolling around on medicare scooters in cheap, Chinese made American flag T-shirts holding poorly constructed, misspelled signs.  All you've accomplished is  instigating a downgrade of the American credit rating over a debt ceiling debacle of your own creation.

The Tea Party is just a Republican fan club. They are Republicans who had to figure out a way to dust off the old "tax and spend Democrat" attack without acknowledging that they were cheerleading  the enormous financial chaos of the Bush administration. It was GOP rebranding and nothing more. It's been ignorant, retarded, and yes, blatantly racist pond scum, led by the nose by disingenuous GOP corporate whores, from start to finish. The most generous way to describe it, is as a successful internal GOP coup by Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, and people like him.

There may be more states in play for Republicans in November. Wisconsin has been a Democrat stronghold for a while, as have many states in the Upper Midwest. This is mainly because of the strong union base in these states. With labor's unimpressive showing in Wisconsin, this may be a turning point for Republicans because union members may not be willing to back the union ticket this time. If other states follow suit, there are a lot of Democrat strongholds that could be toss-ups. Here are a few of them:

  • Iowa
  • Ohio
  • Michigan
  • Pennsylvania
  • West Virginia
  • Minnesota
Although Pennsylvania and West Virginia aren't in the Upper Midwest and Iowa is in more of the central Midwest, all share characteristics with Wisconsin with respect to the working classes in each state. If a worker's revolt happens in even three of these states, Democrats could be looking at a washout in November.



Wanna know something? Back in the day, everyone had the same sort of benefits that the public union workers did. Sometimes even more.

And then Reagan got elected, and the chiseling away of the private worker began enthusiastically. By the time they were through, workers were glad that to have any job, even if it had no medical or retirement package.

But guess what? They're not done with workers (including you, Lindaman), and they're gonna make sure that you're little more than man-cattle.

You know what this is really about... winning elections, by eliminating Democratic sources of funding. The poor can't donate to campaigns like billion dollar corporations can. Then, slowly, as the wages stay stagnant (thus continuing the trend), productivity continues to rise, the minimum wage drops, healthcare becomes a non-option for even more people, then you'll understand the impact. It's just so slow you don't want to pay attention.

Leftists are starting to see Obama's lack of leadership. One of the post-recall comments made by the Left was Obama should have campaigned for Barrett. (Not that it would have helped...)  This may be a sign the Left has finally seen Obama as a weak leader that doesn't inspire confidence in his followers. If this trend continues, the Left may not come out to vote, which makes the aforementioned states even more important and could tighten some of the races in other vital states, such as Florida. That doesn't bode well for Obama's reelection chances.

Ah yes... yet again, Lindaman trots out the "Obama's a weak leader" bullshit.

Tell that to Osama Bin Laden, the Somali pirates, Quaddafi, the families that got help after the BP spill, the passed financial reform, the ending of DADT, and the people that know that now he will go down in history as the president who expanded our country's social safety net and helped millions of Americans since they can't be denied health coverage due to pre-existing conditions.  Shall I go on?

Your idea of a leader, is someone who sits in a classroom after being told America is under attack.

If the Left wants to disregard the results of the Wisconsin recall election, they do so at their own political peril. It's not nearly as insignificant as they think it is.

Lindaman, you guys are cheering about winning... a recall election.

I'm not crazy about recall elections, but regardless: Walker already lost just by having a recall election in the first place. It's like celebrating a murderer getting a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

It's a recall election, because your guy was hated that much.  The people of Walker's state signed enough petitions to recall him, and almost got enough votes to do so. You Republicans do understand the level of hatred of your political heroes that is required for measures like that to be taken, don't you?

If you're celebrating winning a recall election you've sort of lost track of what it means to be liked.  Are Republicans really this slow in the cranium?

The GOP poured $27 million dollars to defend a legally-elected governor just from stopping the mob from burning down the Capitol.

I'd expect it would be a lot harder to win a recall election than a general election no matter what, as many people believe people should be allowed to serve out their terms (I tend to think that way myself).

But this has been egg in Republican faces. They have been humiliated by having to hold a recall election in the first place.

You think union-haters have some sort of mandate from the people? Hell, it took that $27 million just to keep the torches and pitchforks away from your boy.



This is like winning back your job in a lawsuit against an employer who really wants you gone.

When's the last time you saw Republicans bragging about something like this?  They won... a recall election. That's shameful just on the face of it.

Republicans are really starved for respect these days.

You can't claim (as Republicans always do) that right wingers speak for the American people. They clearly do not. Just the fact their governor is so widely despised to have this recall election occur demonstrates the  Republicans are delusional about that. The recall election was the loss. It's hard to beat an incumbent even during a normal election. All this has demonstrated is Republicans are so widely hated by Americans that we will do our best to remove them from office even when they already won.  Do you think this guy is going to win re-election?

Democrats didn't spend enough money. They thought they could win on being "right" and that the good guys always win. They should've known better.  They needed to throw everything at it.

In this election, the SuperPACs for Walker outspent the Dems and the Union 9:1.

Yes, he survived, but only because of tens of millions of dollars of out of state money so he could outspend his opponent 9:1.

So, let me get this straight: Barely surviving a recall election, which was held because you're so widely hated, after dumping millions of SuperPAC money into it, is now a "victory" for Republicans?

Wow.

Republicans consider making the electorate so angry that they had a million people sign a recall petition over one issue, and barely surviving a recall election, after outspending their opponent several fold... as an overwhelming popular mandate for the Republican/Tea Party agenda.

But yes, Wisconsin is in play for 2012. While I think Obama still has the lead, he will have to expend resources there to ensure a win.



The Democrats also have to field a decent candidate, not the guy who lost to Walker in the first place.  I had a suspicion Walker would win when the Democrats decided to re-nominate Tom Barrett. I mean, seriously...Barrett again? Barrett's lazy butt tried to sneak in a quick, easy win, with only two months to campaign versus a year.  They picked poorly and funded poorly.

Regardless, money wins elections. If ever you needed proof, here it is.  Money can't buy you love, but it sure as hell can buy you a government.

Most governors I approve of, don't end up in a recall election two years through their shift. It's no surprise to me at all that he won this recall election, but it would shock me if he won re-election.

Those of you who don't like having a state government that is so obviously bought and paid for, I suggest you vote with your feet.

Walker's agenda took a much bigger hit: He has a Democratic senate now. Walker's posse won't be able to ram legislation through in violation of state law anymore, which pretty much ruins Walker's style of government.

What's saddest for Wisconsin, is that when there was a governor faced with a budget gap, he chose to close it with a group that is decidedly (and nearly completely) part of the middle class. Corporations got their tax breaks. The wealthy kept their low taxes and their health savings accounts. But those public workers? Republicans really stuck it to them, didn't they? Now they'll have to take an extra year to pay their college loans or convince their kid to take a year of community college before starting their major in the school of their choice. At least the budget is balanced on their blue collared, very middle class backs. Kudos to Walker for that... to right wingers, he's a hero.

Why should anyone should give a damn about respecting the opinion of anyone who believes Walker should be governing Wisconsin?  Even Republicans shouldn't be tolerating that.  Some kinds of evil you just shouldn't put up with.

This just further proves the obvious:

Republicans live off hurting fellow Americans.



Sunday, May 27, 2012

Wedgie Time!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Greetings, graduates of [INSERT NAME OF LEARNING INSTITUTION]! It’s a lovely day here in [LOCATION OF CEREMONY], and I am certainly thrilled to be here to give you words of inspiration as you graduate [HIGH SCHOOL, TECH SCHOOL, COLLEGE].

"Who's this guy?"
"That's the right wing blogger that pretends he gives important speeches, like in front of Congress."
"Why?"
"Because he can't in real life.  Plus, he blew money on Toastmasters."
"Ah, I see."

Before we get to that inspirational message, there is a bit of housekeeping to do. First, you have a big question to answer as you enter [COLLEGE, REAL LIFE, LIVING WITH YOUR PARENTS WHILE YOU LOOK FOR A JOB]. Are you happy with the world right now? This one question will guide your future decisions more than you think. If you’re not happy with the world, you might lash out, get disgruntled, or worse yet, become a member of Astroturf Wall Street. (That’s the name I’ve given to Occupy Wall Street because they’re bankrolled by the rich and they’re too dumb to know it.)

"That's a stupid name.  Why would Lindaman brag about a terrible name?"
"It gets sadder.  Lindaman stole the name."
"Really?"
"Yep."
"Well, can Lindaman at least back up his assertion that Occupy Wall Street is astroturfed?"
"Nope. In fact, when it was repeatedly proven otherwise, like his 'Soros funded OWS through the Tides Foundation' claims, he just continues to say it."
"Why?"
"Two reasons. One, he's pissed off that it's an easily proven fact, with direct ties, that the Teabaggers are bought and paid for by the GOP.  And two, he's hoping it'll become a catchphrase so he'll become a famous blogger. "
"Wow, that's... pathetic."
"It gets even more pathetic:"


Yes, kids, you may think it’s a neat idea to hang out with other people of like mind regarding the evil banks and Wall Street types, but in truth, it’s not that great of a career booster. You know why? It’s the bankers and Wall Street types doing the hiring these days! Nothing spells “disappointment” like losing a great job because you decided to protest the bank for which you applied for a job. But, at least you’ll still be able to get a job at Starbucks where you can serve the bankers and Wall Street types their double mocha frappechinos.

"I guess Lindaman's not aware that it's the small businesses that are creating the jobs, not the bankers and Wall Street types."
"Oh, he's aware.  But right wingers don't give a damn about small businesses.  They have to kiss the rings of the people that ship jobs overseas."



Maybe you can go into politics and really make a difference! I wouldn’t count on it. Government isn’t in the problem-solving business because once it solves a problem, the fundraising around the problem will stop. Politicians aren’t there for you; they’re there for themselves. The sooner you learn that, the less disappointed you will be.

"Of course, right wingers don't use this type of logic for health care, right?"
"In America, doctors are paid when people are sick.  Unlike intelligent systems, which pay doctors to keep people healthy."
"Well, at least when it comes to corruption, Republicans are the perfect people to speak from experience."

And while we’re here, how are those student loans working out for you? Those are coming due because Uncle Sam is just like a slumlord when it comes to getting paid back for the solid they did you so you could pay for tuition, books, and cheap beer. And if you’re just starting out with the student loan experience, enjoy the decades ahead of you paying for the tuition, books, and cheap beer.

"So you're against student loans.  But you're also against having a choice of free college."
"Basically, if you can't afford school, you can never go to school.  Got it."

If you are happy with the world around you, what’s wrong with you? There are problems in the world, most notably people texting and walking at the same time. Seriously, unless it’s a text from God (or, for those of you who don’t believe in God, George Clooney), pay attention to where you’re going! Is that so hard?

"How was this relevant to what you were talking about?  Are you high?"

Okay, I’m going to get off my soap box now, but seriously, look into solving problems, kids.

"We'll do that when you Republicans stop creating the problems, oaf."

If I could make one request of you, it would be this.  Could you chip in for gas? If I could make a second request, it would be that you keep learning. Just because Jon Stewart says something doesn’t make it true. In fact, if you’re using a comedy show to get your news, you might want to consider turning in your diploma and working the night shift at the Waffle Shanty.

"Or working a sad job as an underling at Wells Fargo."

Every so often, challenge your beliefs. Pick up a book you may not have considered reading before and read it. If you want to burn it after reading, use the Kindle Fire. Just because you're leaving these hallowed halls doesn't mean your education is over. I've learned more from life than I have from hitting the books.

"Then why do you believe global climate change is a conspiracy?  And why are you a birther?  Cracking a few books would cure that."

And might I add, my knuckles didn't hurt as much.

"So dragging them on the ground is better?"

At the end of the day, what you get out of life is what you put into it. The returns may be monetary, spiritual, or psychological, but they are there. However, don't expect them to be instantaneous. You DO have to work for the gifts you receive. Of course, if you have to work for them, they're not really gifts, are they? Well, that's something for you to figure out along the way.

Finally, I promised you an inspirational message, and here it is.

At this point in your life, you are smarter than Joe Biden.

"When you give a speech that's actually worth something, like this one by Biden:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47569634/#47569634

Then you can question people's intelligence.  But you can't, since you won't even look at the speech.  And also since you spent your Memorial Day weekend time by being a douchebag on your blog.  Typical and totally expected of you.  Biden has class, and you don't."

Thank you, and congratulations, Class of 2012!


"And then Lindaman woke up, and he was still at home... alone."
"Well, at least this proves Toastmasters taught him nothing as far as how to write a speech."

Monday, May 7, 2012

While You Never Had A Shark

Thomas Lindaman writes:

From the people who brought you taking a crap on police cars, drug dealing and use, underage prostitution, and advocating killing the police and the Jews,

Notice, not a single citation. lol

there's something new.

They're putting out a CD.

Mostly, it's a bunch of indie stars, bands you couldn't pick out of a lineup, and the occasional has-been. But the most uproarious track? Michael Moore doing a remake of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'".

Although the Astroturf Wall Street crowd

Still waiting for you to back up your claims.  Even when you were a proven liar about Soros "funding" OWS through the Tides Foundation, you just keep blabbing on. lol

think he has a new career in singing, personally, I think it's a cry for attention...and help. If you take a look a Moore's box office, he's only had a couple of big hits, and those were some time ago.

His second-to-last documentary, "Sicko", is in the top ten highest box office documentaries of all time.  Nice try. lol

Now, he's on a downward slide, with "Capitalism: A Love Story" doing one of the worst box office performances of his cinematic career. And when you consider it was as exciting as an Al Gore swimsuit video, is it any wonder?

"Capitalism: A Love Story" is #13 on the highest box office documentaries of all time.  It even beat out "Super Size Me." So again, nice try.

So, maybe Moore got the hint and is trying to get out of the filmmaking business and is testing the waters with trying to be the next Peter, Paul, and Mary. Combined.

Of course, I joke, but Moore has a serious problem: he doesn't have a good fallback plan. His musical talent reminds me of the 1910 Fruitgum Company

What's wrong with the 1910 Fruitgum Company!?

You're actually giving Moore too much credit!  His singing feels more like a parody of folk singing, like The Folksmen.

and his filmmaking leaves a lot to be desired (like the truth).

Citation, please?  You've been lying all through your post.  So we can't just take your word for it.

Well, Mikey, if the signing thing doesn't work out for you, you could go into the auto industry. I'm sure GM would be willing to put you on the line...

Which could be possible, since the Democrats saved Detroit.  You guys would sell out to the Japanese faster than he could blink.

But hey, considering your own grand reception:



...it's no wonder you're such a wet blanket when it comes to a CD. 

This is why you never get invited to the good parties. lol

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Okay!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Tell Me What a Loser Looks Like!

Someone that doesn't bother to comb his hair and look hygienic and professional while giving a speech, during a meeting about giving speeches?  You would know.

This Astroturf Wall Street leader is what a loser looks like!


"Leader"? lol

Again, Lindaman can't find an actual OWS leader, so he uses... this guy.  Because... he was in interviews and stuff.

To sum up the interview, Hannity keeps shifting his questions, repeats lying talking points (taking a dump on police cars, rape, etc).  Schultz brings up the fact that bums were being shifted to OWS, as has been truthfully posted in the NY news (Hannity somehow equates this to "planting"), and states people shouldn't be without things like healthcare because they can't afford it.

Ah, well, whatever.  Schultz is an anarchist.  And he's in grad school.  That's evil incarnate.  But hey, at least he combed his hair.

Tell you what, OWS can take credit for Schultz, when Teabaggers like you take credit for this guy

Because to right-wingers, a guy that uses college loans (that will have to be paid back) is much worse than a guy who kills his family.

Oh, and who is Glenn Beck?  He's now as unknown as your soundbite. lol

I guess you'd know what a loser is, though:



Why do you keep setting yourself up like this? lol

GOP: Helping Is Hating!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The Obama/Biden campaign have introduced a new online campaign promotion called "The Life of Julia." The idea is to show how a fictional girl, Julia, is helped by actions Obama has taken and comparing them to Mitt Romney's approach. Not surprisingly, each action Obama has taken has had something to do with government. And the best part? Nothing goes wrong when the government gets involved!

A nice story, but there's an unintentional message in "The Life of Julia" that is particularly worth noting. "The Life of Julia" says women can't succeed without becoming slaves to government.

Cue the feminist backlash in 3...2...1... Nothing? Not even a "Hey, women can make it on their own"? Okay, nevermind.

No matter what Leftists say, the real war on women is being carried out by Leftists, as "The Life of Julia" clearly shows. Why Leftists have such a low opinion of women is beyond me, but what's clear is they talk a great game about being advocates for women. When it comes to actually acting on it, they fail miserably.

Just like "The Life of Julia."


Because there's nothing demeaning about going hungry and being unable to provide health care or education for your kids, which is the right wingers'  preferred path for "Julia."

Yet again, a right-wing MALE speaks for females.

Here's all the "nanny state" atrocities that make right wingers spit nails:

-Head Start
-Public Education
-College Loans
-Access to affordable health care, including birth control
-Prenatal Care
-Equal Pay for equal work
-Small Business Loans and Tax Cuts
-Medicare and Social Security

That's it.

These things, are apparently BAD things for women, according to Lindaman.

Poor little chicks, it's just so demeaning to attend public schools, rather than teach yourself everything. It's beyond pathetic that your bitch of a Grandmother receives Medicare, instead of diagnosing her own diseases.

To right wingers, those programs are evil, and make Americans the "dependent" and lazy good for nothing losers they apparently are.

These things are nearly universally accessed to some degree by every single one of us.  Male AND female.  But never mind, since it benefits women in some capacity, it's a war on women. lol

Most Americans benefit from these programs.  So it seems most Americans are... un-American.

The reality is that the people who hold most Americans in such contempt are the un-American ones.

To right wingers, forced ultrasounds, giving doctors a script to read to women who want an abortion, defining the exact placement of an ultrasound monitor in an exam room, denying people the right to a legal marriage with the person they love, defining what you're allowed to do in your own bedroom... This is totally okay, according to right-wingers.  In the right wing twisted universe, helping people is hating them, and hating people is helping them.

These same right wingers say nothing about the tax subsidies, tax forgiveness and direct spending given to huge corporations and rich people.  They say nothing about cradle to grave advantages from the government to the corporations over ordinary persons.  They say nothing about absolute government protection, from criminal charges to estate wealth protection and everything in between to the elite... at tens of millions more than spending on women and children of modest means. 

The rich couldn't survive without government to protect and subsidize their wealth at every step.  From right wingers, there's dead silence on that issue.

Why?  Because it benefits white males like themselves, and doesn't contribute a dime to Julia's life.

The rich elite must lie compulsively about sociable people being socialists, just because they get a meager crumb of benefits from society that rich people happily enjoy.  They feed the lies into the right wing machine, and the low income right wingers like Lindaman gleefully parrot the talking point, completely unaware that they're only hurting themselves.

Right wingers have the absolute nerve to say we live in a "government-centered" society.  Things like Pell grants, social security, etc. are called government working for people.  We the people, remember that phrase?  Right wingers make me sick with their  economic ignorance parading as seriousness.

And what's with these roads you're driving on? Can't you just saddle-up and blaze your own trail?  Pay for your own fire fighters if your house catches on fire.  Pay for your own police if you need help.  Just like healthcare, if you can't afford it yourself, society shouldn't have to pay for it, right?  Where's the outrage on that?  Aren't you assholes self-supporting enough for those things?

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Small government can't accomplish all that. The government (we, the people) does collectively what we (the individual) can't do individually.

It's called a frigging civilization, you idiots.

It just proves what we already know: Right-wingers are sociopaths.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Did He Finally Snap?

Thomas Lindaman writes:

No Wonder Obama's Doing an End Zone Dance...

He's not.  But even if he did, it would be justified.  Since it's proven that he gave the order to get bin Laden.

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/


ROFL!  Lindaman's so desperate, now he has to use his fellow conspiracy nut birthers as sources!

You know what's really sad?  He wouldn't have found that link, if I hadn't linked him to Geller! hehe

Right-wingers are flailing so bad now, they're actually accusing top military personnel of sedition.

Need any more proof Conservatives don't care about the country?  As if their cheering the USA not getting the Olympic bid wasn't enough proof?

I think Lindaman's finally snapped.  Or maybe he's decided that since he has to lie anyway, he may as well go full-on crazy. 




Why not just say aliens from Venus gave the order while you're at it?

These are the posts I love the most, folks!

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The Answer Can Finally Be Told!
Do you know the reason Leftists are trying to say Mitt Romney wouldn't have given the order to kill Osama Bin Laden?

Because they know Barack Obama didn't.


That's funny!  You know why?  Romney was against going into Pakistan to get bin Laden, after Obama promised he would.  "Leftists" know this, because of their own words.  And we know Obama did give the order,  because of the memo Lindaman himself posted. That's why it's funny!

Watching Republicans flail because they're party before country?  That's the funniest!  The flailing from the right-wingers didn't work last year, either!



Still waiting on the choking, BTW!

Warchickenhawk writes:

"Awesome! Love it!"


Then thank Diogenes, you nutbar. lol

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Hiding In Plain Jane Sight

Thomas Lindaman writes:

One of the points the Left brings up in their "Republican war on women" rhetoric is how women make $0.77 on the dollar that men make, as Rachel Maddow cited on "Meet the Press."

One tiny problem, Rach. Your facts are wrong.

Kay Hymowitz, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that brings a bit of context into Maddow's erroneous factoid. Seems when you factor in women wanting to be working mothers and working part time instead of full time, women actually make...more than men by comparison.

Wait. If women are making more than men for doing the same job, isn't that...
sexist?

At the very least, it's yet another failure in the Left's campaign to invent a "Republican war on women" to hide their shameful past regarding the fairer sex.


Too bad that opinion piece is wrong.

The US Census, September 2011:

"Neither men nor women who worked full time, year round experienced a change in real median earnings between 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the median earnings for men was $47,715 and for women $36,931. In 2010, the female-to-male earnings ratio of full-time, year-round workers was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2009 ratio."

And too bad it's you guys that will always, always be known as the women-haters.  You guys will never be able to "hide" that.

He Didn't Pull The Trigger, So NO CREDIT FOR YOU!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

For Those Who Think Obama Got OBL...
... I have three words for you

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/memo.jpg

Choke on it.


So basically, we're supposed to choke on a memo that proves Obama gave the order to proceed with the raid?  So, because the memo proves he gave the order, it proves he didn't give the order?  Is that what you're saying?  I haven't seen you this smug about a choking since you quoted anti-Semite Andy Martin! lol

I especially find it amusing how right-wingers are claiming the risk profile portion is "wiggle room" to blame things on McRaven if the operation failed.  Not only is that backed up by absolutely nothing, it doesn't even make sense.  The risk factor was very high.  If the situation changed, then the president would need to be notified and decide to change tactics. 

We all know that Admiral McRaven was in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command, and that he carried out the raid.  This is ancient news.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/05/admiral_overseeing_bin_laden_r.html

http://letthetruthout.com/2011/05/william-mcraven-the-bin-laden-raids-mastermind/

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2011/may/05/obama-to-thank-unit-involved-in-bin-laden-operatio/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/william-h-mcraven-univers_n_857584.html



I wonder what McRaven thinks of Obama?

About Obama, without a question to prompt him, [Admiral McRaven] waxes lyrical and at length. The planning and decisionmaking for the bin Laden raid, he volunteers, "was really everything the American public would expect from their national leadership.""The President was at all times presidential," he says. "I would contend he was the smartest guy in the room. He had leadership skills we'd expect from a guy who had 35 years in the military."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102133_2102330,00.html

So I guess George H.W. Bush wasn't responsible for Operation Desert Storm, because Norman Schwarzkopf was in charge?

Commanders-in-chief make decisions and delegate terms and conditions that the commanders in the field are obligated to follow. That's called "leadership."

But to right-wingers, this is a leader:



What's funny, is that if the mission failed, right-wingers would be pointing the finger right at Obama.  Just like they did Carter when the sandstorms occurred.  Don't think for even a split-second they wouldn't blame Obama.  Hell, Lindaman tried (and failed) to blame Obama for the BP spill.

You guys tried this bullshit when the Situation Room photo was released, and you failed there, too.

You right-wingers are only flailing like this, because of Bush's failure.  And also because people like McCain were against going into Pakistan.



Obama deserves huge credit for keeping his promise.

It's hilarious that flag-waving right-wingers out themselves as being completely clueless as to how the military works. lol

You Fluked Up

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Remember Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified before Congress about contraception and women's health issues using a bunch of anonymous sources

And that it was irrelevant if they were anonymous, since it's a proven fact that it can cost over $90 a month?

and the research arm of Planned Parenthood?

Using public data from the National Survey of Family Growth that hasn't been disputed?

Well, she's back, thanks to the Daily Beast announcing her engagement to her boyfriend.

In a bad attempt at humor, Fox News' Monica Crowley tweeted "To a man?" As you might expect, the Left came out an attacked Crowley as hateful and homophobic. (Although I'm not quite sure how asking a legitimate question in today's society where gays and lesbians get engaged all the time would be homophobia, but I digress.)

Because it wasn't a "legitimate question", you liar.  Crowley posted it as a joke, as proven by her comment afterward about how "the left" can't take a joke.  Then after that, she backpedaled by claiming it was a straightforward statement.  Too late, Crowley.  You already tried the "It was only a joke" excuse.

The only way that tweet would be considered a joke, is if one thinks there's something funny about being gay.  She was simply trying to make the old joke that women who are smart and stand up for women's rights are dykes. It was meant to be snarky and demeaning.

It was only a joke up until someone questioned it as a joke, then she claimed it was a "serious inquiry" to take the heat off.

And of course, Lindaman sticks up for the homophobe.

Monica Crowley. Another in a long line of barren spinsters and bitter, unwed shrews on the right.... squawking about family values.

Jealousy is an ugly human emotion, Ms. Crowley. It does not look good on a desperate right wing woman in her 40's.

Hmm... alone and in her 40's?  Sound familiar?  No wonder Lindaman is defending her, no matter what vile things she says.

And, surprise surprise, the Left used Fluke again to further the message that fell flat the first time it was trotted out. First, she appeared on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" (which, by the way, is hosted by a man with  an astounding record of misogyny)

Riiiiight.

to squeeze out just a little bit more of her 15 minutes of fame by being asked to respond to Crowley's tweet. Then, predictably, Huffington Post ran with the story reporting on Fluke's "Ed Show" appearance.

Maybe it's me, but this smells like another set-up using Fluke as the trailing horse. Fluke's testimony has been discredited by many people, myself included,

And you didn't back it up with jack shit, you wannabe.

and she was quickly becoming a forgotten entity except to the Left. With the Daily Beast posting the announcement of Fluke's engagements, it was as though they were trolling for someone on the right to comment. With Crowley's tweet, they got what they wanted, which allowed Fluke to be brought back in by the Left as a "victim of the Republican war on women."

Maybe you guys shouldn't be flaming racists, homophobes, and achingly bitter toward facts about women.

Because, as we've seen, it was so successful the first time they tried it against Rush Limbaugh.

So basically, with that link, you're illustrating that Conservatives like to listen to someone who calls people sluts for no reason?

In that article, Rush Limbaugh, who spent several days lying his fat ass off about Sandra Fluke, claims his ratings are up, and the article you linked to provides no evidence to support his claims.

Rush lost over 35% of his audience in the past year, and he is no longer #1 in his time slot in all but two major metropolitan areas.

But it's better to just go by what Limbaugh says.  After all, he claims he has 20 million listeners... and hasn't budged from that number since 1993. lol

The audience that responds to his vulgarities is not an audience that attracts advertisers.  There probably was a spike in ratings, since there was fresh controversy due to Rush's cowardly comments, but what good are ratings if you lose advertisers?  He is trying to save face. He lost major sponsorships from tons of big, successful companies. Ratings dont mean a thing if you can't sell ads.  And even the ones that stayed with Clear Channel are asking not to be aired during his program.  If you think that isn't important, you need to talk to Glenn Whatshisname (who was saying "my ratings are great!" before he got canned, too).  Oh, wait, Rush also claimed he lost less than 5 advertisers. I guess Lindaman thinks Clear Channel is a non-profit organization now.  lol

Oh, Rush... such an honest man with integrity oozing from every pore, why would anyone doubt you?  JUSTICE FOR LIMBAUGH!

(By the way, to my Leftist counterpart, that was sarcasm. I figured I'd better explain it to you before you wrote another lame blog post about me.)

And yet again, Lindaman has to explain the joke.  Yet again proving Conservatives have no idea what humor is.



Speaking of Limbaugh, he took the bait again by talking about Fluke in connection with one of Fluke's tweets that echoed the sentiments of President Obama regarding student loan debt. There is some merit to Limbaugh's comments about Fluke and the Obama White House working together.

Backed up by nothing. lol

However, he made the same mistake Crowley did by letting Fluke back into the public spotlight.

At this point, it's clear the Left will keep using Fluke whenever they need to for whatever they deem necessary to paint the Right as anti-woman. Of course, in doing so, the Left shows just how anti-woman they truly are.

The left is anti-women because we sit back and let you guys blatantly make anti-women comments and make anti-women legislation?  Perish the thought!

In closing I have two pieces of advice to give. To the Left, keep trotting out Fluke. It will only remind us how silly she and you look.

Backed up by nothing (as usual).

To the Right, ignore Fluke. She is a one-trick pony, and the trick isn't very good.


Except pointing out the obvious: That the right-wingers have the typical Conservative mindset of a pecking order.  Whites are above blacks, the rich are above the poor, straights are above gays, Christianity is above all other religions, and men are above women. 

People being equal?  That's leftist and Communist.

By all means, keep showing the world how you're bad people, by defending homophobic comments.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Why Not Some GOOD News Of The Shooter?

Thomas Lindaman writes:

For weeks, we've heard Trayvon Martin's story, but few attempts have been made to give George Zimmerman the same treatment. Now that Zimmerman has been charged and released on bail, Reuters has given us a more comprehensive view of his recent history. I appreciated this view of Zimmerman, but I have a question:

Why the delay?

With the speed of communication technology these days, I don't think Reuters had to do a lot of research for their Zimmerman piece, certainly not as long as they took to release this piece. A quick Google search
shows Reuters spent a lot of time mentioning Martin's name in various contexts, but very little directly about Zimmerman himself. When mentioned, it was rarely before mentioning Martin's name.

So, why the change of heart? Because their media malpractice has already done its damage.

This is a game the mainstream media play on its consumers: report a story one way until their desired effect is reached, then do a story on the other side so they can claim to give balanced coverage of the story.
Of course, the magnitude of coverage blows that notion out of the water to anyone paying attention. If 99% of your coverage is devoted to one side and 1% is devoted to the other, there is no balance, only advocacy.

A nice effort, Reuters, but too little, too late to avoid being guilty of media malpractice.


Actually, most of the articles in the mainstream media have been cautious of how to paint either one of them.

What was stated in those other mainstream articles that was slanted?  That Trayvon was a teenager in high school?  That he was unarmed?  That he had no prior history of violence?  That he wasn't in a gang? That Zimmerman followed him and got out of his vehicle against the advice of the dispatcher?  That Zimmerman shot Trayvon?  These are facts! 

The only annoying mainstream media things I've seen are how lazy they were in showing old pictures of both Trayvon and Zimmerman when newer ones were released, and the idiotic 911 edit made by that NBC affiliate (probably unintentional, but I'm glad NBC fired that producer for pure incompetence if nothing else).

This was just a fluff piece to make Zimmerman look better, and should be viewed as such. Tons of information is missing and downplayed in that fluffnutter piece.  The majority of it isn't even relevant to the case. 

And it sure looks like Reuters bought a bunch of pictures. Copyrighted them, too.  Given all of the attacks and accusations leveled at Trayvon's parents for putting out a few pictures that were only a few years old, we now know that Zimmerman's family had put out a picture that was 11 years old, pictures in that article were over 20 years old.  But that whole Reuters story lacks sources throughout, and is clearly biased. Was that part of the deal to get the photos? I don't recall reading an in-depth article with so little in the way of crediting sources!  The problem with that lengthy pro Zimmerman article is that the majority of statements about his life are simply anecdotal. They are not backed up by citing the source nor by giving any "official" facts. If this article was a college paper, it would be graded a "D" because it lacks sources and citations.

You majored in journalism, Lindaman.  You know this to be true.

Notice that many of the "facts" noted in the Reuters article only match previous stories told by Zimmerman's family during their media tours?

I never felt Zimmerman went after Trayvon with the intention of killing him.  Nor have I ever believed Zimmerman was a flaming racist that just hates all black people, nor do I believe Zimmerman said "coons" on the phone.  But I do feel he profiled Trayvon, and that made Trayvon "suspicious" in Zimmerman's eyes. Zimmerman already had a black subject steal items from his own porch, and the police let one suspect Zimmerman reported get away because they arrived too late.  That's why Zimmerman says to the 911 operator how those "assholes always get away."  Zimmerman was pissed and wasn't going to let this one leave.

He was taught in Neighborhood Watch not to follow people, and not to carry a gun. Zimmerman should have waited for the police in his truck, and he should have stopped following Trayvon and immediately returned to his truck, as he was advised.

We know the homicide detective at SPD felt Zimmerman was lying, because his statements were inconsistent.  He also told a contradictory story of events to his own father.  Heck, Zimmerman was even inconsistent at the bond hearing, when he stated he thought Trayvon was just a few years younger than him.  He clearly calls him a "kid" to the dispatcher.  Why would an innocent person lie?

Also, the screaming 911 call favors Trayvon, because the person screaming for help simultaneously stops screaming when the fatal shot was fired, and never screams again.  If it was Zimmerman screaming for help, he would have continued to scream for help.  We don't need professional voice experts or family members to analyze the screaming voice, this is common sense.  Whoever that was crying for help was incapacitated to complete the cry for help. We hear the person yell “Heeeee…” and then the gunshot put an end to the yelling. It was Trayvon screaming for help. 

And even if we ignore those obvious facts, and pretend it was Zimmerman screaming for help, it doesn't sound like his head is being repeatedly smashed into concrete while he's screaming, does it?  He did get some scrapes on his head during their scuffle, but nobody seemed concerned about getting x-rays for head trauma.

Regardless, I think the prosecution bungled things by charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.  Unless they're holding out some breakthrough evidence, that's going to be tough to prove.  Manslaughter would've been a better charge.  Zimmerman could very well walk.

Sanford Police made a decision to not charge, even as the homicide detective asked for a manslaughter charge. He was overruled by the powers that be.  They dismissed it before they truly looked at all the evidence, or dismissed it without looking for further evidence.  SPD dropped the ball, especially for not testing Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, which they did to Trayvon's corpse

But I blame Zimmerman for the position he's in today. It's his own fault. He made a really bad judgment call.  You can’t shoot someone simply because you've decided you don’t like the way the fight is going.   Zimmerman had no right to pursue, while armed, a neighbor whom he believed to be a criminal without any justification for such belief. Someone chasing you through the dark is a threat, and Zimmerman had no special right to harass and threaten his neighbors by randomly pursuing them their own neighborhood.  Pursuing a stranger through the dark, while armed, is not a "neutral" event. It is an aggressive act against another human being. Ignoring any events that occurred after that, Zimmerman was the aggressor who deliberately put another human being in fear of their personal safety. 

That piece is an entertaining read, to be sure.  But it sure isn't journalism.

Because Al Sharpton, That's Why!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

No Comment, Leftists?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/after-brutal-string-of-black-on-white-violence-in-the-name-of-justice-for-trayvon-beck-asks-where-al-sharpton-is/



"Ooo!  Ooo!  Pick me!  Pick me!"

My first comment is more of a question: Who is Beck? lol

The rest of the comments will focus on the cases in that link:

The first case:

Gee, wonder why the suspect would claim to the police (after the fact), that he was distraught over the Trayvon case?  Couldn't possibly have some ulterior motive, could he?  Nah...

Regardless, when he was found he was immediately arrested and charged.  Well, that settles that.

The Owens case:

Owens yelled racial slurs, and ran to a neighbor's house pulling out butcher knives when he snapped at the kids. His own white neighbor said he probably did as much to instigate the incident.  But I'm sure that mob attacked Owens because he was a perfect gentleman to the kids.  They just wanted... justice for Trayvon?!?

But hey, Owens sister said she overheard one of the assailants mention Trayvon after the fact!  Funny, no other witness can corroborate that story, according to police.  Hmmm... and the police said: "The Trayvon Martin case definitely was not the motivating factor." Hmm...

Did he deserve a mob attack?  Hell no.  But maybe Owens should have done what Zimmerman should have done... let the police handle the kids.  Don't go screaming slurs while waving knives. Sheesh!

Regardless, when the suspects are found, will they be arrested arrested and charged?  If not, then you'll be able to open your yapper.  In fact, one's already been arrested and immediately was charged... so much for that.

The gasoline dousing case:

Nothing in that article says anything about Trayvon. 

Regardless, when the suspects are found, will they be arrested and charged?  If not, once again, then you'll be able to open your yapper.

I guarantee you, the other suspects will be immediately arrested and charged when they're caught.

If Zimmerman was arrested and charged to begin with, it wouldn't have left the local news, and you wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Earlier this month, two white guys shot five black people (killing three) in Oklahoma. The shooter had made racial comments. And guess what?  There wasn't an uproar!  Do you know why? Because the authorities actively investigated the case, and made arrests (just like in these cases).

Getting the point yet, rightards?  Nah, they never will.  To them, Trayvon deserved what he got,  because... Al Sharpton.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

More Scary Black People!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Since the start of the coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, one
phrase has been uttered, put on signs and clothing, and printed in the
media: Justice for Trayvon. Now that George Zimmerman has been released
on bail, we're getting a vastly different view of what the pro-Trayvon
side sees as justice.

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/12/twitter-lynch-mob-predicts-riot-if-zimmerman-is-acquitted/

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/11/twitter-lynch-mob-wont-it-be-great-when-zimmerman-gets-raped-in-prison/

http://twitchy.com/2012/03/24/countless-death-threats-against-zimmerman-man-yet-proven-guilty/

http://twitchy.com/2012/03/29/this-still-exists-killzimmerman-twitter-account/



And it doesn't stop there. There are even death threats against the judge who set Zimmerman's bail.


Of course, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, Travyon's parents, Travyon's
parents' lawyers, the pro-Trayvon media, and the Left has been silent on
the issue. I guess when you're too busy trying to convict a man before
he's been tried in a court of law, being civil just doesn't enter the
equation.


You didn't even want Zimmerman to be tried in a court of law, remember? 

Up until he was charged, all we've heard from you right-wingers is "Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin and shoot him because... Al Sharpton."

Right-wingers don't see the danger in creating a society of vigilantes... until the vigilantes are some black Twitter ranters. NOW, vigilantism is an issue!

And yet again, we have a "Never mind Trayvon!  See these scary black people?" entry.  But don't worry, I'm sure you have the "courage and conviction" to start making citizen's arrests. 

If a handful of retarded posts constitutes a lynch mob, then your blog is a goddamn holocaust. lol

I remember all those tweets about how Casey Anthony should be killed. How's that working out?  Real killers don't advertise. 

You actually don't believe Sabryna Fulton and Tracy Martin aren't getting hate mail?  Retardation goes both ways.  The difference is that Trayvon can't get death threats from right-wingers... since he's already dead.  The best you guys can do is say Trayvon deserved it because he's a thug.

But I agree, those tweets are totally in the wrong!  Zimmerman doesn't deserve that!  Especially since he's a minority with a questionable past.  Zimmerman doesn't deserve to be followed and killed!  Um... wait a minute...

Karma's a bitch, eh George?