The Real Bottom Line

"I WANT it to be real, dammit!"

2011-12-04T12:59:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

In my continuing "coverage" of Astroturf Wall Street, I did a bit of digging

"Digging?"

and found the following. (My responses are in bold.)

http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-draft-manifesto-183205447.html

That "draft" was a suggestion from one person from AdBusters. According to you, it's not AdBusters running the movement, because then it would be grassroots.

Which is it, Lindaman? Is the manifesto draft representative of OWS (making you a fool for responding to it, since it wouldn't be from the dark shadowy organization behind it), or is the movement grassroots (making you a fool for lying about it being astroturfed)? ROFL!

Sorry, Lindaman. It's the worst of both worlds for you. The manifesto draft isn't an official OWS set of demands, and AdBusters started the idea for OWS, but they aren't in control of OWS. Nobody is. That's what pisses you guys off so much. And now you look like a fool both ways. lol

Yet again, Lindaman has to resort to desperation like this. Aren't strawmen fun?

Ah, well... let's humor him:

A MESSAGE TO AMERICA FROM THE PEOPLE'S ASSEMBLY IN ZUCOTTI PARK

Dear fellow Americans,

We are assembled in Zucotti Park which we've renamed Liberty Plaza in the financial district of New York, because we believe that the American economy is heading in the wrong direction and we have a few ideas for what to do about it. Yeah, like taking a crap on police cars.

Jealous because he shit on a police car instead of in your mouth? And you think they are the pervs?

But seriously, all we've got is a picture of some unidentified random nut with his ass pressed against a police car. No eyewitnesses are named. No other photographs to even confirm he took the dump (how can you take a dump when your ass is pressed against something?). No streaks on the car or other evidence that he's had a bowel movement against it. There isn't even a pile of it on the ground. Also, the article itself says the police ignored the ones that tried to report him. Where's the police report? The Daily Mail and even Blaze says the man is unidentified. The guy that claims he took the photo even tweeted that he couldn't identify him as a protester. The squad car was from Brooklyn, according to the precinct number on it. Was the picture taken in Brooklyn or in Manhattan? It makes a difference, buddy. So, where's the evidence that he's a protester and not a random drunk?

There is a feeling shared by a growing number of people on the streets of the world that the global economy has become a kind of Ponzi scheme, a global casino, run by and for the benefit of the 1 percent. You mean like Michael Moore?

Yep, like Michael Moore. He benefits from it, too. Moore himself says so, and Moore himself wants economic reform even if he has to pay more taxes to get it. Got a problem with that?

We believe that it is possible to inject justice into the global economy. We have come up with the following list of things that can be done right now to rejuvenate democracy and economic justice in our country:

" Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly Why? A mortgage is an agreement, and the terms of the mortgage allow for the foreclosure on people regardless of their personal circumstances. There is no exception to paying your mortgage if you get sick, lose your job, or are old.

Then why aren't you decrying the bailouts? If a corporation can be bailed out, why can't there be a temporary halt on mortgages?

" Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent Which will result in the rich paying more, unless they find loopholes, and resulting in nothing positive happening. What happens if those taxes don't solve the problem? What will your solution be? MORE taxes?

Public service funding won't solve anything? What you basing this on?

And if they find loopholes, close them.

" Forgive all student loan debt See above regarding mortgages.

Yes, see above regarding mortgages.

" Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the current situation because it comes from the same entity that allowed the banks to do what they did. Furthermore, what about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government or quasi-government agencies who back the majority of the loans out there?

Don't forget Gingrich's involvement! lol

But seriously, what you're saying is untrue. It's been explained time and time again, but you keep repeating it. Why?

According to Republicans: In 2003, with a Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate, Democrat Barney Frank single-handedly stopped proposed regulations supported by both Republicans and the institution that was the target of said regulations. Truly, Barney Frank is the most powerful man in the United States.

Please tell us how Fannie Mae caused Lehman Bros. etc. to fail? The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission says you're wrong. And they're smarter than you.

Fannie/Freddie did NOT knowingly bundle bad mortgages. In fact they weren't bad, until the sub-prime bubble caused ALL real-estate to lose value, causing all mortgages, even otherwise good ones, to become more risky.

The problem was not that a bunch of people defaulted on their mortgage. That would have sucked for those individual people.

The problem, which had been explained thoroughly to you before, is that these crappy mortgages were bundled together and sold to investors as GOOD mortgages, so when they defaulted it wasn't just one guy who lost his house and one bank who had to eat the loss, it was multiplied over and over again, because a lot of other people bet on that guy NOT losing his house.

It's incredible how the Republicans can blatantly lie and the idiots simply believe them! Fannie and Freddie cannot back subprime loans. They got in trouble when they started buying those loans to maintain their market share. The problem isn't Fannie and Freddie, but private companies.

Shit, the only reason some right-wing retards were against that particular bailout, is because they believe poor people caused it, and poor people should be on the hook for the tab. If they genuinely grasped that it was pure greed and malfeasance on the part of the financial sector, they wouldn't have said squat. They would've just sat back and enjoyed the sight of working folks with slightly less financial stability than themselves losing their homes.

The SEC allowed the big 5 banks (of which only 2 exist) to up their leverage at their own discretion. Causing them to have more control of the secondary mortgage market, taking some of Fannie/Freddie's market share. Those were where all the bad loans were too.

It's been proven a million times over, that the banks involved in the subprime gamble were not compelled to lend by the government, but spreading lies is what right-wingers love to do.

Now listen, you mortage lender: Banks were desperately trying to find ways to lend to people they normally wouldn't lend to, because they could sell the risk of those loans to Wall Street for a profit, because Wall Street was committing fraud on a global scale.

Understanding yet?

The problem wasn't that Fannie/Freddie's share was too big, it's that it wasn't big enough!

Fannie's delinquency rate today is 4.08% and Freddie's was 3.51%. The overall market is 7.72%. That means private loans suffer much greater delinquency than GSE loans.

I know Fannie/Freddie pisses you off because they helped those shiftless minorities. And I know you hate them even more because they are governmental and to rightards anything to do with government is bad by default (even when they do much better than the "free market"). And I know you hate Barney Frank because he's a Democrat and gay...

But the facts show that your are clearly, demonstrably wrong, without question.

" Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% Robin Hood tax on all financial transactions and currency trades You DO realize a) it wouldn't work unless you have an overbearing bureaucracy overseeing it, and b) it would have to include every financial transaction, including donations to charity, right?

"It may not work, so don't do it!"

" Ban high-frequency 'flash' trading and bring sanity to the markets In other words, deny the Internet even exists.

So they can't make it illegal, right? Hey, Lindaman: I hear you can distribute child pornography over the internet, too. So we will be waiting patiently for your posting endorsing the legalization of kiddy porn.

" Break up the too big to fail banks that threaten our future How will this help anything? You're actually advocating weakening the banking industry to try to "save" it. If you break up a big bank into smaller banks, you are ultimately making it easier for banks TO fail, thus worsening the problem.

"Monopolies rule!" (Literally!)

There's good reasons to support local banking.

Let's just say I'm glad you're not doctors.

Republicans talking about health care, even just mentioning doctors in passing, is funny just because of the irony.

" Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice If you were serious about this, you'd be trying to arrest Barney Frank.

Nice try. See above regarding Fannie/Freddie.

And even if in some alternate universe, Fannie/Freddie was bad:

Barney Frank was in charge for barely five months before the finacial meltdown, from as far back as 1991 he was voting to reform regulating of Fannie & Freddie. From 1995-2007 Frank was in the House Minority and even then voted to reform Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were ordered by HUD to get into the subprime loan business. It was the private sector, investment banks, that led the subprime financing boom.

But we know, Barney Frank is just a sodomite piece of shit, according to right-wingers.

" Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington A Presidential Commission started up by the current Administration, with a lot of former Goldman Sachs folks on the federal payroll?

Yep. Got a problem with that? If they go down too, so be it. By the way, you are aware that George W. Bush's administration had many Goldman Sachs alumni, right? The difference is that this Administration is actually cracking down. It's already happening. lol

Apparently many folks believe that "The Government" controls the Fed and its band of Banksters, and not the other way around.

This widespread belief is convenient... for the Banksters.

If you agree with any of these demands, then join us! We will stay here in our encampment in Liberty Plaza until President Obama responds to each of these demands. This is just the beginning, there is more to come as we work together to reshape America.

The People's Assembly of New York City

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/occupy-wall-street-the-draft-manifesto/#ixzz1dUU6vuPe

When looking over this manifesto, it's clear there are two motivations at work: greed and envy. Their slogan could easily be "You have what I want. I want what you have."

A right-winger. Accusing others of selfishness. That-is-hilarious.

And while we're here, is it any coincidence their "solutions" to the problems serve to make the problems worse?

Because you say so?

CEO's running their companies into the ground with risky, over-leveraged commitments, taking the economy into the shitter, all the while expecting (and receiving) millions and millions in bonuses. This is the result of social isolation, ideological masturbation, and the misguided concept that they are the only people with anything important to say.

You must be really pissed that after Wall Street got bailed out, the corporations just pocketed the profits and didn't turn around and invest in America. Oh, wait... you right-wingers don't give a shit about that. That's totally not greedy.

Yeah...it's totally greedy to tell companies that it's wrong to game the system to rob the poor and desperate and favor the already wealthy. Questioning the right of a corporation to loot and pillage its customers and shareholders is Communism!

After all, we all know that it's the lazy people that are willing to get up off of their asses and go set up camps in cities across the U.S. to demonstrate their unhappiness with the current system and state of affairs. And they must be exceedingly entitled to represent people that didn't inherit large amounts of capital. That's sooo astroturf, too.

Sorry, Astroturf Wall Street. Go back to the drawing board and come back when you have a serious proposal on the table.

I think it is funny that you think anyone from the Right has real fixes to any of those problems this country is facing. The rightards just derp right along with calling protesters (voters) dirty hippies, call for more tax cuts for the rich, try to disband the EPA, show no understanding of foreign policy, joke about sexual harassment, joke about suicide of a vet because he happened to be a protester, put up tax plans that will nail the middle class something fierce, etc. You can't even call the President a "weak leader" when it comes to defense, so now you guys have become pro-terrorist and pro-dictator.

You know the right-wingers are doing very poorly when they're losing to the Socialist Party and the American Indian Movement in state/local elections.

What's your serious proposal, Lindaman? Besides pulling up an old draft manifesto email made by someone from a group of people who aren't even in control of OWS?

We know people take what you say "seriously". Weeks after his post:

They aren't astroturfed, no matter how many times you repeat it. It just sets off people's butthurt detectors.

Sorry the Teabagger rallies were such a letdown. Boy, talk about envy. "You have what I want. I want what you have" indeed.

"This old email that's not an official list of demands, has stuff I don't agree with. Therefore Wall Street corruption is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Cain... done? Sadly, yes.

2011-12-04T12:56:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Still Want to Say Herman Cain Is Done?

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances

The Left has been trying to portray Herman Cain as a sexual predator, but it's backfired in a big way. Cain hasn't lost much support, has seen a spike in contributions since the initial allegations of his sexual activities went public, and we keep finding inconsistencies in the accounts of the accusers.

So far, Cain is having the last laugh. Having said that, we have not heard all of the allegations from all of the women. There may be more substantive charges in the wings, but the problem the accusers face now is the environment created by those who have already come forward and been scrutinized. Even possibly legitimate claims will be cast through the prism of the claims that have been found less than honest, which means they may not be believed at first, if at all.

And the Leftists in the media will be left with a henhouse full of egg on their faces.

Why are you endorsing a Republican? I showed you website links with "rap sheets" that show Republicans molest children and are planning insurrection. According to you, showing a website with "rap sheet" links pasted into them is good enough for reality. So why are you endorsing a Republican, Mr. Independent (tm)?

Weiner tweets dirty pictures (with no harrassment whatsoever), the media (including The Daily Show) plays the so-called "scandal" all over the place, and Lindaman says "The media's not digging deep enough wahrgarble!"

Meanwhile, Cain's had two accusers paid off, one witnessed by others, one complained to friends contemporaneously with the incident. And Cain's hired gun has yet to challenge anyone! Meanwhile, Cain accuses the Perry campaign of smearing him, and the media is treating Cain very gently... and what does Lindaman say? Why, of course! He predictably says the "leftist media" is being mean to Cain. lol

Lindaman's link is from CBS. CBS? But what about Dan Rather, Lindaman? Remember, you claimed "CBS" made a false estimate about Beck's rally numbers (when it was actually AirPhotosLive and the only professional crowd estimator that was hired by anybody). So now you think CBS is legit? lol

All kidding aside, the poll was never representative:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

There's far better reasons why Cain would be a disastrous president. He stated wouldn't allow any Muslims to serve at high levels of government. He wants a tax plan that comes from a computer game (SimCity). He didn't know that China has had nukes for 40+ years. He didn't know the difference between defined benefits vs. a defined contribution plan. Cain's obvious ignorance on those issues had nothing to do with anybody other than Herman Cain's own statements.

But regardless of all this, I had hoped Lindaman was correct in this case! Cain... done? I sure hoped not! None of the people on "teh left" hoped he was through. I would've put a Cain bumper sticker on my car, if it would mean Cain would win the nomination!

Because if Cain wins the nomination, it's absolutely guaranteed that Obama will win reelection. You can bank on that.

CAIN.... COME BACK, CAIN!

The fact that Lindaman thinks the Dems were trying to get rid of him, just further proves how out of touch with politics he actually is. lol

But, sadly... Cain has suspended his bid. So much for who has the last laugh, and egg on their face. lol

5,4,3,2,1... ZZzzzzzz...

2011-12-04T12:53:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Cue the Pointing and Laughing in 5...4...3...2...1...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/occupy-oakland-protesters-deposit-funds-at-wells-fargo-after-bank-attacks/

Astroturf Wall Street wants everyone to bank at credit unions...except for them?

First, the bank "attacks" were from anarchists, not the OWS protest movement.

Second, here's what the attorney that deposited the funds had to say:

An Open Letter to Occupy Oakland : November 10, 2011

There has been a lot of discussion about the deposit of funds into my Wells Fargo client trust account. In the interests of transparency, I submit this open letter. When I volunteered the use of the account I was balancing the possibility of bad PR, with the possibility of forestalling serious physical harm to people in the jail. It was possible that there would have been mass arrests on the day of the general strike. If I have to choose between bad PR and human lives, then I will choose bad PR every time. I was informed that people had already faced seriously dangerous conditions in the jail. The night before the general strike I had no way to know that the day would not end in mass arrests at the port, or a hail of rubber bullets and wooden dowels like the anti-war port protest in 2003.

A few points of clarification:

1. Why did Occupy Oakland open an account at Wells Fargo?

We didn’t. My client trust account existed previously– I did not open it recently. I was in process of moving all my accounts for 5 November when I got sick.

2. So you control the money?

No. The money is technically still the property of Occupy Oakland, that’s why it’s called a trust account. Occupy Oakland has ownership of the money, and dictates how it is spent. That is why the solidarity committee brought a proposal to the GA the other night– to get approval for the money to go into the client-trust account. Had the GA rejected the proposal that would have been 100% fine with me, which is what I said at the GA. Had someone else stepped up that night, that would have been 100% fine with me as well. But no one did.

3. Why didn’t Occupy Oakland just open an account in its own name?

We were in the process of doing that. However, we had to file paperwork with the state of California. I, personally drove to Sacramento to file it and get it done in an expedited way. Nonetheless, we still had not received the paperwork back, and are still waiting for it. We are still in process of setting up an independent Occupy Oakland financial account. Neither a bank nor a credit union will open a bank account for an organization without showing the relevant state paperwork.

4. Well what about Long Haul? Aren’t they handling some donations on our behalf?

Long Haul could not accept the money from OWS. The terms of the agreement with Long Haul forbid Occupy Oakland to use any of the deposited money for bail. Period.

5. Why didn’t you just send someone down to a credit union to open an account?

Because if we sent some random person down to a CU or any institution, and they opened an account, they would take legal possession of the money. If that person had wanted to run off to Tahiti with the money, they would have been well within their legal rights to do so.

6. Why didn’t you personally just open a trust account at a credit union, it’s so simple?

Actually it’s not simple. First, there was nothing I could do the night before the general strike. Second, adding steps to a process always adds uncertainty and more variables increases delay. Last week, we knew that at least one person had languished for almost 24 hours without medical care, despite a ruptured spleen. Those are not, by any stretch of the imagination, good conditions.

7. Where the hell is the money now?

The money reached the client trust account today, November 9th, around noon. I have been told that another attorney has stepped forward who has a client trust account with a non-major financial institution. If this is the case and Occupy Oakland authorizes it, I will happily transfer the money to him.

8. Well fine, but you didn’t receive the money until November 9th, why not open a new account before then?

I had passed the client trust account information to OWS (via people inside Occupy Oakland) on the afternoon of 3 November. I was advised that the transfer would take place immediately, so made no preparations for another account. Over the next week, I heard a variety of things from “the money is being transferred today” to “NPR has reported that the money was transferred over the weekend.” I can understand that OWS was concerned who I was, and so I offered my bar (law license) number as well as volunteering to give personal references in the Bay Area progressive community.

Commentary: Had I known it would take a week, I would have simply put the word out for another attorney with a trust account in a community bank or other institution. But there was no way to know that going in. I understand that this entire event has been bad PR for Occupy Oakland and the Occupy movement generally. What I also know is that I will always choose to risk bad PR over risking people’s lives and personal safety. The mentality that Occupy is protesting is a mentality that applauds the opposite. It applauds good PR over risking people’s lives. That is the mentality of people who stand aside for corporate misbehavior, even when it costs lives. It is exactly the mentality of politicians who choose to go to bat for oligarchs and try to cut food stamp programs, rather than risk being called a socialist. It is exactly the mentality of judges who allow foreclosures even when the bank foreclosing has no case. People like that don’t want the bad PR, and they’re willing to risk other people’s lives to avoid bad PR. And that is exactly what we are fighting against. Isn’t it?

But none of that matters. Right, Lindaman? You just pray that they'll get pointed at and laughed at, eh? Well, you would know how that feels. Weeks after your post:

They aren't astroturfed, sorry. Try some Preparation H for that butthurt.

"A lawyer used a bank, therefore the banks responsible for the financial crisis are a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

"Oh, it's a PROTEST?"

2011-12-04T12:49:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

There are two words to describe Astroturf Wall Street's attempts to appear to be peaceful citizens just upset with business and government.

Epic Fail.

Epic Fail, eh? Well, you would know. Weeks after your post:

They ain't astroturfed, sorry. I know that won't soothe your butthurt, but you'll have to live with it.

Ah, Breitbart. Gotta love him. Dragging links into a list is such hard-hitting journalism!

Let's pick the top ten on that list, just as a sampler:

1. Oh noes! They didn't use the walkway after being told they could use the bridge! No violent action. So?
2. A lie. They never applied for a permit, so how can they be denied one? No verifiable sources for anything else in that report. Report was later pulled from the site because of that new information.
3. Article was updated when it was discovered that the flyer was from a Teabagger. lol
4. Where's the police reports?
5. No evidence he was a protester.
6. Uh-oh, got a little too close! Definitely baton time!
7. "Alleges" - Where's the evidence?
8. BODY PAINT? SEX?!? No wonder right-wingers are pissed!
9. The flasher stated he was GOING to attend on his Facebook (left out of that article). That's how they caught him. It's a crowded public event, that's why he went there. Flashers like that kind of environment. So?
10. Ayatollah Khamenei likes the protest. So? Osama Bin Laden endorsed John McCain. Does that mean Bin Laden was a Republican?

Guess I'm sold!

Hey, I can copy/paste list links, too!

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

http://armchairsubversive.blogspot.com/2007/05/stop-republican-pedophilia.html

So now you're not going to endorse Republicans ever again, right? I'll make sure to point this out, the next time you endorse one.

Now, back to reality:

This is a protest, not a Teabagger rally. A protest is not a rally. Get it? That time you went to that Teabagger day camp and sat around for an hour, and patted yourself on the back afterward, isn't what's going on here.

You right-wingers are pathetic. The Teabaggers helped to entrench money in politics by creating a sponsored rally where civil unrest was effectively co-opted by big money and corporations. But they're the heroes, because they were supposedly neat and tidy and didn't step over any lines or upset any schedules. That's because the Teabagger rallies were mostly like corporate picnics, planned events at public parks inhabited by confused old folks. And all it did was downgrade America's credit rating. "Don't actually rock the boat, whatever you do!"

The Teabaggers are made up of old white guys standing up for the status quo. Let's ignore the attempts to use ricin on American civilians, or the attempts to cut a Congressman's power lines, or the vandalism when bricks were thrown through offices. Teabaggers are just cowardly and half-assed in their attempts.

On top of that, when you constantly raid the peaceful protests of OWS with hundreds of cops in full riot gear with tear gas, and pepper spraying people that are just sitting, and having entire buses ready to haul people off to jail, etc, you are going to escalate the situation.

If people actually break the law, those people should be arrested. Using anecdotal application is the oldest play in the book to shut protests down. Look at the civil rights movement, most people just wanted to make a statement, of course some people are going to be angry and disruptive. The same thing happened there, the local governments used the few that bit back as a catalyst to undermine things. If this kind of thing is supported, then every single attempt at peaceful revolution will escalate into violent revolution because the government is not honoring the first and most basic constitutional right to assemble, giving those trying to be heard no other option.

The Teabaggers screwed around with the debt ceiling, lowering the nation's credit rating and threatening a default that would have crashed the global economy. OWS has had some anarchists and asses commit crimes at camps. The Teabaggers have pushed for killing worker benefits and protections, killing living wages, killing regulations that save lives, and have pushed for deep cuts in programs that feed the hungry, keep poor people in cold climates from freezing in their homes, and provide medical care that saves lives.

Yeah, I know which one is trashing a park, and which one is trashing the country.

You're such a closet authoritarian that it's gone beyond pathetic.

Which is why only 11% of people support the Teabaggers.

Right-wing retards aren't just defending Mother Corporation for the sake of their jobs. They are actually angry at OWS people for having the audacity to speak out against corporate influence on government. Right-wingers in the 99% took their assigned beating by the 1%, watched their purchasing power slip away, had their pensions stolen and their lives ruined, all because they figured that was simply the way it was. They frame it in their own minds as "paying their dues" - they've been beaten, broken, and reset, and they're proud of the damage they've managed to endure.

Now these young punks are speaking out about how wrong that all is, and it makes them look like suckers for having gone along with it. Suddenly they find themselves in a position where they either have to admit they've been duped this entire time, or they have to double down and ferociously defend the system that's been stealing from them. In a way, OWS threatens their position by re-framing their "bootstrappy success" as corporate serfdom. And guess what? They're doing the latter, because they're still idiots.

"Some people at OWS rocked the boat, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

And Nobody Cares (About You)

2011-12-04T12:45:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Recently, I got to thinking about Occupy Wall Street and, after a little digging,

"Digging"?

I found out just how many members of the wealthiest 1% are bankrolling and/or supporting it. I mean, when one of your biggest supporters is Yoko Ono (net worth $500 million), it's hard to reconcile that with the image of OWS being "average Americans fed up with Wall Street" they're trying to portray.

Instead, I feel OWS is the very definition of what former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said was "Astroturf." Thus, the group isn't occupying Wall Street; they're Astroturfing Wall Street.

Nice try! Too bad supporting something doesn't mean "pumping money into it." What exactly are they "bankrolling", Lindaman?

Anyways, they're not astroturfed.

So, in that vein, I will be using AWS instead of OWS going forward. And let me tell you, they've earned that name.

Because Lindaman says so! Because he's butthurt and bitter. lol I love it!

We'll see how many people care about your little stolen lying "rebranding." I'm giving your readers a few weeks to show their support of it before I post again. Maybe this will take on the internets by storm, just like OWS did! Let's hope it doesn't crash and burn like your "faux liberal" and "crap and spayed" soundbites did.

Well, weeks have passed. Now, weeks after his post:

"Yoko Ono likes OWS, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Moore Lies! (Dot Com?)

2011-12-04T12:41:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Michael Moore calling someone else a liar...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/04/michael-moore-calls-cbs-reporter-punk-and-liar-asking-about-his-milli

Wait. Didn't Moore recently say he was one of the 1% after denying it? Why, yes he did!

And apparently Moore's estimated net worth is $50 million.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/directors/michael-moore-net-worth/

Moore freely admits that he does very well financially. Moore said "I don't have fifty million dollars!" Just because a link says he "apparently" has fifty million dollars, doesn't mean he has fifty million dollars. That doesn't mean he's hiding the fact that he's wealthy.

Mikey, let me suggest you follow your own advice and stop lying.

Moore has already dealt with this issue. Since right-wingers can't read links, I'll just post the whole damn thing here:

Life Among The 1%

Friends,

Twenty-two years ago this coming Tuesday, I stood with a group of factory workers, students and the unemployed in the middle of the downtown of my birthplace, Flint, Michigan, to announce that the Hollywood studio, Warner Bros., had purchased the world rights to distribute my first movie, 'Roger & Me.' A reporter asked me, "How much did you sell it for?"

"Three million dollars!" I proudly exclaimed. A cheer went up from the union guys surrounding me. It was absolutely unheard of for one of us in the working class of Flint (or anywhere) to receive such a sum of money unless one of us had either robbed a bank or, by luck, won the Michigan lottery. On that sunny November day in 1989, it was like I had won the lottery -- and the people I had lived and struggled with in Michigan were thrilled with my success. It was like, one of us had made it, one of us finally had good fortune smile upon us. The day was filled with high-fives and "Way-ta-go Mike!"s. When you are from the working class you root for each other, and when one of you does well, the others are beaming with pride -- not just for that one person's success, but for the fact that the team had somehow won, beating the system that was brutal and unforgiving and which ran a game that was rigged against us. We knew the rules, and those rules said that we factory town rats do not get to make movies or be on TV talk shows or have our voice heard on any national stage. We were to shut up, keep our heads down, and get back to work. If by some miracle one of us escaped and commandeered a mass audience and some loot to boot -- well, holy mother of God, watch out! A bully pulpit and enough cash to raise a ruckus -- that was an incendiary combination, and it only spelled trouble for those at the top.

Until that point I had been barely getting by on unemployment, collecting $98 a week. Welfare. The dole. My car had died back in April so I had gone seven months with no vehicle. Friends would take me out to dinner, always coming up with an excuse to celebrate or commemorate something and then picking up the check so I would not have to feel the shame of not being able to afford it.

And now, all of a sudden, I had three million bucks! What would I do with it? There were men in suits making many suggestions to me, and I could see how those without a strong moral sense of social responsibility could be easily lead down the "ME" path and quickly forget about the "WE."

So I made some easy decisions back in 1989:

1. I would first pay all my taxes. I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.

2. Of the remaining $2 million, I decided to divide it up the way I once heard the folksinger/activist Harry Chapin tell me how he lived: "One for me, one for the other guy." So I took half the money -- $1 million -- and established a foundation to give it all away.

3. The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.

4. What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account. I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn't understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system I did not agree with).

5. Finally, I believed the concept of making money off your money had created a greedy, lazy class who didn't produce any product, just misery and fear among the populace. They invented ways to buy out companies and then shut them down. They dreamed up schemes to play with people's pension funds as if it were their own money. They demanded companies keep posting record profits (which was accomplished by firing thousands and eliminating health benefits for those who remained). I made the decision that if I was going to earn a living, it would be done from my own sweat and ideas and creativity. I would produce something tangible, something others could own or be entertained by or learn from. My work would create employment for others, good employment with middle class wages and full health benefits.

I went on to make more movies, produce TV series and write books. I never started a project with the thought, "I wonder how much money I can make at this?" And by never letting money be the motivating force for anything, I simply did exactly what I wanted to do. That attitude kept the work honest and unflinching -- and that, in turn I believe, resulted in millions of people buying tickets to these films, tuning in to my TV shows, and buying my books.

Which is exactly what has driven the Right crazy when it comes to me. How did someone from the left get such a wide mainstream audience?! This just isn't supposed to happen (Noam Chomsky, sadly, will not be booked on The View today, and Howard Zinn, shockingly, didn't make the New York Times bestseller list until after he died). That's how the media machine is rigged -- you are not supposed to hear from those who would completely change the system to something much better. Only wimpy liberals who urge caution and compromise and mild reforms get to have their say on the op-ed pages or Sunday morning chat shows.

Somehow, I found a crack through the wall and made it through. I feel very blessed that I have this life -- and I take none of it for granted. I believe in the lessons I was taught back in Catholic school -- that if you end up doing well, you have an even greater responsibility to those who don't fare the same. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." Kinda commie, I know, but the idea was that the human family was supposed to divide up the earth's riches in a fair manner so that all of God's children would have a life with less suffering.

I do very well -- and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drives conservatives bonkers. "You're rich because of capitalism!" they scream at me. Um, no. Didn't you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. Some years I earn a boatload of cash. Other years, like last year, I don't have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less. "How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!" It's like asking: "You've never had sex with another man -- how can you be for gay marriage?!" I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: "Hey! You're not black! You're not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!"). It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. "Kanye West makes millions! What's he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!" Exactly -- he's down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Back on that November day in 1989 when I sold my first film, a good friend of mine said this to me: "They have made a huge mistake giving someone like you a big check. This will make you a very dangerous man. And it proves that old saying right: 'The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself with if he thinks he can make a buck off it.'"

Yours,

Michael Moore

That's one posting we'll never see rebutted.

Lindaman's digging up Moore because OWS doesn't have a leader. Since he can't find a leader, he has to arbitrarily assign them in his own deluded mind.

Moore wants people of his own financial standing to contribute more to tax revenues, just like the others.

If you actually listen to what the OWS movement is saying you would hear the vast majority of its supporters essentially protesting economic injustice. People will say a lot of things when they're angry, but the topic of greed on wall street is as intrinsic to the OWS movement as chromosomes are to gender. That's why it's called OCCUPY WALL STREET! It's just bloody obvious the implications being made. And only do I hear OWS dissenters infer such shallow assertions as "OWC protests against the 1%". Which I can only guess is a misinterpretation of the "we are the 99%" slogan.

But anyway, you can agree with what the OWS is saying without selling off all your worldly possessions. OWS isn't just complaining about the rich. If you think that, you miss the point entirely (and are likely Republican). It's about actions.

Remember, folks, right-winger mental illness: You can't support OWS unless you give up all your money, but you can't give money to OWS because then it's astroturfed. You can't support OWS if you are rich, because then you're the 1% and thus a hypocrite. But you can't support OWS if you are poor, because you're a socialist hippie facist nazi anarchist that doesn't have a job and won't fill out fake applications. But you also can't support OWS if you're working, because then you're part of capitalism or something.

You're trying to imply Moore hides the fact that he's rich. He doesn't. He never has. The fact that Moore told a reporter that the reporter was lying about Moore having fifty million dollars is irrelevant. You're just mad that he sticks up for the working class in spite of his wealth.

"Moore makes money, and he spoke at OWS, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

"Anarchists, Protesters... What's The Difference?"

2011-12-04T12:37:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

It Depends on What Your Definition of "Peaceful" Is...

Bill Clinton is still better than anything you Republicans created since Eisenhower. lol

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/03/occupy-oakland-turns-violent-overnight/

Glenn who?

After weeks of the media portraying Occupy Wall Street as a peaceful group, with the advent of thefts, sexual assaults, and now rioting, that line may not be as easy to buy anymore.

And it's showing in public opinion. Recently, polling data showed 37% of Americans surveyed supported OWS. Within the past couple of days, that number has dropped to 30%.

Depends on the poll, doesn't it? Here's a more recent poll that has different numbers.

"This poll of OWS is different than that poll, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Might that have something to do with the Guy Fawkes mask being ripped off OWS to expose a group who is not above violence to make their points known? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

How did you know they were Guy Fawkes masks? Wow, you actually watched "V for Vendetta"? Usually you recommend shitty movies like "The Goods".

(Want to bet he didn't know what the masks were until he read about it on a right-wing website?)

If they were wearing masks, they were not OWS, they were Black Bloc Anarchists. When Occupy Oakland closed the port, they did so peacefully and then peacefully went home. Then the anarchists came out at 2am and did their violence, and of course the media conflated them with Occupy Oakland.

You may have been able to figure that out, but that would've required you to actually watch "V for Vendetta".

But you didn't, so you claim it was the protesters themselves. After all, Glenn Beck said so. Since Beck personally checked their OWS memberships cards. lol

"Anarchists did violence after the fact, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Even so, the media will be out front acting like Kevin Bacon from "Animal House."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Ah, yes. Pretend the media blackout didn't happen.

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

"How dare they kick out a perv!"

2011-12-04T12:33:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/31/sexual-assault-victims-silenced-on-wall-street/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/01/what-do-they-have-more-of-at-occupy-wall-street-protesters-or-perverts/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/02/shocker-public-safety-a-very-big-concern-at-occupy-protests/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/31/occupy-wall-street-urges-rape-cases-to-be-handled-internally/

Because as we all know, Leftists chanting at sexual predators makes them change their ways...

Glenn who? Wasn't he that morning DJ that got his show canceled? Isn't that cute, trying to keep Beck relevant. lol

So, Glenn, how's Goldline doing? Hehe

Cops are directing the dregs they'd normally be rounding up and throwing in jail, to head down to the park and hang out with the protesters. These dregs are committing crimes against the protesters. The cops are letting it happen. So, if the cops aren't going to do anything about it, the protestors will.

What do you expect? For a moment consider that you've become sociopath enough that rape sounds like an idea you want to pursue. Where do you go? I think the choice here is pretty clear. The police designed a perfect situation for these types of criminals to have a better hunting ground with less repercussions than they normally would face... why wouldn't they head on over to give their luck a try?

When you remove deterrence for an action in one location, you'll get more of that action in that location. It's like seeing all the smokers in the "smoking areas" because that's the one place they don't get in trouble; you've made a "rape area"... what did you think would happen?

There's only one goal as far as these stories go: Right-wingers repeat these stories in the hopes that their base of stupid people will have foggy memories and think it's the protesters themselves that are rapists.

At least they did something through actions. Unlike Teabaggers that only make half-assed vague threats about carrying guns. All talk, no action with the conviction of a wet noodle.

"OWS protesters kicked out a perv, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

"You can go home now. Please?"

2011-12-04T12:29:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-occupy-d-c-protesters-brush-off-job-applications/

They complain about the lack of jobs...but don't act on actual job applications?

The majority of them DO have jobs.

"They introduced themselves as 'headhunters' and when I asked them what jobs other than the ones on the table they had to offer, they blew me off and couldn’t answer any basic questions. It was obvious to everyone in the square that they were phony."

They knew they were phonies. They aren't gullible like you right-wingers (that believe in ghosts). When a protest like this is going on, and some anonymous people set up a table offering job applications, you really think people are going to fall for it? Even if the applications were real, would you trust those guys?

"Some protesters didn't fall for a phony table, therefore America having a third world income disparity is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Project Much?

2011-12-04T12:25:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman desperately tries (via repetition) to label Occupy Wall Street as being "astroturfed."

How OWS started is not in any way a secret - here's it straight from the original website for the movement:

http://occupywallst.org/article/who_we_are/

Someone had to start it, and yeah, it's good to know who did and why. There is a world of difference, however, between merely providing the initial spark, and actually leading the thing, which they very much do not. They aren't "organizing" it, but yes, it was their idea. Others just picked up and ran with it. More power to Adbusters, for being part of spurring an actual movement that's taken off.

But no, according to Lindaman, it's a shadowy organization, led by George Soros, and unions, and Michael Moore, and... Yoko Ono.

Soros constructed a master plan... to camp out in public parks. Brilliant!

Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence of Soros's intervening, other than a minimally supportive statement. People aren't being bused in (remember the "Tea Party Express" buses?), the signs are homemade (the Teabaggers are just pissed because the majority of the OWS signs are spelled correctly). Sure, union members will be there. OWS cares about workers, unions care about workers. Common goals. Less than 14% of the American work force is unionized, but for some reason, this minority is the cause of ALL of America's problems according to the insane right-wingers.

Does it even make any sense? These people are simply walking around with homemade signs. What exactly could be funded? There is no food provided, stages, bathrooms... There don't even appear to be flyers. All it took was the internet and the will to stand up. Are they saying rich leftists funded the Facebook and YouTube videos?

Here's more on OWS's actual origins:

http://www.kold.com/story/15712989/kalle-lasn-the-brains-behind-occupy-wall-street

If the OWS protests had a small set of easily identified leaders, then they'd be vulnerable. Various corporate research teams could dig up their backgrounds, they could examine their finances, look for skeletons in their closet. they could tag, track and number the opposition and then shelve them away in a neatly labeled niche on a wall somewhere. But this movement doesn't have that sort of weakness. It's peer to peer... no single leader, but a bunch of nodes all moving in more or less the same direction.

This is exactly what's driving the GOP and corporate controlled news folks nuts. They can't find a target.

Right-wingers like Lindaman are driven to find 'the leader' and destroy him/her. When they can't find a leader, and instead find several hundred peer to peer protest nodes...well, their entire strategy falls apart.

First thing the authoritarians and fascists will do is look for the leaders to take out, one way or another. No leaders, no targets. This drives the financial-government complex just nuts. And the corporate media, well, they are left chasing their tails. Thus, the media blackout.

So while the corporate press and people like Lindaman are running around trying to find 'the leader', the movement goes on to build contacts, teach people what's going on in this country, and generally rile people up against the wall street and it's allies.

Lindaman and other right-wingers are livid at what OWS is accomplishing, and are trying valiantly to deny any of the claims they're making about how our society is organized. The simple fact that they're responding to claims about how power is filtering upward, along with money, is evidence that they're losing.

The leadership is clearly pretty diffuse; from the start, this was the central point of criticism toward OWS! Now it's orchestrated by a shadow council of OWS Elders? Gimme a break.

Lindaman, since you just keep flailing around, yelling at every supposed "leftist" boogeyman that dares to give vocal support to OWS, it's a little hard to take anything you've written seriously.

Why was it only a few weeks ago the OWS was a fractured group of various protest movements (which it is, at a very basic level) to being a unified arm of leftist millionaires and union thuggery and other such accusations?

Have you participated in the Occupy protests around you? If there were some sort of union control, or Soros control, or any other sort of centralized control the the OWS movement, why are the cultures so different from city to city? The unions and "the rich" aren't controlling the protests, and are barely even making a dent in the funding stream.

The Republicans do not care about reality, and they are all about controlling the narrative. They already hate the unions, so if they can link the unions to the Occupy movement as one and the same, then they hope naturally people will hate the Occupy movement. The unions are not thugs. And it is not a failure to attain an ally with political and workplace influence.

And even if, in some alternate reality,bazillionaires are contributing more to other parts of the movement, I fail to see how this is even remotely close to the degree of involvement that Fox News had with fomenting the Tea Party. Remember the FNC Tax Day Tea Parties, and again, the Express Buses?

So which major television network is pumping money into the occupations, organizing busloads of people to come join us, advertising OWS direct action times on TV, paying for big names to come and speak, etc etc? No answer? Didn't think so.

In the Tea Party protests, there were tons of people who get Medicare and SS who were saying that they wanted the government out of their lives (the same people that want the government in our bedrooms and in women's reproductive lives). They were complaining about high taxes, when taxes are at generational lows! And on the other hand, the OWS protests actually are reasonable. Teabaggers were protesting people getting healthcare and were suddenly concerned about spending (after Bush's term was up). Fox made the Teabaggers into a story. Without Fox they were nothing but confused old white racists, lining up to vote, once again, for Republicans, just to save millionaires some tax money. The Occupy movement has a point, whereas the Teabaggers never did. What's really funny about the Teabaggers, is that they were never like the Boston Tea Party... they are like the Loyalists, who want the power to stay with the elite.

It must really cheese off the right-wingers that the Teabaggers, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, is losing relevance to a real populist movement. Jealous much, Lindaman?

If you are looking for origin stories, buy some old comic books. Your projection of astroturfing just makes you laughable. So it's fortunate for you, that nobody's listening to you.

"Yoko Ono likes OWS, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

OWS Has Time Machines!

2011-12-04T12:20:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman comments on the Milk Street Cafe having to temporarily lay off employees, blaming the barricades that had to be set up due to the OWS protests. The barricades have since been moved.

There's a little more backstory to that Cafe, by the way. Hehe:

http://www.pxthis.com/2011/11/the-blabber-in-the-trenches-for-the-99-percent/

Regardless, yes, sometimes people are going to be interrupted. That's what happens at actual protests. Short term vs. Big Picture. Not that you would know anything about a real protest.

"These protesters cause barricades, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

He's Rich AND He Cares?? WTF?

2011-11-02T10:51:00.001-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Michael Moore once again shows his hypocrisy for being a capitalist while bashing the system.

A few days ago, Moore said this on CNN.

http://www.therightscoop.com/ows-spokesclown-michael-moore-we-will-replace-evil-capitalism-with-some-other-system-we-havent-thought-of-yet/

And then a few days later, Moore talked about Republicans...during a book signing where he was benefiting from the very system he bashed on CNN.

http://www.therightscoop.com/michael-moore-republicans-trying-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-liberal-america/

Apparently Moore wants to replace capitalism with...Moore capitalism.

Yet again, Lindaman: Why is someone who has issues with the modern day perversion of capitalism, not allowed to make money? Does a person complaining about a broken toilet seat, only have the right to shit his pants?

Moore stated:

"This movement -- this movement in the next year or two or few years is going to create a democratic economic system. That's the most important thing. Whatever we come up with, it has to have at its core the American people are going to be the ones controlling this economy.

We're going to have a say, a big say, the say, in how this economy is run. That say cannot happen by the people in the penthouse offices on Wall Street. That is over. That is over. We have declared it over. Now it's just a matter of time until we actually make this happen, when we bring democracy, true democracy to this country."

Moore wants everyone to benefit with a truly democratic economy. Not just himself. This flabbergasts you, because Republicans only think about themselves. They can't even conceive of a rich person actually giving a shit.

He wants a system where the top 1% isn't in control of politics and the economy. A democratic system. A system that can benefit others besides himself. That's the point you keep missing.

Guess what, Lindaman: There are people out there who make money, and have enough common sense to see the flaws in our modern capitalist system.

"I Am The Three Percent!" CHOKE

2011-11-02T10:42:00.001-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Remember when the Leftist doppelganger of yours truly got on my case for denying global warming because I didn't use "climate scientists" to back up my claims?

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-

And the headline?

GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT
Choke on it.

Okay, this is going to be fun! Let's break this into categories for my response. Point by point.

1. CHOKE!

First: In reference to Lindaman saying "Choke on it." Hey, Lindaman, remember the last time you said that? It was just a few hours after I said "Bite it" to you. Thus further showing your originality. But what's funniest, is that your "Choke on it" comment was in reference to a source that you were hoping would prove your claim that Media Matters isn't legit: Because Andy Martin, a proven Anti-Semite, tried and failed to sue Media Matters because they posted Anti-Semitic comments that Andy Martin clearly stated. I just find it amusing that you're using the term "Choke on it" again, after failing so HARD the last time you tried it. lol

But let's have some fun with the word "Choke." Do you know what a synonym of "Choke" is? Well, one of them is "Shut up." For the rest of this post, when I use the term "Choke," that synonym is what I will mean. So, keep that in mind. Just wanted to make that clear before you start dragging in dictionary links of "Choke" like you did for "Debunk" while having no idea what you were talking about.

Lindaman apparently has the memory of a deadhead and forgot why I took him to task so hard regarding climatologists. It's because he posted this on December 9th, 2009:

Lindaman blatantly lies here. Every single link he provided in the previous post he's referring to, didn't have a single goddamn climatologist as a source. Since I, as usual, have to do the research for Lindaman, I provided a list of every single source that Lindaman used. Not just in that previous post, but in every post he made regarding global climate change. Then I asked him point blank where the climatologists were that he claimed he was using.

Do you know what Lindaman said in response when this lie was pointed out to him? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Lindaman... choked.

And he will continue to choke on that fact. Lindaman will never admit that he blatantly lied (as usual).

2. Finding The Holy Grail

And since that time until just now, Lindaman still never provided a climatologist. Now, nearly two years later, Lindaman finally provides a climatologist after reading the link's headline on a freeper site. He clicked the link, then dragged it into his blog without even reading it. He put the headline in big capital letters, too. He must have peed his pants with joy, thinking he found the Holy Grail.

Lindaman, I have stated over and over again that 97% of working climatologists worldwide know manmade global climate change is a fact. That means... guess what? That 3% are skeptical. People with common sense and knowledge of math must know some skeptical climatologists exist. If you have been frantically searching for two years to find a real climatologist that's also a skeptic, all you had to do was ask me, and I would've been happy to provide a few to you. I know you hate doing research, and climatologist skeptics are as rare as black people at a Teabagger rally. That's why Republicans break out the champagne when they stumble across one. lol

Now, onto the article itself...

3. The Article

The headline in the article says "Global Warming Is Over, Says Expert."

But guess what? That's not what was actually said. The person the article is referring to, is Judith Curry.

Curry is referring to the review done by skeptic/physicist Richard Muller, who after creating BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) review, and partially funded by the right-wing Koch Brothers in an attempt to prove global warming is a sham... Muller almost exactly duplicated the consensus on climate change. In the process, Muller’s gone from a self-proclaimed climate skeptic... to a believer. He clearly stated, with no waffling, that "Global warming is real". More on the research can be found here.

So, did Judith Curry, who (very minimally) was a part of the review, actually say "Global Warming Is Over"?

NOPE.

(I can use big fonts, too!)

What she actually said was: “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped."

There's a big difference there, Lindaman. She's merely saying that Muller's study isn't good enough evidence. Which is fine! Do you know why it's fine, Lindaman? Because we don't need Muller's study. It merely confirms what we already know.

So, how does Curry herself feel about the link you provided? Well, she stated right there on her own blog that she was misrepresented on several quotes by the article's writer, David Rose.

This is no big surprise to the scientific community, as David Rose has a history of misquoting scientists.

I don't blame Curry one bit for asking people to be wary. The research is only for land temperature, and it's only for a ten year span. That's not enough to state something is a fact. As far as her personal feelings on the warming trend, she doesn't provide any scientific evidence to support her statements. Fortunately, others have. When Curry was provided with questions regarding this scientific evidence, she... choked. I guess the simple conspiracy got to her!

But don't despair, Lindaman. Maybe two years from now, you can provide another bombshell. Make it in an even bigger font, because maybe that will somehow overwrite the rest of the scientific community. hehe

Oh, by the way, if providing a climatologist is so important to you now, why don't you believe the other 97%? Could it just maybe be because the cranks fit your preconceived narrative, regardless of the actual science? lol

Note: Lindaman will still pretend he didn't lie in his post about providing climatologists as sources... he will continue to choke. Wait and (not) see.

Again? Really?

2011-11-01T12:09:00.001-04:00

Thomas Lindaman links to an article on a right-wing site, Newsbusters, concerning Michael Moore giving a pep talk at Occupy Portland.

The Newsbusters site lies and says Michael Moore said the person's suggestion was "a good idea." He didn't. He just repeated the person's question.

Oh noes! Moore is a hypocrite because he doesn't respond to a troller! Especially since he already responded to the same idiotic question a couple of days earlier:

"How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!" It's like asking: "You've never had sex with another man -- how can you be for gay marriage?!" I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: "Hey! You're not black! You're not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!"). It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. "Kanye West makes millions! What's he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!" Exactly -- he's down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Lindaman gives his post this headline: "This Is What A Hypocrite Looks Like!"

Hmmm... wait just a sec... here's a comment on the YouTube link (highlight is mine):

I knew it was too clever to be his own idea. Lindaman changed it a little to help disguise it. What Lindaman doesn't understand, though, is that "hypocrisy" works and "hypocrite" doesn't. Because "hypocrisy" rhymes with "democracy." Thus, by Lindaman's disguising of the copying, he ruined the humor. lol

Also, this isn't the first time Lindaman's tried this weak tactic concerning Moore. See here. He has to do it again?

For the full raw footage of the pep talk, you can see it here and here.

Lindaman, I know you're mad because the protesters didn't fold up after the first weekend and because the movement is global now. But really, this is the best you can do?

Some Have iPods, Too!

2011-10-26T03:51:00.003-04:00

...So they should all STFU!

Here's Some Towelies!

2011-10-23T12:42:00.000-04:00

According to Lindaman, the OWS protesters are dirty hippies! Let's take a look at some of them:

Fuck you, dirty hippie!

Worthless, pot-smoking hippie!

Go to hell, you fucking dope-smoking traitor!

Communist filthy Towelie!

What the fuck have these guys ever done for this country?

Hippies! Hippies! HIP-PIES!

What the fuck do THEY know?

OWS has NO IDEA what's going on!

NO IDEA AT ALL!

Worthless, dirty, jobless little shits, all of them! Including that 81 year old holocaust survivor!

Pssst... they tried that "dirty hippie" crap during Vietnam, and it didn't work then, either.

"No, YOU'RE a towel!"

2011-10-23T12:41:00.000-04:00

Finally, in his three part OWS special, Lindaman posts this picture.

Basically, after ranting about the rich elite being behind OWS... Lindaman is now saying that OWS are pot-smoking hippies that have no idea what's going on.

So, to sum up the right-wingers' claims: The protesters are trivial hippie peaceniks...that are dangerously violent. And they are anti-capitalist... backed by the rich elite. And they don't know what's going on... while being expertly coordinated by shadow organizations. Got it.

I thought Libertarians supported legalizing pot, Lindaman. You were a Libertarian once. Is that why you became an Independent (tm)?

OWS is not lacking a coherent message; instead, its message is multi-issued, politically complex, and systemic: economic inequality, layoffs, house foreclosures, bank bailouts, million dollar bonuses, overpriced health insurance, cuts to social welfare, the student loan industry, tax breaks for the rich, underfunded schools, etc. are all interconnected. None of these occur in a vacuum; instead, each contributes to and affects the others. One of the root causes of this system is the near total corporate dominance of the political system, media, education, prisons, you name it. Corporate dominance is not the only root cause of these interrelated issues, but it is a good place to start. Protesters are occupying Wall Street because it is the epicenter of corporate dominance and condenses all of these issues into one symbolic force.

A right-winger had to create a fake representative of OWS from scratch in order to make a strawman: Towelie.

The right-wingers created their own genuine representative of the Teabaggers: Joe The Plumber. The "leftists" didn't create Joe The Plumber.

Yet, Towelie still knows more about "what's going on" than Joe The Plumber.

I am amazed at the right-wingers that have no problem defending banks and corporations using federal money (AKA the money you pay in taxes) to make even more money off of you and the ridiculous excuse for right-wing public servants who allow it to happen.

Let's all laugh at the banks' white-knighters like Lindaman. Keep on kissing those asses, they'll still give you nothing.

This is why you, and the rest of the right-wing crowd will always lose. The only way to "beat" a mass protest is to open a dialogue with them. You have no interest in this, or you wouldn't be diverting to discussion about how some of them look like hippies.

We know exactly what's "going on." The fact that you don't, speaks volumes. You're the last person on planet earth to be talking about knowing what's going on in the world.

The plutocrats and oligarchs are FREAKING THE fuck OUT. And why? Because they're frightened.

OWS is about the 99% protesting against the prevalence of corporate influence over our country and our government and our legislation. It's about the 99% standing up and saying that those with the most money shouldn't have more of a say over government and legislation than the rest of us. Basically, it's a response to the redistribution of wealth from the middle and upper middle classes to the pockets of super elite class. Occupy Wall Street protesters are targeting financial institutions which are to blame for damaging the economy.

The problem we have in this country now are the excesses of corporations sucking the value out of the economy, for their own gain. The OWS supporters see this. Corporate interests supported and easily subverted the Teabagger movement, through Koch Bros. money and Fox News propaganda. They now are trying to smear OWS as "Dirty Hippies" when in fact the majority of OWS supporters are clearly in the Middle Class.

I love the right-wing attitude of "I have everything I have only because of me and no one else." Right. Your ability to make money has nothing to do with the infrastructure of the nation around you. Nothing to do with public education. Nothing to do with the national transportation system you, your business, or your customers use (either making you money directly or allowing them to make money to give to you). Nothing to do with public investments in R&D over the decades. Nothing to do with having a secure nation, secure nations to trade with, and secure global shipping lanes ensured by a military paid for with tax dollars. I could go on. Right-wingers, as usual, are ignorant beyond comprehension.

Unlike the teahadists, the OWS crowd have a legitimate gripe. They're not complaining about being "overtaxed" at a time when tax revenues are at 50 year lows; nor will they contradict themselves later by then claiming that "not enough" people are paying taxes. Most of the country is pissed at the Wall Street bankers. That's the difference between a true populist movement, and a fake one like the tea party, which was nothing more than a bunch of useful idiots that were backed by billionaires at the very start (ie astroturfed).

Its the Republicans who racked up most of that debt and gutted a great many programs and safeguards in favor of greedy and unscrupulous millionaires, and now they act like its everyone else's fault but theirs that things are the way they are.

They're angry at the assholes that busted the economy. If these banks were paragons of virtue, they'd have looked at their books and said to themselves "We should stop lending to people who can't afford these mortgages, they aren't paying", but they didn't. And they didn't because they had gamed the system.

What OWS stands for is taking corporate money out of politics, enacting strict regulations on the banks who crashed our economy and making their executives face trial for their crimes, and altering tax policy so that economic growth no longer accrues solely to the upper class. A solid viewpoint which most Americans could get behind - heck, it's already more popular than pretty much any national politician in this country.

It will still be difficult for OWS, as it doesn't have a PAC thanks to the lack of astroturf. If OWS has an impact, it will be in a positive one. Unlike the teabaggers, whose ideas were just to fuck the whole country in the eye socket and be a GOP mouthpiece.

The teabaggers are rallying against government spending for the needs of the people, especially disadvantaged people. OWS is protesting government spending for the rich profiteers.

The GOP types are shitting their pants in panic. They have all of their PAC sponsored trope seeders out on the internets trying to spawn negative memes and tropes about the OWS stuff. But the simple fact is, it's not working for them. Some 70% of American's view the OWS group favorably. And that scares the shit out of the authoritarian fascists.

And when you have people like Mark Cuban saying the same thing as a lot of the OWS people, that doesn't exactly make for an environment where Wall Street could just sit and wait. This isn't just some random guy, it's a guy who knows about being a CEO firsthand and no one can accuse him of being envious of someone else's money given he's a billionaire several times over himself.

Why do teatards like Lindaman oppose OWS? Because it won't get Republicans elected, that's why. That's *all* the Tea party types truly care about.

Banks gambled with money that was NOT theirs, and lost, and went down in flames and nearly took the economy, and country, with it. And when the government was nice enough to bail their asses out, they have the GALL to howl bloody murder at the very idea of being regulated? No, fuck you guys. You drove drunk and you need your keys taken away. For good.

No one from the banking crisis of 2008 was held responsible or saw any jail time.

The poor are getting poorer. Unemployment continues to be sky-high. But the major corporations are still reporting massive gains. The CEOs continue to be overpaid. In the meantime, people have to work several jobs to support their families. If they can find several jobs to work. Some people can't even find one job. Government bails out these corporations but they're not 'bailing out' the people who are poor and suffering? The homeless? The people who get trapped under mountains of debt because they couldn't afford health insurance but got gravely ill and had to go to the hospital? It's not supposed to work like this. People are willing to work if you give them a decent job for decent pay and benefits. I'm not talking a cushy job, but just something dependable. But corporations across the board are decreasing benefits unless you're with a union.

Both unemployment and corporate profits being unreasonably high at the same time. The USA has a third-world income disparity rating. And right-wingers have no problem with that at all.

And finally, this is what REALLY pisses Lindaman off: The fact that the OWS and satellite protests have already gone on longer than any single Tea Party rally... and are much larger by a very, very long shot. Bwahahahaa!

The Republicans have nothing left but their messages that are designed to appeal to hicks. Don't worry, Conservatives. I'm sure one of your attempts at making OWS seem illegitimate will work, some day. Whatever you do, keep talking about it.

And we're laughing at you for having no real response to the points presented. You may want to live in a feudal hell hole, but the vast majority DO NOT.

We're witnessing history here. History for the better. And it delights me that you won't be a part of it.

But at least Lindaman didn't try to do a sloppy demotivational poster this time.

These Are RICH Dirty Hippies!

2011-10-23T12:38:00.003-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

When I'm Right... I'm right.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/top-ten-richest-celebrities-supporting-occupy-wall-street/

So, Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99%, but allows members of the 1% in their ranks without question?

And let's not forget there's another member of the 1% who has his fingerprints all over OWS: George Soros.

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

That's right, folks! George Soros's influence goes WORLDWIDE!

Here's what a billionaire funded protest looks like, folks:

All kidding aside, Soros ain't funding OWS. Nice try.

And how did each of these 1% members make their money? By being capitalists. But we can't pay attention to that little detail, can we?

Okay, Lindaman... what is the maximum dollar amount that they are allowed to make per year for them to care about this country, and their fellow people, and to think that the recipients of the bank bailouts engaged in criminal behavior and did massive damage to our country?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambitious people becoming very successful (ethically). There is nothing wrong with companies putting out a good product or service and becoming even more successful than they already are. Our country depends on excellence and should reward it whenever possible. The problem is that a tiny percentage of our population control nearly everything, and in doing so, artificially control access to government and to success itself.

According to right-wingers like Lindaman, these wealthy individuals that are contributing to OWS are hypocrites for supporting a more equitable tax burden on their income class, with a separation of power between the business class and government authority.

Conservatives have made an art out of convincing people to support causes that go against their own interests, and now they're pissed about this? Who's the hypocrites again?

I thought these were dirty, unemployed, pot-smoking hippies, Lindaman. Guess you guys had to change tactics when that didn't work.

On the one hand the right-wing media claims OWS is class warfare and demonizes the rich. Now they're saying there are rich folk involved as well, which would indicate it's a broad-based coalition of interests. So, which is it?

And all the complaints basically boil down to "these people are rich so the only reason they can possibly be supporting OWS is because they're hypocrites".

Which is a good summation to the mindset of the right. It just never even occurs to these idiots that some people may think that there are more important things in this world than a bank account.

Kinda like Teabaggers complaining about "big gubment" while decrying cuts in military spending, and supporting the government telling women what to do with their bodies, and supporting the government executing its own citizens, and supporting the government to shut down an islamic community center. In those cases, intrusive government works beautifully.

No, wait, the Teabagger hypocrisy actually is hypocrisy. Never mind.

Lindaman is just upset because in spite of supporters like the ones he listed, OWS actually IS a grass roots organization, unlike the Teabaggers.

Seriously, the Teabagger movement was literally created, run, and funded by guys like Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers and Fox News. And all we got out of your little day camps was a downgrade of our credit rating. And now you're going to argue that OWS isn't a "real" protest movement, because a month after it started, and a week after it began spreading all over the globe, more famous people got involved? Too little, too late. You Cons ought to have started your smear campaign on these guys weeks ago.

The Teabaggers are openly hostile to the working class and the poor. Thus, they aren't populists like OWS.

And now the Teabaggers have stepped up to defend the banks, Wall Street, and Government from the outrage of their fellow citizens. Honestly, was this any surprise?

Soros is SO POWERFUL!

2011-10-23T12:37:00.001-04:00

Hey, Lindaman! I thought OWS was just a one weekend thing, when nobody was there? How come they haven't gone home yet? The Teabaggers usually pack up and go home after an hour!

Look at how far that evil George Soros's tentacles have spread!

Times Square!

London!

Berlin!

Rome!

Sydney!

Madrid!

Paris!

Amsterdam!

Lisbon!

Stockholm!

Hamburg!

Tokyo!

Hong Kong!

Montreal!

Spain! Which is where it all began! Apparently Soros started in Spain?

Washington DC!

George Soros is EVERYWHERE! EVERYWHERE! GOD HELP US ALL!

But... but... they're just hippies! All over the entire world! Hippies, all of them!

They were supposed to leave! What about the poor persecuted bankers?

Yeah, remember how the TEA Party rallies spread all over the world? Oh, that's right. They didn't. I guess you teabaggers should've recruited Soros, since he apparently paid all these people around the world. Bwahahahaa!!

Right-Wingers: 100% Lying

2011-10-23T12:36:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Okay, it's time to clear the air about the Occupy Wall Street slogan "We are the 99%." They're not. Oh, they claim they do, but let's take a look at this logically.

First, let's take a look at the 99% portion of the equation. I'm certainly not rich, so I would fall into the 99% the Occupy Wall Street Leftists talk about. Yet, I certainly don't agree with their multitude of stances,

It doesn't matter if you agree with their stances or not. You're one of the 99%. You're trying to move the goalposts.

ranging from free college

"Free college" is not an official OWS stance. Lindaman probably got that nonsense from right-wing sites like Fox News, who copy-and-pasted from an open post on OWS's forum. The forum clearly states the following:

"Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands."

Regardless, Lindaman doesn't say why free college is bad, of course. That "free market college" degree in journalism sure helped you get your successful career, didn't it? So what if it was an entry level mortgage lending job (which doesn't require a degree)? lol

It's rather odd how many Americans think putting people into debt for getting an education is a good thing. It's really a purely American thing. Education should never be profit-related.

to more regulation of Wall Street, an entity that is already regulated heavily.

It's not so much that markets are not regulated enough, but rather that they're not regulated properly.

Lack of proper regulation allowed your mortgages to get bundled with other poor securities and sold to the highest bidder. It's because of lack of proper regulation that speculators are playing around with things like derivatives.

Plus, I think some of their ideas are utterly ridiculous and unrealistic.

What ideas? Again, Lindaman doesn't seem to understand, there's not an official list of demands.

You must be living in a dream world if you think that's the core of what they want. Between finance, jobs, education, medicine and taxation, not to mention trade and manufacturing, there's more broken than there is functioning. The military, the legal system, the prison system, the police, the supreme court, the politicians, immigration... the list goes on and on. There's a lot broken. Healthcare as well, which is why you're saying bullshit like "Well, Obama should make the healthcare issue with the Supreme Court be a tie instead of a win." Because you know the right decision on healthcare (which is REFORM) will win in the end. The protesters are just concentrating on the things that are broken the worst, the ones in the most imminent danger of crushing them underfoot, preventing them from making a decent living or preventing them from being able to get out of debt in their lifetime. They protest against the things that threaten our country's future and security.

You say that these people are out there for selfish reasons because that's the way you would think. Not everyone is like that. If you don't understand what they want by now, you never will. People have explained it over and over, and in detail. It's not for lack of trying to explain on their part. Your lack of understanding is on you. Either you don't want to hear it, or what's being said to you doesn't register anywhere in your brain.

The Occupy Wall Street types certainly don't speak for me now, and I doubt they'll ever speak for me in the future.

They aren't speaking for you, nor are they trying to. It doesn't matter. You're one of the 99%.

Now, let's look at the 1%. That 1% includes people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, people who tend to lean in the same direction as the Occupy Wall Street types. To hear the OWS people talk, the 1% is nothing but rich fat cats, but they don't seem to mind some of the rich fat cats.

Lindaman repeats this soundbite in his subsequent post, so I'll cover that in my next post as well.

Heck, most of them probably own some piece of technology or clothing made by a...capitalist! To put a finer point on it, every single one of those protesters who owns an iPhone, an iPod, or some other technological "must have" is a hypocrite of the highest order.

The iPad thing is a soundbite Lindaman and right-wingers are parroting (as usual). I think my favorite GOP talking point so far is that one: "OMG the protesters hate corporations but they use iPhones." Yes, because anyone who complains about how corporations operate must see all corporations as equally bad.

This just further demonstrates a severe lacking of fundamental understanding of what these protests are all about. This is the equivalent of arguing that libertarians are hypocrites if they drive on a road.

During the Civil Rights movement, white people invented the megaphones they used. So obviously those black people are hypocrites and need to shut up.

The right-wingers have a whole slew of fake rules for why you can't protest ("Wealthy celebrities can't advocate for the poor because they're wealthy! And the poor can't advocate for the poor, either, because they aren't working! And the working can't advocate for the poor, either, because they don't run businesses!") etc.

Right wingers actually believe this, folks. "If you buy from a cell phone company, you have no right to protest against the political power and influence unconstitutionally wielded by investment banks."

Somehow you think that being against Wall Street's manipulation of markets, fraudulent investment ratings and banks leveraging themselves is anti-capitalism. It isn't. It is against the perversion of capitalism. You do not understand the concepts of scale, nuance or depth of impact. Maybe that's why the OWS signs are actually spelled correctly, unlike the Teabagger signs.

And even if, in some parallel universe, this movement did have a beef with commercial products and the system in which they are produced, it's hardly hypocritical to use those products in the service of protests. Protest groups in the past who contended that laws were unjust were hardly hypocritical to use lawyers and seek legal reforms.

It's clear I'm not one of the 99% types. However, I am one of the 100%.

The 100% of people like me who think Occupy Wall Street is a massive joke.

Says the Birther and global climate change denier. Oh, by the way, have you heard the latest? They must be in on the simple conspiracy. lol

You are 100% of the world population, Lindaman... but only by sheer volume.

No Skills? Then STARVE!

2011-09-22T20:29:00.001-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

This past weekend was the “Day of Rage” where Leftists stormed Wall Street (when the very people they were protesting weren't there)

It's a multi-day, camp-out protest, and you knew that. Isn't that why people are still there? Isn't that why it's still going on?

That's actually one of the benefits of starting on Saturday. If you set up your tent on Saturday and they let you camp Saturday night, then Sunday night, but evict you Monday because it bothers some traders, you've got a media win if you spin it right.

Yet again, Lindaman lies by omission.

and talked about “economic justice.” Of course, when pressed on it, these same seemingly intelligent people couldn't describe what economic justice is.

That's because economic justice is a slogan, not an actual plan. From what I understand of it, it's where everybody would be at the same economic level. The rich would become poorer, the poor would become richer, and the middle class would become...well, more middle class.

Guess which group made up the majority of the fans of economic justice during the “Day of Rage.”

You may have noticed this, but people have different abilities and skills. Naturally, that will make them better suited for certain tasks, which can put them in great demand. By the same token, they may have shortcomings where their skills wouldn't be desirable. You may want to pay an NBA superstar millions to dunk a basketball, but you wouldn't pay him to perform brain surgery. (Not to mention, the NBA star-come-brain surgeon might try to slam dunk a patient's brain back into the skull, which opens up a LOT of malpractice suits.)

Funny, you have no problem forming your opinion on man made global warming from statisticians and economists instead of fucking climatologists.

But then, I'm dealing with a right-wing blogger that uses confirmation bias from places like The Samuel Adams Committee, who spews proven bullshit like Margaret Sanger being a racist. Bullshit like the right-wing whisper campaign stating she was for black extermination. Never mind that she was against false rumors of black extermination. Again: MLK supported Sanger and that holds more water than freepers with an agenda. The Samuel Adams Committee obviously thinks MLK was some dumb negro that got duped all that time.

What I'm saying in short is people are different and, thus, their ability to make money will also be different. When there are differences, equality can only come from two sources: by agreement, or by force. The former requires all parties to agree to an outcome. The latter requires at least one party to agree to an outcome and the subjugation of those who disagree. Right now, those who push for economic justice are trying to persuade. When that fails, and we know it will, it will require force to create a system of equality.

Of course, that's already been tried. Remember the former Soviet Union? Yeah, that didn't work out too well.

The Soviet Union learned the hard way the problems with forcing economic justice. The people involved with the “Day of Rage” on Wall Street haven't.

Maybe opinions from teabagger right-wingers could be taken seriously if you weren't saying sick leave is an entitlement. And cheering letting the uninsured die.

These events bring people together even if they don't produce direct results.

They bolster the feeling of community and show people that are working towards a similar cause that they are not alone.

Also, you guys let Occam run all over you instead of challenging the basic underpinnings of a system that is working against the benefit of the majority over the minority. I believe the phrase at Nuremberg was, "The banality of evil." Everyone can't be an engineer or a CEO, there is a spectrum to human intelligence and all people should be taken care of in a first world society. Both for the benefit of the poor in the short run and the rich in the long run.

Business is supposed to be a tool that is used to benefit all the citizens of a country. Instead, it has become a way to funnel capital to a scarce few who tilt a corrupt political system in their favor to prevent themselves from being held accountable or even regulated to any significant degree. And it's kind of hard to get the needed skills if you're in a class of people that lack the ability to get the proper education (which isn't a problem in other civilized countries).

When there is no real left in the political discourse, don't be surprised when they turn to protests, and in fact it is a necessary function of political discourse. If you can continually exploit a group of people and have no fear of retaliation then what reason, other than your "good will", would you ever have for listening to the poor's voice?

The poor are the people who suffer the consequences of your ability to construct increasingly complicated financial schemes to enrich yourselves and avoid oversight.

If it's "every man for himself" then we don't even have the most basic underpinnings of a society, and you deserve everything you have coming to you. Someday the resistance won't just be protesting. Hint: It won't be so peaceful.

More Sky Fairy Nonsense

2011-09-22T20:27:00.001-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

This week, Palestine will be seeking official recognition from the United Nations as a state. On both sides of the debate, passions run hot. On the Left, we have people screaming about how Israel has oppressed the Palestinians, stolen their land, and committed all sorts of war crimes against them. On the Right, we have people screaming about Israel being attacked repeatedly by Palestinian terrorists with no regard for peace whatsoever.

Let me say for the sake of absolute clarity that I stand with Israel. For some, that will disqualify and discredit everything else I will say in this blog piece. For others, I will be speaking the gospel truth. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, I ask for your indulgence as I express my thoughts on Palestinian statehood.

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. Give the Palestinians (who have had as rough a go of it in some cases as Israel has as far as acceptance by other countries) a place to call their own, and let them stand or fall on their merits. Not as bad as it sounds, is it? For any Palestinian who wants statehood for the sake of finally having a country to call home, I say we roll out the welcome mat and allow them to join the UN as a state.

Where things get messy is when you consider other Palestinians who have ulterior motives. Let's not forget Palestinian terrorists have been launching missiles into Israel and then hiding behind women and children as human shields. These are not the types of people we would want as neighbors, right? Yet, these are a sizable portion of Israel's neighbors right now. Giving this group of Palestinians statehood is legitimizing their activities while giving them a base of operations by which to attack Israel and its allies.

So, which Palestine is pushing for statehood from the UN? We don't know. What we do know is the UN's long history of being anti-Israel, as well as the number of UN countries who would relish yet another ally in their rhetorical (and, in some cases, actual) battle against Israel. The United States has typically had Israel's back, but in recent years it's becoming more evident we're moving in a new direction, one that would leave Israel all but friendless in the world.

Because there is so much uncertainty on the part of the Palestinians, I cannot in good conscience say Palestinian statehood is a step in the right direction. It may be someday, but only once the Palestinians who want statehood for the sake of identity and not terrorism stand up and take control of their situation. As it stands, I just don't see it yet, and time is running short.

Given the Obama Administration's worldview, I feel their support of a Palestinian state being created is all but certain. They may not be able to say it in full yet, but their actions betray their true feelings on the matter. I wish I could say the Administration has given careful consideration to the implications of what I believe they are about to do, but I can't. Their support of the "Arab Spring" where more radical elements of Islam have overrun radical, yet manageable, leaders leaves me with little hope, but a full knowledge change is inevitable.

If Palestinian statehood is recognized, it's a door that can't be closed without a lot of effort and courage. With so many questions as to the heart of those pushing for statehood, I'm not sure we should be in a rush to open the door just yet.

Yet, America's hand is on the doorknob and just about ready to turn.

That is the problem with this situation; everyone involved is a douchebag, and all of them have blood on their hands. Things would go a lot better if the typical response is to stop white-knighting Israel like they are some sort innocent lamb. They're assholes. The Palestinians are assholes. Once we all can agree on that, then the whole process might go somewhere.

The Palestinians have recognized Israel ever since the reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas.

You idiots had years to come up with something, yet you petulant little charlatans couldn't come up with shit. A GOP president cannot produce a more desirable result for Israel. US is a great friend of Israel but it is losing its currency in middle east and elsewhere. Gone are the days when US and the West can dictate terms anywhere. We've moved from bipolar to unipolar and we're in a truly multipolar world right now. Israel needs to make new friends and Palestinians should figure on the top of their list.

What the UN should do is lock these two miscreants in a room and within 24 hrs come up with a solution. If they do not, then impose crippling sanctions, remove all international agencies from the area, and let them live in isolation as we do to North Korea.

Stop rewarding these hooligans. It is time to realize these two entities are attention whoring in the international community. They are not equipped to be civilized, their cultures for centuries have proved it. We are rewarding these clowns. The rest of humanity doesn't need to be dragged down just because they can't find an end to their thousands-of-years-old hissy fit.

Israel will be the new North Korea, a bunch of hopelessly isolated kooky zealots with nukes. Maybe without nukes, the Palestinians wouldn't have to resort to things like human shields.

It's hard to stick up for Israel when right-wing sacks of shit attempt to smear others as bigots without any evidence to back up that position and then hide behind the deaths of 6 million innocent souls to justify their abhorrent, sociopathic behaviour.

Yet again, it's because right-wingers want the Apocalypse. Including the main GOP contender.

All of you... stop believing in sky fairies!

GOP: Dammit, America Won Again...

2011-09-22T20:25:00.000-04:00

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.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/

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.

WHY Vote Republican?

2011-09-22T20:19:00.000-04:00

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.

Winners

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.

Losers

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?

GOP: We Lost Two Seats! We Win!

2011-09-22T20:16:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman cries victory in Wisconsin!

This is what democracy looks like...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576500752268924810.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/10/democrats_fall_short_in_wisconsin_recall_effort_110887.html

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

GOP: Ceiling? Let The Whole Building Collapse!

2011-09-22T20:13:00.000-04:00

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:
http://people-press.org/2011/08/09/views-of-tea-party-supporters-in-congress-grow-more-negative/

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.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/economy-and-business/Standard--Poors-Says-5-Pillars-Was-Basis-for-New-US-Credit-Rating--127244253.html

"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.

Self-Created Crisis

2011-09-22T20:09:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The current debt crisis is a target-rich environment, so here we go...

Games People Play The Obama Administration and its supporters have accused Republicans of not dealing in good faith, and if you've listened to the media coverage, you might agree. However, it should be pointed out it's been the Left's position we need tax hikes, even after Republicans have said they wouldn't accept a plan that would include tax hikes. How exactly is that showing a willingness to negotiate?

Uh... yes... REPUBLICANS, how exactly is that showing a willingness to negotiate? The GOP has made it abundantly clear they have no interest in compromise. Again, they have no intention of giving the President anything no matter what Obama agrees to. The GOP are a bunch of petulant children in desperate need of a swift kick in the ass.

Obama, the Adult? The Left has praised Obama's efforts to date to try to hammer out a budget deal. Whether it was Nancy Pelosi gushing that the President "has the patience of Job" to Leftists saying Obama was "the only adult in the room" at the negotiations, the narrative is being written and repeated without question. The problem: Obama stormed out of one of the meetings. Democrats are quick to point out Paul Ryan did the same thing earlier, but it's different when you're the President. The expectations are a lot higher, and after the image of Obama being cool and intellectual has been touted for going on 3 years, this show of emotion doesn't help his cause any. Personally, I think Obama has been less than adult and less than statesman in his approach, which the Left has seen and is trying to overcome with spin.

"YOU LIE!"

The "storming out" was pure GOP spin. Cantor rudely interrupted the President three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the President was wrapping the meeting. You don't constantly interrupt anyone, let alone the President of the United States, in the middle of a negotiation and expect them to continue dealing with you. Cantor's a douchebag who needs to learn some farking manners.This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.

Why does anyone ever vote Republican? Seriously. All I've seen for years out of them is this kind of behavior, immediately lied about and spun to look like "stick-to-it-ive-ness" and standing fast. And right-wing idiots eat that shit up.

The meeting was over. Cantor kept nagging the President about a deal that had already been dismissed as unacceptable. "Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence," said an official in the meeting. "It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide."

Cantor has no respect for the office and needs to be smacked down hard. He's just a legacy Republican whose daddy's connections got him where he is, and Obama shouldn't, and probably doesn't, have any respect for him either. I'd pick Obama in any kind of fight.

That the right-wing shills are admonishing this when they were cheering when Cantor actually did walk out in the middle of the meetings because "the other side doesn't understand compromise" is just too goddamn much cognitive dissonance.

Lies, Damnable Lies, and Statistics At a press conference yesterday, President Obama said 80% of Americans want a balanced approach to dealing with the budget issues, which includes (according to him) modest tax increases. I beg to differ, sir. I think raising taxes is a horrible way to bring in revenue since it takes more money out of the economy and puts it into an entity that has no concept of how to make money or grow the economy. Anyone else see that as a problem? Raising taxes won't raise revenue, nor will it address the primary cause of the budget crisis: spending. Let's ask these same people if they would prefer significant budget cuts or higher taxes and see how many support you, Mr. President.

Meanwhile... in America:

By 45 - 38% they trust the President more than congressional Republicans to handle the economy, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters will blame Republicans over Obama 48 - 34% if the debt limit is not raised.

Voters say 67 - 25% that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts.

"The American people aren't very happy about their leaders, but President Barack Obama is viewed as the best of the worst, especially when it comes to the economy," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.

"Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy, but by 2-1 they pin the blame on former President George W. Bush rather than Obama, who is now more than 60 percent through his term of office."

Let me repeat myself... I advised the GOP some months ago to consider making cuts in some of their pet projects as a means to show how serious they were about getting our fiscal house in order. They didn't take my advice, and now they're having to fight with the President over the budget while at the same time having to fight a PR war to try to persuade the country they're serious. Recent polling data shows the public trust Obama with the economy more than the Republicans. That could have and should have been been avoided by bringing more substance to their budget cuts.

McConnell said their only goal is to make Obama a one-term president... if they have to put more financial pain and misery on the poor and middle classes to do it, then so be it. Besides, when has the GOP ever given a toss about anyone except the wealthiest Americans? They like to blow a lot of smoke up their asses around election time, but they haven't done a damn thing to help the folks suffering in this economy. Not one... But holy shit, they will bend over backwards for corporations and billionaires... It's disgusting.

Scare tactics are only for Republicans? During a recent interview, President Obama suggested he couldn't guarantee seniors would get their Social Security checks if the government were to shut down. Actually, sir, you don't make that call. It's Congress who does, and from the way it sounds, we have enough coming in on a monthly basis to pay Social Security and other interests and still have money left over, and that's without raising the debt ceiling. For you to resort to such blatant dishonesty is an indication you know you're losing the battle.

Sigh... "We may not have enough money to send out social security checks if Republicans won't compromise" is not the same as "I won't send out social security checks if Republicans don't give me exactly what I want."

No Quiet on the Leftist Front Finally, Sheila Jackson-Lee said racism was the cause of the current budget crisis. She blamed the Republicans for wanting the economy to fail because Obama is black. No, ma'am. Republicans aren't opposing the President because he's black. They're opposing the President to try to get this country back into the black.

Says the proven racist and the proven Birther.

In summary: The Republicans had no problem raising the debt ceiling... until Obama was elected.

Whiff!

2011-09-22T20:06:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Yeah, I know I've been slacking with the blogging recently, so to make up for it, here is concentrated bloggy goodness for you all.

[Snipped Budget Comments, as I cover this in the next entry]

Glenn Beck signs off his Fox News show. If you heard massive cheering from the Left this week, it came because they "succeeded" in getting Glenn Beck off the air. Media Matters even held a "going away" party for him. Of course, they don't quite tell the entire story, that being the real reason Beck left Fox News: to start his own network. No matter how much you try to push the line he was fired (which begs the question of why Fox News let him keep airing his show for weeks after he was fired), Beck moved on, but he's not going anywhere. Well, except to Israel in August, but that's beside the point. Celebrate while you can, Leftists. Beck will continue to be a thorn in your sides for a while yet.

You don't "quite tell the entire story" either. The "network" is an internet web channel.

Letting a canceled show finish up is nothing new. Do you really believe Beck quit the number one news channel in order to make what's basically a right-wing webcam show?

There's no need to lie about Beck. He'll probably make a nice profit from the show. But there's no doubt about it: Beck was fired.

Why Sarah Palin isn't announcing yet (if at all). Given the media coverage of the Republican candidates, any candidate with an R behind his or her name is going to be scrutinized heavily. Of course, this isn't a bad thing in my opinion, provided it's done a) evenly, and b) with the intent of finding out the truth, not trying to score petty
political points. So far, the media have failed miserably on both counts, in my opinion. Whether it was Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday asking Michelle Bachmann if she was a "flake"

That's a fair question, as it's something people wanted to know. Wallace shouldn't have apologized (something you didn't mention, BTW, as you love to lie through omission).

"Liberals just hate a strong, not very bright, batshit crazy woman!"

Yeah, she's only bought into the "vaccinations = super retard babies" mantra, which is not only flaky, it's insane.

Her own party is doing her in. The GOP has never supported Bachmann... in 2008 they even refused to support her in her congressional campaign (she won anyway).

to Jon Stewart's adoption of a stereotypical "black voice" to mock Herman Cain, the media have become modern day muckrakers stumping for the Left in varying degrees.

Oh, for god's sake... he doing an impression and sounded just like him. He does that with everybody:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsXHXIErHQ

Again, just like when you were bitching about another comedian (Bill Maher), why not ask what black people think?

Oh, because that doesn't fit your narrative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Y7w151MDk

Yet again, you have to resort to comedians.

I guess when you can't defend the guy you helped get elected President, you have to cut down the people who could oppose him.

Ah, yes, the big "liberal media" conspiracy got him elected. Before you said Obama was elected because he was black.

Oh, and "defend him" from what? You have to do something wrong first. That's why you have to trash him for idiotic things like paper clips. Oh noes! We must defend him! lol

The trial everybody should have paid attention to, but didn't. Geert Wilders was acquitted of hate crime charges stemming from statements he made about Islam. Why this is such an important case is because it reaffirms freedom of speech. Oddly enough, I didn't see too many Leftists taking up for Wilders during his case, but I did see more than a few conservatives, including my good friend Warchick, taking up for him. Makes you wonder who really supports free speech in the world, doesn't it?

Makes you wonder who the racist xenophobes are, doesn't it?

WARCHICK the right-wing tranny?

WARCHICK that proudly states he/she is a "Racist" and an "Oppressor of Brown people"?

Ah well, should be no surprise that he/she is your "friend". After all, you yourself have said you are who you hang out with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Political_principles

Wilders supports replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.

He wants to REPEAL EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.

Even the 14th Amendment revisionists (ie right-wingers) don't support that notion. At least, not out loud.

Wilders is not that hot about freedom of the press either.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/09/warmington-freedom-should-extend-to-canadians-too-geert

Mr. Wilders, if even the populist Canadian tabloids you presumably hoped would sing your praises say you went too far, they may have a point.

Funny how right-wingers defend free speech when it's a right-winger making (shocker!) hate speech against Muslims, but that's about it.

Just because "Leftists" think Wilders is a cocksucker, doesn't mean they don't support the right to free speech.

A Matter Of FACT

2011-09-22T20:03:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Fox News and Media Matters have been engaging in a war of words for the past few months. It started when Media Matters announced it was engaging in a "war against Fox News" to make them a more responsible source of information, according to them. Fox News has fired back, suggesting Media Matters lose its non-profit status because it has engaged in partisan activity, which is against current law.

Although it might be easy to assume which side I'm taking on this, let me clarify a couple of points. First, Fox News isn't exactly a source of good journalism. As a j-school graduate, I can tell when news and opinion get mixed, and Fox News does a lot of that. When it does straight news, it's solid. However, when opinion shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity" dominate the network's daily programming, it's blurring a line between news and opinion, one that I cannot condone. As to whether Fox News is biased, I have no doubt that it is. Having said that, I do think they're conscious of media bias and, for the most part, strive to eliminate it from their news programming. If Media Matters is truly interested in making Fox News stronger, I say bravo!

However, I don't think Media Matters is serious in its claim because it doesn't exactly hold itself to the standards to which it holds conservative media. What Media Matters often does is take a statement out of context, whip out a quick PR release bashing it, and let others run with the story as though it were true. A good case in point is an incident involving Glenn Beck. According to Media Matters, Beck called the victims of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags," which he did. However, there was an important qualifying statement that put Beck's comment into perspective. I know because I was listening to Beck that day and heard the entire comment where Beck admonished those who were looting and committing acts of violence as "scumbags." Yet, if you paid attention only to the Media Matters version of events, you wouldn't get that context. (And didn't the Left get upset at Andrew Breitbart for allegedly taking Shirley Sherrod out of context?)

The problem I have with Media Matters is the same problem I have with Fox News: being an honest dealer with information. Both entities stretch the truth, just in varying degrees. However, even a slight stretch of the truth from a media outlet can become the perceived truth if enough people believe it and don't bother looking for the truth. Having Media Matters call out Fox News for dishonesty is funny on one level, but necessary on another. We should be holding both Fox News and Media Matters to the same consistent standard: tell the truth.

Until either one can accomplish that on a consistent basis, let them try to knock each other out.

But Lindaman, you said for ages that Fox was totally unbiased! Why are you changing your opinion on this?

Breitbart didn't "allegedly" take Sherrod out of context. He blatantly DID, and Fox News Channel ran with it.

And as far as the Beck incident, Media Matters displays the ENTIRE CONTEXT, after Beck tried to back-pedal, Media Matters again shows the entire context in their RESPONSE. Show us where they did otherwise.

Did you plug up your ears the day you were listening to Beck?

But then, we're dealing with Lindaman, who gets their news from The Spin Cycle, which always puts "Kenyan" after Obama's name. Totally not a bunch of racists. Must be a bunch of honest unbiased people.

WeinerMonth Edition!

2011-09-22T20:00:00.005-04:00

Thomas Lindaman devotes a month to Weinergate. Here, Here, Here and Here. In a major update, I've merged all the responses together here.

And just how was the "liberal media", (which ballyhooed this "scandal" every single day), supposed to do more in their coverage? They spoke to Twitter, as well. The research DailyKos did was wrong. The only reason Breitbart broke the story instead of the mainstream media is because the screenshot was sent to Breitbart first. Breitbart is a known liar, yet the "liberal media" had no problem propping him up in interviews. And the lack of coverage was towards Weiner's defense, which made Weiner look worse (that's the Jon Stewart mocking issue you brought up). So what are you complaining about? Your issues with the subject just prove the media is right-wing and not left wing.

Weiner hasn't run on 'family values', nor has he attempted to legislate the bedroom activities of others. Nothing he did or could have done here is illegal, so you can't accuse him of hypocritical behavior.

No one, so far as I can tell, was harrassed, no one was abused, no actual sex even took place at all. I'm not sure one can even find any hypocrisy here.

Except, of course, on the GOP side: The very same people who demanded that Weiner resign, helped Ensign cover up his affair & pay off his victims, and are currently raising money for Vitter and his reelection campaign.

This is a personal issue. This is a moral issue. This is a family issue. It has nothing to do with Weiner's ability to serve his district or the country. Frankly, his scandal is far more toothless than pretty much every other scandal-beleaguered politician ever. This isn't even an extramarital sex scandal. It's an extramarital sexting scandal.

I was under the impression that sex scandals were only a big deal because up until now the people involved had been soliciting under aged pages (Mark Foley), or soliciting gay prostitutes in a bathroom despite being an anti-gay conservative (Larry Craig). But apparently I'm wrong, if you're caught doing anything inappropriate in your private life then you should automatically resign.

Why? Is this about lying? If that's the case, then people should be absolutely pissed about Rep. Kyl's statements a few months ago.

Vitter, Craig, every other Republican with the slightest sex scandal, and there have been many: Republicans protect them. Republicans defend them. They don't back down and they certainly don't collapse under opposition pressure. The Democratic party never does that.

Vitter actually committed a crime. Plus there's the family values hypocrisy, but that's another matter.

Dems panic and call for resignations of people whose transgressions are far, far less than those on the "other side" who not only retain their positions, but are DEFENDED by their party.

Weiner messed up his personal life. He absolutely did nothing to change his ability to serve as a Congressman.

Not all lies are equal. Weiner's lies were an attempt at covering up something that had no business being in the press in the first place. The US media should be ashamed of having wasted time on it. It might have mattered if Weiner had lied to cover up a crime or something that was relevant to the job he was doing, but that wasn't the case.

Bush didn't have to resign for lying the US into a war, and Weiner shouldn't be expected to resign just because he sent those stupid pictures. He did of course, and Breitbart will chalk up another victory. Also, a thousand smart, capable people will decide not to get into politics because they just don't want to go through what Weiner is going through now, leaving the field empty for the likes of Palin and Bachmann.

He lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with his job. Most human beings would have lied in similar circumstances -- yes, you too. Sending those pics was a really stupid thing to do (IMHO), but how he spends his off hours is nobody's business. (assuming there are no actual crimes involved, of course). In this day and age, you can find something embarrassing about just about anybody online. As often as not, it'll be embarrassing enough to make people lie about it.

Sometimes I think Americans expect their leaders to be eunuchs. Either way, they're dumb enough to let Breitbart and similar gutter-dwellers decide who gets to stay in office or not. The result will be that only cretins like Palin will be willing to run for office, because any candidate with half a brain will know that an incriminating picture will resurface the second they raise their voices. Americans need to grow up and realize that their politicians have a life below the neckline.

Liberals have an insatiable desire to hold the moral high ground. Right-wingers not going to respect or appreciate it... They're going to see it as confirmation that liberals are "weak".

Should Weiner have resigned? I suppose in an ideal world, a case could be made that a public official should resign after such public humiliation. But, it's not an ideal world, and it's not worth making that sacrifice. Republicans won't look at it and go "Wow, that was really stand-up of him and Democrats to do that." They'll look at it and go "Haha, we totally made them cave and give up a seat!!!! Dumbasses!!!"

As far as "treatment of women": First she tweets back and forth with the guy, and has to know he is married. Then once the story broke the guy is like, hay, SHHHH. Then someone approaches her with some money and now shes "I can't trust him" Give me a break. Once a whore, always a whore.

And remember: We still aren't trying to control women's bodies the way Republicans are.

The DNC, the president, and the mainstream media all applied tons of pressure to get him out. This proves they are all ridiculously liberal, right?

But no, Lindaman thinks anytime a liberal disagrees with a Democrat (in this case, whether to defend Weiner or recommend he resign), then it's A TOTAL TEARING APART OF THE DEMOCRATS FROM WITHIN!

Anytime there's any disagreement, Lindaman thinks the Democrats are this:

Funny, isn't it? The fact that Republicans exploit Teabaggers like Lindaman and then ignore them (blatantly spitting in their faces) doesn't seem to indicate anything about the right-wingers falling apart, right? You ignore that every big Republican contender has bombed out within a month or two of their introduction. Remember Donald Trump or Paul Ryan? The Republicans are playing hardball, but have nobody to step into the presidency and actually do anything. It's just like 2008: several choices that expose the fragmenting Republican Party. Since lockstep was the only thing they had, they cannot find a single person who would appeal to the freaks, yet do what the financial people wanted.

He should've never resigned in the first place. The people who voted for him still support him, which pretty much ends the issue. Only in America would what he did even qualify as more than a laugh, let alone much media attention. The French, Italians, English and others have a word for what he did, Tuesday.

How about the fact that a Supreme Court justice has shamelessly been taking bribes over the last 10 years? He was making a pretty good case against your buddy Clarence Thomas before this stuff went down.

Now, how about Wu? I knew Wu was a Democrat. After all, the alleged victim was over 18 and a female. Stupid Democrats always get away with everything without any consequences! If this guy had real integrity, he would have disappeared for 6 days and come back blaming it on a need to escape the current political climate while hiking the Appalachian Trail, when secretly you left the country to meet with your self proclaimed soul mate. Furries should be banned from public office on general principles alone. He's in a pretty safe Dem seat, so it being an open election it's more likely to stay Dem.

Weiner's seat is going to be redistricted out of existence, anyway. So, a congressman whose seat is going to disappear next term, hailing from the opposition party to that of the incumbent who has been driven from office in disgrace, won. Surely this deeply significant event shows NY is now solidly a red state. lol

You hated Weiner because he totally kicked ass in Congress and takes shit from no one. I've seen Anthony utterly destroy members of the GOP when they tried to pull some of their usual bullshit on the American public.

Scandal or not, Weiner was damned good at his job.

Not only that... This is "Publius", who "broke" the story on Breitbart:

http://www.facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston#%21/Warner.Todd.Huston?sk=wall

It's all just an amazing coincidence that the Weiner pics were revealed so soon after the Republicans got crushed in New York Congressional District 26. You know, the special election that had to be called because the GOP guy got caught sending he-man pictures of himself to the ladies?

This was just a smear job by Fox and Breitbart. They stopped talking about it once he resigned.

But hey, "Weiner showed his weiner!" was hilarious in the Teabag circles.

What is it with right-wingers and their obsession with penises?

Oh... that's right...

...that's why they're angry, after all.

The Democrats actually forced out an elected official that probably could have won reelection even with the scandal hanging over them.

The Democrats seem to think that being a moral compass for the Republicans will one day lead the GOP to find a conscience, too.

They would be in error.

"Phew, good thing I'm not a Democrat!"

It MUST Mean She's SEXUALLY Promiscuous!

2011-05-26T20:21:00.000-04:00

In response to right-wing talk slut Laura Ingraham lying about Obama's response to the tornado situation in Missouri and the South, Ed Schultz truthfully called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut" and a "talk slut". In response to this, right-wing sluts like Thomas Lindaman have poutrage.

Ed Schultz apologized and MSNBC suspended Schultz, which are two things Lindaman glosses over. Naturally he would gloss those facts over, since it again shows something right-wingers don't have: accountability.

Don't believe me? If a right-winger untruthfully calls a Democrat a "faggot"... The right-winger would not apologize (she didn't), right wingers like Lindaman would say nothing (he didn't, check his archives), and FOX would do nothing (they didn't).

At any rate, Ingraham will never say anything good about the president, even Bill O'Reilly has called her a Kool-Aid drinker.

Now, as for the tornadoes (which Lindaman expectedly blames on Obama, just like Lindaman unsuccessfully tried to do during the BP spill):

Eric Cantor can say a bunch of nonsense in the congress about "we're not going to send Joplin any money without cutting something else out of the budget" (thank goodness the money was finally made available) and that's somehow okay, but Obama is criticized for not flying right home from Europe --and doing WHAT, exactly?-- while the tornado is going on.

Bush was just sitting around when Katrina went down, Obama is on an official state visit and also the G8 summit. Obama was already out of the country when the tornado hit. Everything he can do for the situation he can do anywhere he happens to be. Until things are handled, Obama's job is to have competent people on the ground. Which he can do from anywhere in the world.

Do the righties want Obama to at least make a statement? Oh, he did that.

People were angry at Bush's handling of Katrina, but it wasn't because Bush didn't visit. It was because there were people being trapped on roofs for 3 days without any signs of rescue or help, and Bush put a horse breeder (Brown) in charge of FEMA as a political favor, and Brown's management was piss-poor. Bush's callousness about their inadequacy pissed people off by praising Brown as doing a "heckuva job", illustrating that Bush was oblivious to the situation. Focusing on how horrible it was that Trent Lott's beachfront home was trashed didn't help either.

In this current situation FEMA actually has done a "heckuva job" so far. The right-wingers are so pissed that the government is working in this situation, they are trying to promote a fictional narrative that it is not in hopes it will gain traction.

Of course, had Obama changed his plans, canceled a state dinner with the Queen of England and flown directly to Joplin MO to survey the damage, we'd be hearing endless howls about how he disrespected our closest ally, and besides... he's just getting in the way of people trying to do REAL rescue work with his self-aggrandizing photo ops.

But back to Ed:

A Republican makes a racist term that Obama is "chugging 40's" and Lindaman says nothing.

But a mouthpiece calls an actual right-wing slut a "right-wing slut" and he calls for his head.

Just like someone who loves posing for pictures is a "camera slut", just like someone who has a "Hey, look at me!" attitude is an "attention whore", Ingraham is indeed a right-wing slut and a talk slut.

So Ed Schultz (who I'm not even a fan of, give Maddow his time) gets suspended for truthfully calling Laura Ingraham a talk slut, yet a whitebread-mayonnaise honky like Bolling can dog-whistle Obama's "ghetto roots" to the foxtards with impunity.

These right-wingers have a problem with Obama no matter what he does. It's just incidental that they often express their dislike in racist terms.

Laura took the "high road" by accepting the apology? What else could she do? Ed was telling the truth. Just like Bill Maher (who by the way is a Comedian, and a Libertarian) was telling the truth when he called Palin a dumb twat and bimbo.

We'll call the right-wing attention tramps out for the sluts, whores, twats, and cunts that they are. You "small government" right-wingers (who are now magically feminists) just want to control all women's uteruses and make rape justifiable if a woman dresses in a way you don't like.

Who You Gonna Call? TOAST-MASTERS!

2011-05-25T21:18:00.000-04:00

In the latest bit of fake Republican outrage, Thomas Lindaman lies and states Obama showed a "bizarre lack of protocol" regarding his recent trip to Europe.

This is what Republicans with Obama Derangement Syndrome actually believe, folks.

Regarding his toast, just watch the damn video.

Obama began his toast, then the band began the anthem. The faux-pas is on the part of the bandleader, interrupting a visiting dignitary.

Then Obama continued, and at the end of his toast, joined everyone in solemnity for the rest of the anthem.

As soon as the anthem ended, everyone toasted immediately, including the Queen.

Yeah, how dare Obama not know the conductor was going to interrupt his toast by coming in early? WTF is this guy's problem??

From the BBC: The string orchestra of the Scots Guard mistakenly began playing the British national anthem before the president had finished his address during a banquet at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday night.

Outrageous!!! This is Obama's fault! Wait... no, it isn't. But I'm sure it serves as a nice confirmation bias for many retarded right-wingers in this country.

Someone fired up the music too early. After the song they toasted and everything was fine.

Please, Republicans, it's imperative that you all leave America and travel to the UK immediately. The British themselves have completely forgotten the arcane arts of Royal Protocol that you have so lovingly cherished during the long dark nights of American independence.

Republicans cried about how Obama bows to foreign leaders, and now they're crying about an imaginary display of disrespect? Am I reading this correctly?

But don't forget that iPod Obama gave the Queen! Lindaman made a big deal about that "incident" too. Because, after all, giving someone a gift they explicitly asked for is a sign of grave disrespect.

Apparently Republicans can be upset over the thought that the Queen of England might have been involved in a minor imaginary moment of social awkwardness. Perhaps it's a side effect of all that rugged individualism they're always lecturing us about?

Lindaman states this will hurt relations. lol

The reality: UK reporter Nick Clegg (jokingly) apologized to Obama on behalf of the UK for inappropriately "crashing" the end of his speech. The BBC reporter notes that Obama "A gracious President Obama said that the opening bars of God Save The Queen gave the conclusion to his address a far more 'rousing' tone than he could have hoped for."

It's obvious to anyone who isn't utterly insane with hatred for Obama that the bandleader is supposed to wait until the end of Obama's toast before playing the anthem.

I mean, it's not that I don't like the comedic spectacle of all you tough, manly, bootstrappy Republicans having fits of vapors because of an imaginary slight against the Queen of England--but the video just doesn't support whatever bizarre spin you're trying to put on this. The "slight" here (to the extent that there was one) was against your President. And the Brits are praising Obama for his "graciousness" in laughing the slight off. Yet again, foreigners are better Americans than right-wingers.

Republicans are so desperate, they're even falsely saying Obama didn't know toast etiquette and he himself accidentally cued the bandleader by saying "Queen." Really.

Some other people who "don't know toast etiquette":

The President of India in 2009 proposes a toast to the Queen at a state banquet:

"Your Majesty, with these words, I now propose to raise a toast:
- to the personal good health and happiness of Your Majesty the Queen and Your Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and your family;
- to the continued well-being and prosperity of our two friendly peoples; and
- to the ever-deepening friendship between our two countries.

Long Live the United Kingdom! Long Live India!"

President Mbeki's toast at the state banquet in 2001:

"Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses. My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please accept the heartfelt message of greetings and friendship that we bring from the people of South Africa and the comfort we draw from the knowledge that in you, we have steadfast friends. Toast."

King Harald of Norway's toast in 2005:

"And now I would like you all to join me in a toast to Her Majesty The Queen, to His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, to the people of the United Kingdom and to the friendship between our two countries."

Every single time, one of those visiting heads of state used the phrase long before they finish their toast, and it didn't trigger any automatic reflex rendition of "God Save the Queen."

Yeah. Obama's totally breaking with the ironclad traditions of British state visits. That rube.

It was clearly the bandleader's fault, not Obama's. The UK admits that.

And the United States still has much higher worldwide approval since we lost that embarrassing Republican "leader." Since you're apparently not aware of that, it appears it's the right-wingers that are stone deaf. lol

And Lindaman still hasn't given us any reasons to vote Republican, nor has he given us any evidence that Obama's citizenship is "questionable."

What does it say about the Republican Party where the two highest polled people (Huckabee and Trump) both decided not to run? It makes me smile.

Seriously, right wing, focus on something the things you do well. Go back to clinging to your guns and Bibles.

Don't worry. We'll let you know when something important happens.

This Old Stance Is An OUTRAGE!

2011-05-22T13:15:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman weighs in on Obama's recent speeches on Israel.

Obama stated:

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Obama has merely restated what American policy has been all along. Why should Obama or any other rational person care what the right thinks about this non-issue? You guys whined about the Olympics, you whined about his Peace Prize, you whined about arugula, you whined about mustard, you whined about flag pins, you whined about healthy food on the menu, you whined about recommending properly inflated tires, you whined about gifts to the Queen... Wouldn't someone come to the conclusion that you'd whine no matter what?

Israel's "amen" corner in America, which is the strongest and most dominant lobby in the history of the United States, will criticize Obama for defining the lines of a future settlement before negotiations have even begun, but that it is pure duplicity on their part (what else can we expect?), because Israel has been using a fake perceived ambiguity in US policy to demand more and more land, and more and more rights for Israel in any future settlement.

Now, the Republicans invite Netanyahu to speak before Congress so that he can counter the American president! Party before country for them, as always.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is simply wrong. This is the same stance we've had for decades. Nothing has changed. He needs to stop thumping his chest and get to the negotiating table. Israel is losing what little credibility it had.

Obama's speech admonished both Israel and Palestine on some issues and supported both Israel and Palestine on others. This is the most balanced approach to try to get two hostile sides to come together.

Republicans, as usual, wanted the President to bash the Palestinians and fawn over Israel. That's great for scoring points in a campaign season, but it's poor strategy in conflict management (something the GOP knows little about).

Rational people are tired of paying both cash money to Israel to subsidize it and spending countless more dollars and blood through our military involvement there. We are constantly told that there is no money to do the things we need to do at home, yet there are limitless funds for warfare in the Middle East.

Israel receives more aid from the U.S. than any other country, and 1/3 of all U.S. aid goes to Israel and Egypt. Israel shouldn't be telling us what to do. We should be telling Israel what to do, and it needs to stop land-grabbing, end the occupation and move toward a two-state solution. Or the alternative: it could forgo U.S. taxpayer dollars and U.S. economic and military aid.

And it needs to be repeated again and again, lest people forget: The only reason right-wingers support Israel is because of Armageddon. These unbelievably stupid retards are basing foreign policy on proven fairy tales.

Now He's Really, REALLY Concerned!

2011-05-08T13:34:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman gets even more "concerned" and writes:

With the death of Osama Bin Laden and recent news of intelligence on al Qaeda from Bin Laden's computer records, it appears we've struck a major blow to international terrorism. Yet, when taken as part of the totality in the Middle East, we may be looking at a vastly different and much more dangerous landscape soon.

If what I've heard recently is true, al Qaeda may have split in half on religious grounds with a more radical faction ignoring Bin Laden's leadership. If so, this is consistent with what we've seen in Egypt and Libya, where more radical factions have pushed for the removal of less strident or weaker leaders. Even more radical Islamic regimes, such as Iran, could be moving in that direction.

Whether international terrorist groups are leading the charge or going with the flow is immaterial. The real issue is the further radicalization of the Middle East and its impact on the war on terrorism. Dealing a death blow to al Qaeda (or a portion of it) is good, but if we leave it at that, we're setting ourselves up for failure yet again, a failure that could dwarf 9/11.

So, what are we doing about it? From what I'm seeing, not much.

We get it, you right-wingers want this country to fail as long as a Democrat is in office. Too bad it never happens. lol

Poor right-wingers. They have to scramble every single time in order to figure out something to blame on Obama, since they never can find anything of substance. That's why they get hung up on birth certificates. Oh, but Obama crushed you idiots on that, too. hehe

Even after killing Osama, Lindaman still has to trot out the usual "Obama isn't a leader" bullshit.

Just a reminder of what right-wingers think a leader is (remember, this was only six months after 9/11):

President Barack Obama can do as many victory laps as he wants,

Which he didn't.

See, folks, this is the latest desperate right-wing soundbite that Lindaman is repeating: That because Obama is congratulating the Navy SEALs, and giving closure to the 9/11 victims, he's doing a "victory lap."

According to right-wingers, congratulating SEALs is a "victory lap." But stomping on the corpses of the 9/11 victims is perfectly fine:

So, are you right-wingers saying that Obama shouldn't congratulate the SEAL team? Well, to be fair, the SEALs did help Obama look good, and therefore to right-wingers, they are now enemies of America.

To summarize: Right-wingers, yet again, are proven gutless scumbuckets.

Just like their "I" counting of Obama's 5/1/11 speech, comparing it Bush's speech. And it ended up being 1/20th of Bush words were "I" related and 1/30th of Obama words were "I" related, so their point was lost. Of course, it wasn't "lost", just wrong. But since when are right-wingers ever correct?

Even, in some alternate universe, Obama was making a victory lap, at least he'd have a victory to have a lap about. What do Republicans have to be proud of in the past few decades?

but he's already come out supporting the forces in Egypt and Libya, both of whom have clear ties to radical Islam. Even former President George W. Bush took his eyes off the ball in the war on terrorism by not following through once Iraq and Afghanistan were more stabilized after our military interventions.

Sure, waterboarding and Gitmo worked to nab Bin Laden, but we've wavered on those as well.

Nice failed attempt at slipping that one in there. Waterboarding did not help, according to the United States' number one anti-terrorism expert.

Also, doesn't it bother anyone else how quickly the Obama Administration sided with the more radical elements in Libya and Egypt? It's not like those elements have hidden their agenda or their hatred of America, either. Yet, we're content to let them do the dirty work in getting rid of leaders we no longer "need" in power. If they succeed, something will have to fill the vacuum, and I don't think it's going to be filled by Muslims who want to peacefully co-exist with the West.

In Libya, Obama has support from the United Nations, NATO, the Arab League, the regional powers, and Libyan's own people. And you hate that. lol

In Egypt, Obama did the intelligent thing and let our and Egypt's militaries talk through things and figure out what to do. And it results in a peaceful revolution in a Muslim country. And right-wingers are pissed because Egypt tossed out a guy they were heavy supporters of. Embarrassing for you guys, isn't it?

Then Obama kills Bin Laden.

Three wins in a row for the United States. But to Lindaman, this "isn't much." lol

Although we can breathe a sigh of relief at Osama Bin Laden's death, the war on terrorism isn't over by that one act. There is a bigger storm on the horizon, and if recent history and current events are any indication, we're not ready for it.

Yes, we are. Or you wouldn't be scrambling to say otherwise, right after such a blow to the terrorist community. Enablers, the lot of you.

From now on, when discussing matters like Libya, you may want to try this handy right-wing guide:

You right-wingers are happily praying for this country to burn to the ground, as long as you can get Republicans elected, and as long as those elected Republicans protect corporate anarchy.

That's why Lindaman, to this very day, still hasn't been able to say why anyone but a Democrat should be elected. Because the Democrats repeatedly prove they are the ones who actually get the job done.

2008:

2011:

That Sure Didn't Take Long

2011-05-02T20:30:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Because I'm a Man of My Word: I congratulate President Obama for his efforts in the operation that brought Osama Bin Laden to final justice. There were a lot of factors involved in putting together the operation and I'm glad Obama, his team, and the military personnel involved were able to come together and accomplish a major goal in the war on terrorism. Good on you, sir.

Wait for it... wait for it...

Because I'm a Man of My Word II: The speech Obama gave to the nation, to the world really, about the death of Osama Bin Laden was more than a little disappointing. Instead of focusing on those who risked their lives or those who laid the groundwork for the assault, Obama chose to talk about...himself. In a situation like that, leaders tend to focus not on taking personal credit, but spreading it around. What could have been a great speech was cheapened by his back-patting.

Right on cue. He couldn't even wait a single post before being partisan. I was not partisan in my Osama Bin Laden death post.

Know why he waited a little while before posting? He had to check and see what right-wingers like Limbaugh were saying first. Marching orders and all that.

Ah, well... since he opened the can of worms:

You say President Obama referring to himself in his speech is "back-patting"?

When discussing ordering a military attack in a foreign country, it's appropriate that the President take personal responsibility for ordering such an attack, rather than leaving that responsibility on the shoulders of his subordinates or allies and endangering them. Obama gave the order, so the responsibility is his and his alone, either good or bad. That's called protocol, not narcissism.

Yet again, clueless right-wingers would rather put our troops in danger.

If the mission had gone badly, would the right wingnuts have blamed the SEAL team, or Bush, or the military? Hell, no. They'd have blamed Obama. And, that's as it should be because the buck stops with the president. He's the one who takes ultimate responsibility.

"If the raid went wrong, Obama would bear the blame. He had vetoed a plan to obliterate the compound with an airstrike. Obama wanted to be certain he had bin Laden, and there was no guarantee that a smoking crater would yield proof. He had asked for a bolder plan, one that would allow the U.S. to take custody of bin Laden or his body. It posed far more risk."

Wow, you mean in his speech, President Obama let everyone know that the decision to use lethal force, in a foreign country without their approval, was his? He knows that if there are repercussions from all of this, it will land squarely on his back. So stuff a sock in it, at least the President isn't passing the buck around.

And this explains the rightards who are doing the same old tired horseshit... spewing about the pronouns used in Obama's speech as a negative, even comparing it to Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. These people really can't think for themselves, can they? Complete and utter droolers and proud of it.

The Big Lie continues.

From the Obama speech:

"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores."

Yes... what a narcissist this man is.

Would you prefer it if Obama had done the speech on an aircraft carrier? In a flight suit? In front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner?

An Inconvenient Truth: As much as I appreciate the sheer joy of Osama Bin Laden meeting his maker, I can't help but think about those who cheered our tragedy on 9/11
and wonder how much different we are from them. And the more I think about it, the fewer differences I see.

Wow, Lindaman agrees with Michael Moore! lol

The ideologies of extreme right-wingers and Islamofascists are frighteningly similar. Yet you're just now figuring this out? As far as the cheering, I would too if the financier of my oppressor were finally given a taste of its own medicine. I don't blame the Palestinians for hating us. Yes, we're all celebrating Bin Laden's death. I know you guys secretly loved him because he was a bogeyman that helped get Bush re-elected (and endorsed McCain). And I know you hate the fact that people are giving a Democratic President props for getting the job done (as usual). You'll just have to get over that.

So, Who Gets Credit?: Is it George W. Bush? Is it Barack Obama? Is it Bill Clinton? At this point, there is enough credit (and blame) to go around. Leave it at that.

LOL You right-wingers sure would love it if people "left it at that" wouldn't you?

Tell you what... let's not leave it at that, shall we?

This is coming from the guy that tried to blame BP spilling all their oil into the ocean... on Obama.

Lindaman, like most right-wingers, now suddenly want to "spread the credit." This gives a clear indication that the credit goes to Obama. lol

Let's see... Obama:

1. Made a calculated gamble even though we weren't sure Bin Laden was there.
2. Decided not to alert Pakistani authorities so Bin Laden wouldn't be tipped off.
3. Listened to all opinions from military advisers before deciding on the best plan.
4. Gambled that the mission would come off as a clean strike in minimal time.
5. Risked defining his presidency as being marked by a failed commando raid.

It's worth pointing out that Obama said he would do this before the election and at the same sitting McCain said he would not, that Pakistan is a sovereign nation, he wouldn't violate their territory to get Bin Laden.

Obama went from a lawyer to president of the USA by creating a strong political base which eventually gave him the mandate of Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Or are we to assume the intelligence and uniformed services are in perpetual motion, working at tasks they themselves wish performed? Last weekend he chose to risk his political power and quite possibly his presidency and the lives of American troops in a risky operation with no guarantee of success. Not everyone would have made that decision. Do you get that? McCain himself stated during the campaign he wasn't in favor of invading Pakistan... look it up. Another president might have chosen flattening the place (which would only make identifying Bin Laden more difficult), or doing nothing at all. Obama's decision not only added a measure of certainty that Bin Laden was killed, but also resulted in a major intelligence coup where we got ten hard drives and over 100 DVDs and thumbdrives of information, when all the authoritarians said he should have just bombed the place.

Sorry, you all-talk-no-action righties: Obama deserves huge credit for this decision. Keep in mind, by the way, that several candidates called Obama's statement in 2008 - that he'd hunt bin Laden into Pakistan - irresponsible and naive. How's that feeling now?

In 2006, Bush disbanded the CIA's Bin Laden Task force. Bush didn't get the job done. All he managed to do was ignore intelligence which allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, get us into a war we didn't need to fight, and let bin Laden live a long time in a comfy villa after killing 3000 American citizens.

But Reagan deserves some credit, too. After all, if Reagan didn't help create Bin Laden, there never would've been a Bin Laden for Obama to take down.

The Political Fall-Out: To many, killing Osama Bin Laden has all but ensured President Obama a second term. I'm not so sure. Time will tell.

I have a question for Thomas "Obama will lose the 2008 November election" Lindaman:

Now that taxes are lower for people in your working class thanks to Obama, and Osama Bin Laden has been killed with no American troops dead thanks to Obama's leadership skills and anti-terrorism strategy, and the economy is better thanks to Obama, and you won't be denied health insurance for preexisting conditions thanks to Obama, and your credit cards are better thanks to Obama... could you please explain to me why you would vote for anyone else but Obama?

Obama gives the word to take down Osama Bin Laden, then puts on a tux and kicks ass at a stand up routine at the press dinner... and then gets to announce the death of Osama bin Laden by interrupting Donald Trump's show on the 8th anniversary of Bush's bullshit "Mission Accomplished" speech. I'm pretty sure he could teach Charlie Sheen a thing or two about winning. Oh, but he's not a leader... right? RIGHT?

The Biggest Mistake We Can Make Right Now: I get the feeling with the death of Osama Bin Laden, people will think we can deescalate the war on terrorism. That would be a huge mistake because the war on terrorism has never been and should never be about getting Bin Laden. Now that he's out of the picture, there are others who will step up and fill the void he left. If the situations in Egypt and Libya are any indication, we may be getting cozy with people as extreme as Bin Laden was, which means another 9/11 becomes that much more certain.

Lindaman is concerned again! Was totally unconcerned about Iraq, of course.

If you're right, Lindaman, then we better be sure we have a leader like Obama, shouldn't we?

Oh, wait... to right-wingers, this is a leader:

Burial at Sea?: This part has me puzzled. People involved with the burial of Osama Bin Laden said they gave him a proper burial at sea in accordance with the Muslim faith. Yet, Muslim clerics have said the burial wasn't in accordance with the Muslim faith and was actually an affront to it. You know, if I were in charge of that operation, I would make sure to take extra care not to offend the Muslims any more than I did by taking down Osama Bin Laden. That's kind of something you want to be sure to get right if at all possible. Just sayin'.

Some Muslims will be offended no matter what was done with the body. Putting Osama in a grave (unmarked or not) was not on the table. No frigging way. And incinerating the body would have caused massive outrage.

Do you have an alternative?

This was the best resolution as far as the body goes, and you know it.

Lindaman sure understands about taking extra care not to "offend Muslims." Lindaman stated that he wanted to erect a Star of David and a Christian Cross on a Muslim community center (that's on private fucking property). Fred Phelps would be proud.

Yet again, Lindaman has zero credibility. But what else can one expect from a birther like him? Oh, and we're still waiting for Lindaman to elaborate further on how Obama's citizenship is "questionable." lol

WE GOT HIM!

2011-05-02T09:35:00.003-04:00

Osama Bin Laden is DEAD! Shot in the head by our own military.

Good frigging riddance!

To the men and women in the Armed Forces: CELEBRATE! You more than earned it!

The Kook We Already Knew

2011-05-01T13:47:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Earlier this week, the news was focused around the White House finally releasing President Obama's birth certificate,

Obama released his birth certificate in June of 2008, Lindaman. Remember?

ending years of speculation about his birthplace and citizenship.

Speculation? His birthplace was right there on the birth certificate that he released in June of 2008. His citizenship is unquestionable to anyone with even a lick of common sense.

The media were among the loudest voices heard saying, "See? We told you he was born here and the 'birthers' were crazy!"

Loudest voices? There was never any question he was born here to anyone with common sense, which of course excludes you crazy birthers.

Others were not as convinced, however. Even Donald Trump, the "birther du joir" as it were, said he wanted to check it out further.

That's because birthers have painted themselves into a corner. They said they wanted the "long form" and no other proof could sway them. And unless they release it, Obama is a Muslim Kenyan socialist who was groomed from birth to destroy the United States. So now we have the long form certificate. But the birthers can't back down now. So of course the long form isn't good enough.

Throughout this controversy, I've tried to keep an open mind. I've listened to both sides, weighed the evidence presented, and kept checking my premises when new data came in.

Then you threw it all out because it didn't support your preconceived notion.

How can you even "listen to both sides" when the fact that he released his birth certificate in June of 2008 seems to elude you? After that, any "speculation" was finished to rational people.

So far, the "birthers" have presented the more convincing argument because they've at least brought forward information to be considered.

And there you have it, folks. In spite of his previous denials, Lindaman has just proven what we already knew: That he is indeed a birther kook.

I knew that he was really a birther, because he will believe any nutty conspiracy theory that furthers a right-wing agenda. Just like when Lindaman embraced the Swift Boaters. Add to the fact that he outed himself as a bigot, a xenophobe, and a racist in 2010... and it was inevitable that he would eventually out himself as a birther.

"Brought forward information"? And just how is any of that slobber going to contradict the fact that his birth certificate that was released in June of 2008 shows he was born in Hawaii? And his newspaper announcement?

The bulk of the "anti-birther" argument is thus: If you don't believe President Obama is a natural-born citizen, then you're a stupid, racist, conspiracy theory loving moron.

Wow. The Left's argument is hard to refute...without laughing.

Leave it to a birther to laugh at proven facts.

The bulk of the "anti-birther" argument is actually this: He released his birth certificate in June of 2008. That is all the proof one needs that he was born in Hawaii. That is the exact same standard that any President has. Obama has done more to prove his citizenship than any other president. But that's not good enough to birthers. Because they are indeed racists that can't accept the fact that a black man with a funny sounding name got elected.

The fact that it exposes you people as the stupid, racist, conspiracy theory loving morons that you are, is just icing on the cake.

Personally, I think there are enough questions to warrant a deeper investigation into Obama's citizenship,

Ohhhh please do tell us, you birther cretin. I'd love to have another lengthy back-and-forth on that and watch another "debate" BOOM! blow up in your face again.

Remember the lengthy back-and-forth on manmade global warming? Remember how you couldn't produce a single climatologist to support you? BOOM!

Remember the lengthy back-and-forth on the BP spill and how the Administration was incompetent and BP were saints? And how the best you could do was repeat Doug Ross's timeline while ignoring the fact that the Administration was there immediately? BOOM!

Remember the lengthy back-and-forth on Media Matters, and how you couldn't refute a single thing they said, and your only source was a proven anti-semite? BOOM!

Please, Lindaman. Please... I'm begging you. Please start making arguments that Obama's citizenship is questionable. This would be the funniest proof that you are a completely clueless loony toon in quite a while. It would be quite boomtastic.

but it's not the only issue on which to question the President. Granted, I don't think there are that many people focused solely on the "birther" controversy, and not even the Republican candidates or presumed candidates are taking it up as a serious issue. (I am excluding Donald Trump from that list because a) he hasn't officially announced he's running as a Republican, and b) I don't think he's going to run. Those are points for a later blog.) Yet, the Left seems to think the "birther" issue is the only issue the GOP has, so if they eliminate it or diminish it, it kills the Republicans' chances in 2012.

Wishful thinking on their part, I'm afraid. Even their attempts to dispel the "birther" movement have backfired on them because they have been so lackluster. Even the attempt this week was half-hearted, but it was enough to make the media try to hammer and bully the "birthers" into submission. Just check out the video of Lawrence O'Donnell's "interview" with Orly Taitz and O'Donnell's demand for an "apology."

Hahaha, now you're trying to defend Orly Taitz? And I thought your embracing of Andy Martin was loopy. Oh dear god... please justify Orly's arguments. Please!

Regardless of where you stand on President Obama's citizenship, an honest assessment of the situation shows one side is attempting to present facts to support its point of view, while the other side resorts to name-calling and bullying tactics. Makes you wonder who the real kooks are, doesn't it?

Obama released his birth certificate in June of 2008. The issue was done except to racist morons.

Remember when you said Obama would be seen as a more effective leader if he released his (long form) birth certificate? Well, he released it. So why aren't you saying so now? You sure are shutting the fuck up on that, aren't you? I'm not hearing a lot of apologies from birthers. I got what I expected: a few days worth of terribly serious condemnation of the president's political missteps from professional crybabies in the blogger media. Look at them, already doubling down. Obama's made birthers look even MORE insane. lol

As far as his recent release of the long form birth certificate:

This validates the sheer volume of birther stupidity in the Republican party. It's like having to release proof that women have a functioning brain, or that black people have feelings, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun, to placate the Republican party - it shines a spotlight on the fact that the party is currently being hijacked by morons, and at the same time makes that faction shout even louder to argue the point.

It would probably have been better to release it after a 2012 victory, but the reaction from all the racist, gutless, moronic birthers (which is, I know, redundant as all hell) should be entertaining for a while. Now they'll have to latch onto something else to justify their racism and ignorance.

Trump claimed that his investigation had found that the birth certificate was missing. He is now conclusively proven wrong.

The White House got as much mileage from this as they could from the birther racists. And by releasing the long form certificate now, they have given some measure of legitimacy to the craziest Republican president wannabe (Donald Trump). That's like an extra-sweet bonus, since the Republican power-base is going to have to go off message long enough to convince their party that Donald is not a viable candidate. The right is so pathetic right now, aren't they? A few weeks ago they actually floated Hillary Clinton as filling that spot. lol

So what does Obama get? He shows that he is such a reasonable man to release his confidential birth certificate, and the birthers look even more unreasonable for getting exactly what they wanted, but now saying that this is still not good enough. Thus, further birther marginalization! Obama's basically nominating Trump for the GOP in 2012, and now the GOP has to scramble to marginalize him. I suspect Rove is about five shades of red right now! Ta-da! This simultaneously condemns Trump to permanent nutbag status and makes it far more likely he could win the primary.

In summary: You're just pissed because you retard birthers just got pwned back into the stone age and don't have an inbred, hick leg to stand on! Bwahahaaa!!

Because it was never about a birth certificate. It was about a bunch of simpletons who can't believe a black guy with a funny name got elected, so he must have cheated... somehow.

Eat a bag of dicks, racists. You'll have to find another way to call him a n---er without having the guts to explicitly say it.

Dammit, There Goes Obama Being Intelligent Again

2011-03-27T13:44:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman weighs in on Libya.

Guess what he does? He goes into his usual "Obama is not a leader" spiel. And again taking the talking points from the right-wing pundits.

For those of you just tuning in, this is what's been going on:

Obama: "We're meeting with allies discussing options, meanwhile we're moving assets into position to act."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Dithering!"
McCain: "Bomb them already!"

Then, a couple of days later...

Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Obama is letting the rebels get crushed. He should have put up a no fly zone already."
Lindaman: "He's weak and indecisive!"
Obama: "The UN and I have a group of nations ready to act. We will be assisting them."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "We should be leading the way!"
McCain: "Why is he letting someone else run the show?"

Then, a couple of days later...

Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "No exit strategy. It's too little too late."
Obama: "We've established a no fly zone, the rebels are advancing and we'll be handing it over to the allies."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Who are these rebels? Should we be helping them at all? Quadaffi was an okay guy. This was a huge mistake."

Staying out altogether and watching Quadaffi level Benghazi is not an option. Going in and removing Quadaffi by ourselves is not an option (to do so de-legitimizes the entire Libyan revolutionary movement).

For the right-wingers claiming there was no clear objective: I think "preventing a massacre of civilians and doing what we can to support their revolt without getting directly, disastrously involved" is a pretty clear objective. "Remove Quadaffi or do nothing" are not the only options. Have you considered that the objectives might be wider than Libya? Imagine if the US, the UN, and NATO had sat out and watched Quadaffi crush his revolt.

Congressional Republicans, first against the "unconstitutional" war in Libya, then concerned over too much US involvement, then against mission creep, now want US forces to take a more active role. Give them a break. Sometimes it's hard to pin down how to be opposed to what Obama's doing 100% of the time. Hey, Teabaggers! Obama wants to take away your right to point your pistol at yourself while cleaning it loaded!

The right-wing tards are realizing that Americans are failing them yet again, in not getting furious at Obama for going into Libya and then handing off control to NATO. So, now they're demanding that Obama do more, just because they need to complain about "something" that he's doing in Libya. You have to feel bad for the right-wingers, you really do.

Obama is well within the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. He doesn't have to withdraw until May 19, unless Congress approves before then. Our actions in Libya are pursuant to treaty obligations to the UN and NATO. International treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are equal in force to the Constitution (Article VI). Why do some Republicans want to violate the Constitution by preventing Obama from acting to fulfill our treaty obligations? Do Republicans hate the Constitution? The President doesn't need congressional authorization according to the War Powers Act, so he's fine here. Congressional support in this case is entirely political and is why it's probably good that the War Powers Act exists. This way the President can use our military in a more agile fashion and not have to worry about purely political stonewalling in congress.

Trying to compare Libya with Iraq is funny, too. The UN refused to authorize support for the Iraq invasion, and several of our allies refused to help us because of that. The UN asked us to participate in Libya. There have also been relatively low amounts of protests, compared to Iraq which created possibly the largest world wide simultaneous protests ever. And it passed the Security Council which should be all the international recognition you need. Bush's war is still considered illegal by many in the international community for this reason. Detractors can't say the same about Obama's, even if they disagree with it.

Most of the Republicans supported the no fly zone when they didn't think he'd do it. Then when he did it, they withdrew support. Then when he wound down our role, they said he should take a bigger role.

And if his incursion goes beyond 60 days and starts to look like a bad idea... then Congress will have to approve further funding. And I find it doubtful that Democrats will question everyone's patriotism in not funding this war, like the Republicans did with every military spending bill from 2003 onward.

I really liked how the right wing was screaming about how Obama was being a pussy and not doing anything in Libya... right up until we started bombing Libya. Then, all of the sudden, he was attacking another nation unconstitutionally and needed to be stopped.

It just seems weird to see the right-wingers suddenly join the anti-war crowd. It's a real conundrum. On the one hand, they would gladly destroy the entire nation to discredit the Captivating Kenyan, and on the other hand, their soldier fetish means they have to "support the troops" 100%. What's a bagger to do?

President Sarkozy really went above and beyond to get international light shed on this situation and garner support! Why, he even got the help of the US and the UK! Oh, and for you right-wingers attempting to say Obama pulled other nations into this: Obama didn't "get other nations involved"... it was the exact opposite. Just because we're the largest power, doesn't mean we are the instigator.

Bush: Made shit up, pushed us into a war without support from the region, from the UN or anyone else.
Obama: Has support from NATO, the UN, the Arab League, the regional powers and the Libyan people.
Bush: Unilateral military action, involving a bloody ground force occupation, costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of civilian lives.
Obama: Multilateral action, focusing on air power and naval strikes.

In short, this is how you should wage war if you're the USA.

I hope you retards in the GOP are paying attention.

Try It Yourself, You May Like It

2011-03-20T13:41:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The Left has accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of many things, most of them untrue. Yet, no one but the Left could have cooked up this one.

It starts with the apparent suicide of Jeri-Lynn Betts, an early childhood teacher from the Watertown school district. She had a history of depression and was greatly distressed by the current budget situation, especially concerning what it would do to the teaching jobs in Wisconsin. After her death, people suggested...you guessed it, Scott Walker was to blame.

Seriously? That's your next big attack on Walker?

Depression and suicide are serious matters, folks. For anyone to even suggest Walker had anything to do with Betts' suicide is stretching the credibility of the anti-Walker crowd. Whatever good points you guys have made are going to be undercut by the people who think Walker had anything to do with the suicide. Unless you denounce these folks, like
the TEA Party denounces racism in their ranks, you're going to be tainted by their statements.

And to anyone who really thinks Walker's actions had anything to do with Betts' suicide, you need to really think carefully about this. Put aside your partisanship and give an honest assessment of the situation. If you think about it and still believe Walker is responsible, so be it, but understand that kind of thinking is no different than Republicans and conservatives who blame everything bad in their lives on Barack Obama. Some things transcend politics. This is one of them. To try to make any kind of political hay out of it is beyond contemptible.

Your own source link states that Betts' own colleagues were stating she was distraught over Walker's policies. Colleagues, not "Leftists."

The Tea Party has yet to denounce racism in their ranks. In fact, all you yourself have ever done when you jumped on the astroturf teabagger bandwagon was fall all over yourself to praise and/or defend the proven racists in your ranks. Oh, and here's a recent example of racism in your ranks.

And you right-wingers used up any implications about political hay when you exploited 9/11.

Nope, No Double Standard

2011-03-15T20:38:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

The latest sting video by James O'Keefe exposing NPR has the media world buzzing, and not necessarily in a good way. As one might expect, Leftists are complaining about O'Keefe's video, alleging there were edits made to take certain comments out of context and make them sound worse than they actually were. These are all legitimate beefs as far as
I'm concerned, especially if they're based on fact and not bluster.

"Alleging"? It's been proven! That link is sometimes called a "citation", folks. You'll see why I'm pointing this out in just a second.

But, I do have to take issue with the Left on this because they're holding someone who does what they accuse O'Keefe of doing to a different standard, solely because of his political ideology. This individual has manufactured scenes, done clever edits to make things appear to have happened in a certain order that didn't, and generally attempted to push
a particular point of view, regardless of the truth.

That individual is Michael Moore.

In "Roger and Me," Moore gives the impression that he was at a GM stockholders meeting with Roger Smith and his microphone was cut off at Smith's insistence. Transcripts of the meeting show Moore wasn't in attendance, thus his microphone wasn't cut off when he asked a question. It was all fabricated for the movie.

Citation, please.

In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore does slick editing to film a meeting with Charlton Heston about guns and gun control to take different scenes out of order and put them in a way that made Heston look less than stellar.

The meeting between him and Heston is completely uncut (it's only one camera during the interview). The only thing that could be considered alteration was filming a new frontal shot of Moore holding the photograph. Considering that doesn't change the context of what was going on (Heston was walking away and not speaking), you're full of it.

He was also guilty of fabricating a scene in the movie where he appears to get a rifle at a bank the same day he requests one, except he had to make special arrangements for that to happen.

What Moore did in that bank is exactly what anyone else could do. The bank was also a federal firearms dealer. The only "special arrangement" that was any different from any other Joe Schmoe was that he had to get permission to film inside the building. Aside from that, you could have walked into that bank and done the exact same thing.

In "Fahrenheit 911," Moore plays fast and loose with the timeline of 9/11 and with statements and actions President George W. Bush made.

Citation, please.

In "Sicko," Moore tells story after story about people allegedly denied health care because of insurance companies, only to find a number of those people weren't insured at the time of their care.

Citation, please. What you're stating could actually prove Moore's point.

In "Capitalism: A Love Story," he blames Ronald Reagan for the state of the economy today, all the while ignoring or downplaying the efforts of Democrats in the 1990s that lead to the current economic problems.

Citation, please.

And this guy is speaking "truth to power" while O'Keefe is just a "conservative liar"?

I have misgivings about O'Keefe's style and alleged misdeeds, and if he's proven to be a conservative version of Michael Moore, I'll gladly criticize him in the same vein I criticize Moore.

Will you Leftists do the same to Moore?

Depends. So far you haven't backed up anything you've stated. Pretty obvious why you won't, since it gets so easily shot down.
Oh, and by "citation" I don't mean dragging in a link to Moorewatch's main page. *snicker*

But I Totally Love America!

2011-03-13T13:35:00.000-04:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

There's a new Leftist narrative starting to make its way into the public consciousness. It seems the Left doesn't believe we're running out of money, but rather that the money isn't getting spent on the right things. Van Jones has said it. Michael Moore has said it. And now New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has said it.

The problem is we actually are broke as a country. Just because companies make profits, people are rich, and we can still borrow money, it doesn't mean the economy is rosy. If anything, those situations and the simplistic notions Leftists draw from them mask the real problem. We are still spending more than we take in and hoping we can shift money around so we can cover all the bills in the short term, just like some people do today. It may keep the creditors off our backs for a little while, but eventually something happens that causes the house of cards to fall in on itself.

Right now, there are a lot of things that could cause our national economy to fall apart. Unrest in the Middle East, oil and gas prices on the rise, the number of people on the public dole, unemployment, unnecessary federal spending, all of these and other factors stack up to a monumental fiscal mess.

And what does Krugman suggest? Spend more now that will equate to savings later.

Yeah, that might work, provided we ever get to later. Right now, I'm not sure we can safely make that assumption because we're not willing to make the tough choices now that will shore up the economy down the road. Oh, we agree to it in theory, but in practice...not so much. Just look at the attempts to shave billions off the federal budget proposed by Democrats and Republicans. Both proposals are half-hearted and seek to save sacred cows for their side. Now isn't the time to ignore waste because we like the outcome. If we're going to get serious about having an economic future, we need to turn sacred cows into holy hamburger.

Including the sacred cows of Leftists like Jones, Moore, and Krugman.

Glad you have such high hopes for our country. lol

The List Of Job Creating, Small Government Proposals By The GOP To Save America

1. Ban/Restrict abortion
2. Redefine rape
3. End Net Neutrality
4. Ban Gay Marriage
5. Investigate Muslims
6. Voter ID
7. Secession
8. Make Obama show his birth certificate...again...everyday... forever
9. Repeal Union Rights
10.Restrict voting ability of college students
11.De-fund Obama's Teleprompter (seriously)
12.De-fund NPR and PBS.
13.Declare Global warming a fraud.
14.Repeal Healthcare.
15.Read the Constitution...except for that amendment...and that one...that one too
16.Raise taxes on Girl Scouts.
17.Budget cuts to kill 1 million jobs.
18.Get rid of fluorescent light bulbs.
19.Ban Sharia law.
20.Force women to see sonograms of their soon-to-be aborted fetuses.
21.Renew Patriot act.
22.Restore F35's second engine.
23.Eliminate Assenge.
24.Criminalize miscarriages
25.Defund Planned Parenthood
26.Declare English America's official language
27.Put "In God We Trust" on all Federal Buildings
28.Extend Bush tax cuts for top earners.
29.Deny foodstamps to families of workers who go on strike
30.Relax child labor laws
31.Push for a government shutdown by attaching riders to the budget bill that they previously agreed to drop
32:Returning to Styrofoam cups in the cafeteria, in place of biodegradable cups.
33:Make English the official language . . .because it will save the environment. No, really.

More proposals will be added as the GOP finds new ways to secure your rights as an individual and create jobs!

Success Is NOT A Success!

2011-03-10T20:32:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Since the beginning of the media coverage of the Wisconsin budget battle between Governor Scott Walker and the unions, there's been a whispering campaign that is now becoming a full blown shout-fest. The Left wants the unions to become the Leftist equivalent of the TEA Party. Judging from the commentary on Politico, the Left is warning of Walker "waking a sleeping giant" and his electoral doom is all but certain once that giant awakes and gets moving.

I have three words for any Leftist who believes that: The Coffee Party.

Remember when The Coffee Party was supposed to be the Leftist counterpart to the TEA Party? Yeah. That lasted for about a month before the Left realized it just wasn't taking off like they'd hoped. Seriously, aside from this blog post, when was the last time you hear anyone mention the Coffee Party?

The Coffee Party is "Leftist"?? Do you even know what the Coffee Party stands for, exactly?

The Coffee Party doesn't stand for any side in particular. It's more about methodology than actual political posturing.

They don't support any specific policies aside from being civil. They were formed for the sake of bringing decency and manners back to politics, without having an actual policy agenda.

So naturally that would be anti-Teabagger, yeah. Since the Teabaggers are an astroturfed right-wing indecent embarrassment. But the Coffee Party being "Leftist"? Pffft.

People are not interested in the Coffee Party because their name alone makes it clear that they are a reaction to the Teabaggers, which is a movement that doesn't deserve a reaction. They should have avoided the whole beverage thing.

The Coffee Party is just a bunch of people saying: "These Teabaggers will see the light if we just calmly reason with them."

Of course, with the Teabaggers being what they are, that was a losing proposition. Doomed to fail.

Although the Wisconsin union protests are encouraging, I honestly don't think the union movement is strong enough to be a Leftist TEA Party mainly because the union movement isn't that strong right now. With dropping membership and a badly damaged image over the past couple of decades, the time when unions were to be a feared political machine are pretty much over on a national level. Sure, you'll still have enclaves on a statewide level, but nationally unions are becoming dinosaurs.

And that's who you want to be the next TEA Party?

There is another reason why the labor movement will not be successful as a TEA Party substitute, that being a fundamental difference between the two movements. Say what you will about the TEA Party, they are motivated by a love of country and a desire to put the country back on the right financial course.

Ahhh... the Teabaggers. As long as their leaders are spouting nonsense about abortion, Mexicans, unions and liberals, the tea party is satiated. They'll whine about "fiscal responsibility" and then focus almost completely on social bigotry and repression. They are the worst hypocrites of all.

From what we've seen and heard from the union movement recently, they seem more motivated by a love of money regardless of the fiscal consequences. Of course, they don't come out and say that because it would undercut their credibility as "hard working average Americans."

Too bad the actions of unions actually do help the American worker. A fact that you guys absolutely hate, since you hate workers' rights, and always have.

Just like Air America failed to live up to its billing as a Leftist alternative to talk radio,

You're funny like the "Half Hour News Hour" was funny. Remember that show? It's the only show that was canceled faster than Limbaugh's TV show.

Citadel Broadcasting, the largest conservative network bar-none, and the third largest network in the USA, went bankrupt just like Air America, and it went bankrupt before Air America did. Kind of funny how you just don't hear the hype on that, isn't it?

Anyways, certain types of people enjoy being justified in their actions by talk radio, and apparently liberals are less likely than conservatives to be that type. Not really that surprising. Right-wingers like Fox News, which leans heavily to the right, while liberals like NPR, which has repeatedly proven to be neutral (albeit a bit dull). They are the most neutral network on the air. It's true that some conservatives call them liberal... because NPR tells the truth, and right-wingers consider anything that isn't conservative propaganda to be some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Liberals listen to neutral stations like NPR, because Liberals don't care to hear orders for daily talking points delivered from on high. Why switch from NPR to a scratchy AM station?

Here's a little factoid about Limbaugh's radio show: To launch Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks -- the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck -- gave Limbaugh's three hours away -- that's right, no cash -- to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990's.

So, a local talk station got Rush's show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station's available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

Rightwing radio was heavily funded by the likes of Richard Scaife for many years before they found a way to make it profitable. Air America was not being able to survive without significant subsidies from power brokers. It's a problem the right wing doesn't have. The right wing, after all, is populated by abject morons. They fund the superchurches and every other scam that their deceptive masters favor. So, it's no coincidence that right wingnuts have a ready market: the great stupidity of their market is their friend.

Meanwhile: Beck is fired, O'Reilly is subordinate to his parody, Rush is deaf due to drugs and lost his TV show ages ago... while Maddow and Ed Shultz have shows, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are loved and popular, and Al Franken is a Senator. Good god, man... Franken is really a threat to you right-wingers, isn't he? I'm loving this. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it, Republicans hate him. At least he doesn't shrink from it. Being hated by Republicans is a badge of honor.

Randi Rhodes went onto Premiere. Thom Hartmann to Dial Global, joining Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz and Bill Press. Franken is a Senator. Maddow has a better deal with MSNBC. Air America didn't work. But like a dandelion, their seeds have been spread. The company fails, the idea continues.

just like the Huffington Post failed to be an alternative to the Drudge Report,

Because unlike the Drudge Report, it's a legitimate publication?

Leftists will fail if they try to make the union movement into a Leftist version of the TEA Party for the same reason the other two ventures I mentioned failed.

Failed like Glenn Beck? lol

The Left doesn't understand Americans as well as they think they do.

True, "The Left" needs to understand that a large segment of Americans aren't too bright. But it's hard for the left to cater to the stupid. The right-wingers have cornered that market.

This Omitted Link Is PROOOOF!

2011-03-06T13:29:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Labor unions have jumped the shark. And they have Michael Moore to thank for it.

Moore's appearance in Wisconsin yesterday may have given the union folks a spiritual lift, but if they knew Moore's history with union labor, they might have told him to stay away.

And spoil the surprise?

Seems Moore wasn't too keen on using union labor during the filming of his documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Of course, some might say this was a one-time thing and that Moore's history of being pro-labor makes up for it. Not so much.

How about the fact that this particular union didn't have the crew that Moore needed for filming documentaries? Funny how you "accidentally" left out that obvious fact.

Seems Moore has a history of saying he supports labor unions, but he never quite acts on it.

Liar.

This is further undeniable proof that Lindaman never checks his own sources. The link Lindaman gave (a book from a right-wing shill), has the relevant anti-union pages omitted. ROFL! How convenient, since those pages have nothing to substantiate your claim. But then, hearsay is usually the only way you can make any claims about "leftists," since the actual facts say otherwise.

Furthermore, Moore talks about his personal wealth

SO? Do you have any idea on how irony is used for comedic effect? Is that why right-wingers are so unfunny?

while doing his best to come off as a common man. Personally, I have no problem with Moore making money doing what he does, but when he's playing both sides of the fence as he does, it should raise some eyebrows, especially among the union protesters.

The fact that it didn't speaks volumes.

It speaks volumes that they know you right-wing spunkgulps aren't fooling them.

Moore's beef with one particular union is a legitimate one. If a union doesn't have the workers he needs, it's impossible to use that union.

Moore's films and TV shows have always been union. Your copypaste of blatherings from right-wing websites that popped up after the Wisconsin rally (which brought in higher numbers than Beck's rally, by the way) can't change that fact.

Learn To Read First, Right-Wingers

2011-03-06T13:26:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Dear Michael,

It's rare that I agree with you on anything you say. However, sometimes you do say something that makes me nod my head in agreement. During a recent interview, you said the following:

They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.

There was more to what Moore said:

"What’s happened is that we’ve allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people and their not circulating that cash. If you don’t believe that go try and get a loan right now."

"I think that we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. We need to see these jobs as something that we own. That we collectively own as Americans. And you just can’t steal our jobs and take them someplace else."

At first, I scoffed at the notion. After all, as a conservative and a capitalist, why would I support the collective ownership of wealth? Then, I was enlightened. You're absolutely right, Michael. The rich should share their wealth with everyone.

And I can think of no better person to lead by example than, well, you.

According to CelebrityWealth.com, your net worth is estimated to be $50 million. Granted, that's not Bill Gates money, but it's not too shabby a nest egg. As one of the "common people" you so love to claim to represent, I believe I'm entitled to at least some of that nest egg.

For example, I have accumulated medical bills over the past few months. As the champion of the "little guy" in your film "Sicko" as you took on the health care system in America, I would think you'd whip out your checkbook and pay them all.

Also, I have credit card debt. As the champion of the "little guy" in your film "Capitalism: A Love Story" as you took on big banks, I think you'd be more than willing to hand over your Visa and pay off my debt.

More importantly, though, think of the example you'd be setting for wealthy people of your political persuasion. Why, I'm sure Barbra Streisand would be more than willing to hand over her...I mean our money to people like me. She's only going to keep it for herself, right? Ditto with Oprah, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and other celebrities who swing to the left. All they need is someone to lead them.

I believe that someone is you, Michael.

I propose we meet and hammer out the specifics of this arrangement. Let's say, a nice steakhouse in New York City. You'll pay for me to fly out there, put me up in a really nice hotel, take me shopping for some fine clothes to wear to the meeting, and be kind enough to pick up the entire tab without so much as a second thought.

After all, it's our money, right?

Sincerely,

Thomas Lindaman

I love it when Lindaman makes posts like these, because it shows how truly clueless he is.

Lindaman, you delightful dumbass: Is Moore exempting himself from the tax? No? Then shut up. All other concerns are irrelevant. Even if his net worth comes in below the proposed tax, he's not a hypocrite for proposing it.

Moore is advocating for fair taxation and that would affect him. He would be paying more taxes. Show us where in your tired cliched argument that Moore is saying "Everyone should pay higher taxes, except me." If the rich are the only ones allowed a say in how much the rich are taxed, how much do you think they'll end up paying? If your answer isn't a negative number, you're either stupid or lying.

Really, do you think that letter was particularly smart, oh-so-original, or clever? Moore is clearly stating that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage. He is wealthy. Therefore, he is saying that he should also pay a higher percentage. Which is why anyone calling him a hypocrite, like you, is a literal retard.

So, your attempt at making fun of him falls on its face extremely hard.

Good god, Teatards are dumb.

Scene Unseen

2011-03-02T03:23:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

This past Saturday, MoveOn.org organized a series of pro-union rallies in every state capitol in the country designed to show support for the public sector union workers in Wisconsin. As a working man who happens to live in a state capitol, I decided to do what any red-blooded American would do.

I crashed the rally.

Before I go any further, I should clarify I am not anti-union nor am I anti-teacher, anti-worker, or whatever other label the Left wants to slap on people like me. I am, however, pro-taxpayer, and when it comes to public sector unions, we're dealing with union employees whose benefits are paid by taxpayers. In a situation like that, taxpayers are often not represented well, if at all, when public sector unions make demands, which gives the public sector unions a decided advantage at the negotiating table.

That dynamic changed in Wisconsin with the election of Scott Walker and Republicans in their legislature. Instead of having an easy path to getting what they want, public sector unions finally had to put up a bit of a struggle, especially after Walker made it clear he was going to ask unions to make concessions as a means to try to get state spending under control. One of those concessions was to have the public sector unions give up collective bargaining except when it came to salaries. Unions, and MoveOn.org, objected.

The union agreed to every freaking cut Walker wanted to make, cocksuckers! It doesn't fit his narrative so he keeps forgetting it. Probably not on purpose because if he did remember it, it may require him to re-think his narrative and that would just rock his fragile world. Can you imagine a world where people stop thinking perhaps unions aren't so bad? Truly terrifying.

That brings us to the union rallies across the country. For the most part, it was a pretty civil affair. There were occasional snide comments about "corporate fat cats" and "politicians in the back pocket of Big Business" (oh, and the occasional shouting match and vague threats of violence against me for carrying a sign reading "Real workers don't have 'sick-ins.'"), but most left me alone.

From my vantage point, I saw and heard a lot of things that gave me pause. First, the union protesters kept trying to seamlessly fuse the public sector unions and the private sector unions, even though there are distinct differences between the two. I understand they wanted to show solidarity with their union brethren in Wisconsin, but it's like swapping a German Shepherd with a French poodle to guard your property. Sure, they're both dogs, but the differences between the two are stark. Plus, the poodle would surrender at the slightest sign of trouble.

Second, the union speakers were complaining about matters that unions been complaining about for decades. Yet, things aren't getting any better. To me, that's a sign of the failure of unions across the country, public and private. With union membership declining, having the same message with the same failure rate isn't a good sign. In a way, unions are becoming dinosaurs, and they may be heading for the same fate as the dinosaurs unless they change their approach.

Judging from the people at the rally on Saturday, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Third, there are still people within unions who try to act as "enforcers," but they don't know how to handle people who aren't afraid of them or who understand their tactics and have ways to overcome them. I did have a couple of minor run-ins with union folks who didn't like my sign or my position on the Wisconsin situation, so they tried to get me to leave through intimidation, by threat of physical harm or legal repercussions. When I presented a firm challenge to their authority, the "enforcers" became toothless and the fight went out of them.

Surely you have some video or audio to back this up, right? No?

How about a witness? Oh, that's right. You have no friends.

The reason I can confidently say Lindaman is blatantly lying here, is because Lindaman is a guy who got called out, in a frigging chatroom no less, to fight face-to-face with someone and he shit his pants cowering out of it. lol

You won't see a shred of evidence from Lindaman that this fantasy of his ever happened. Not a shred.

All in all, it was an interesting afternoon among the union folks. We may not have agreed, but the exercise of free speech was refreshing in an era where people take the exchange of ideas for granted.

1. Corporate and wealthy taxation at a historic low.
2. Corporate profits at historic highs.
3. Wealthy incomes accelerating (not just increasing)
4. Working and middle class incomes plummeting
5. Corporations not hiring despite swimming in cash
6. Corporations still moving operations overseas despite one of the most business friendly atmospheres in US history.
7. Attacks on ANY attempt at people to band together and bargain for better conditions.
8. Almost complete corporate control of the media.
9. Constant attack on public education or any mechanism that might stand any chance of getting people to think for themselves.

Yes, somehow, it is the rich and corporations who are being mistreated.

It's the southern manipulation of poor whites against blacks getting any rights all over again, except now their masters are turning them on themselves.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And He Flunks

2011-02-21T20:20:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

With the budget battles in Wisconsin garnering a lot of attention, it's easy to overlook the budget battle going on in Washington, DC, right now. And much like in Wisconsin, the battles are contentious. Democrats and Republicans are fighting over what to cut and how much. Although Republicans have introduced a decent plan to cut over a trillion dollars,

Biggest whopper of 2011 so far. See below.

but after reading some of the proposed cuts (and noticing some of the things that aren't being cut), I'm have to say Republicans aren't serious about it.

Allow me to step in and offer some suggestions for areas to cut.

Department of Education - Since the inception of the Department of Education, America's educational standards have slipped significantly. Whether it's students who can barely read coming out of high school or watching our math and science scores slide further and further down the list of countries, it's clear the Department of Education is failing. Oh, and when you consider Department of Education funds were used to buy the National Education Association a new office building in DC...it's time to make some serious cuts in their budget.

Sounds like Ron Paul. "Education is not a right!"

Just because you talk about it in your conservative sewing circles, doesn't make it reality.

The Department of Education being eliminated is about as likely as winning the lottery while being attacked by a polar bear.

The Department of Education direct lending program has been doing it better and cheaper without the private enterprise middle man.

Funny, when Obama wanted to stop federal aid for diploma mills, suddenly the cocksuckers in the radical right were suddenly in favor of funding education.

Thank god the traitorous Pentagon disagrees with cutting education.

Keep cutting education, and businesses won't want to move to your state.

There is never a good reason to eliminate the Department of Education. You absolutely need national, not local, standards of education.

Superfund - The EPA set up this fund as a means to help clean-up efforts at pollution sites. A good idea in theory, but in practice? Not so much. Superfund has constantly been funded, but the number of pollution sites being cleaned is pitiful at best. The list of pollution sites has been growing, but the number of sites actually being cleaned is practically non-existent. Put the clean-up efforts in the hands of private industry and defund Superfund.

Private industry is what caused the spill in the first place. Naturally, Lindaman somehow tried and failed to blame the government for it. lol

Department of Defense - Cost overruns aren't unusual for defense spending, but the amounts are obscene. If you're a Republican House member reading this, you honestly don't see a single cent that could be cut in the defense budget? I do, and we need to get a serious grip on our defense spending so we can stop spending $350 on a hammer. That's mini bar prices, kids. Go to Ace Hardware and pick up a hammer for a fraction of that. Then, let's cut a lot more.

Though I agree we spend too much on defense, the hammer story is not really true. Just because the movie "Independence Day" said so doesn't mean it's true. lol

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - Does anyone really think the government needs any hand in the mortgage industry? After all, the government only caused the current mortgage crisis. Strip them of funding yesterday.

The mortgage crisis came from predatory lending, not Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It was DEregulation that caused the mess, not government intervention. Yet again, Conservatives live in Bizarro World.

National Endowment for the Arts - I appreciate a good dramatic play, opera, or art exhibit as much as anyone. But given how Leftists are the ones who claim to appreciate them far more than a guy like me, maybe they should dip a little deeper into their pockets to support the arts. And why not cut out the middle man (i.e. government) and have them donate directly?

Picking on public funding for the arts is as classless as taunting a midget at an AA meeting. Leave it to Republicans to cut funds to museums (except Creationist ones, of course).

"After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are artists as well."

"The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think of something that cannot be learned from textbooks."

-Albert Einstein.

But hey, what does he know?

The FCC - What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" is confusing to the FCC? The very fact it exists defies the Constitution, and the fact it keeps getting funded is absurd.

You have only yourselves to blame for the FCC.

The FCC's entire existence is due to televangelists refusing to stay on their assigned frequencies, deliberately interfering with other broadcasters, and the FCC's predecessor having no enforcement power to deal with the televangelists' shitting all over the airwaves.

See? I've already shaved off billions with only a few suggestions. Come back when you have a serious budget cutting plan, Republicans.

The Republicans aren't going to cut jack shit.

The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt.

How was that going to cut a trillion dollars again?

Way to go, Party of Fiscal Responsibility(tm).

Uncivil Unions?

2011-02-20T13:17:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman does his usual anti-union claptrap.

It really amuses me that the GOP seems to be building a long term electoral strategy around making villains out of teachers, police, firefighters, nurses, and secretaries. They want to try and convince us that these people are the problem for our budget problems because they make too much money?

The thing is, all normal people know people like this. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen plus teachers, cops, firemen, and government employees that I know, and not a single one of them are rich and stupid. Chances are, most normal people know a dozen people like this too.

How out of touch with working people do you have to be to think that a majority are willing to go along with this?

I've yet to read any of the anti-union shills that post on these right-wing blogs concede that corporate or government demands/tactics are sometimes unreasonable. And certainly none of the "DISMANTLE THE UNIONSGARBL" types are equally calling for the dismantling of corporations and especially public contractors. I didn't realize that union members don't pay taxes! Oh, they do?

What scares the Republicans is the fact that Conservatives have chronically underfunded and/or raided public pensions to the point where they are a massive liability at all levels of government.

Instead of admitting that it was the Republican politicians of the past that screwed up, and the decent legal thing to do is to raise taxes to pay for the underfunding of pensions... the Republicans are taking this opportunity to union bust.

The GOP really can't even come up with too many people for their followers to hate. They're diseased.

"Well, I didn't hate teachers yesterday, but now that Rush told me to, I fucking hate the ever-loving shit out of them now! I can't stand them! I want to do everything in my power to get them! They should be destroyed and ground into the fucking dirt!"

Remember folks: Unless you are rich, the Republicans absolutely hate you.

"Unions are always the problem!

...unless it's minorities...

...or welfare cases...

...or the homeless...

...or the illegals...

...or people who drink lattes...

Aw hell, let's just generalize it. It's the poor and middle class. The poor and middle class are always the problem!"

Right now, it's public sector workers getting the shaft. In the past it has been, in and the future it will be again, private sector workers. "That guy works for a living and makes more than you! Tear him down!" And the people who have really sucked the blood out of the US will continue to laugh all the way to the bank, with your work and your money.

Don't tear each other down! Unionize. Organize!

And to the corporations: Don't want union activity to impede your profit? Create a culture (and reputation) that makes it obsolete. Don't like unions? Don't create a system that gives birth to them.

Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle

2011-02-17T20:14:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, he promised change. And today, his Administration delivered a big change to our relationship with Israel. In a stunning move reversing years of policy, the Administration announced it would lend support to a UN Security Council statement rebuking Israel for its stance on the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Rumor has it this move was done so the US wouldn't have to veto a UN Security Council resolution by the Palestinians condemning Israel.

Wow. What bold leadership there, huh?

We can debate endlessly over which side is right when it comes to the Gaza Strip, but let's look at some facts.

Here are some facts about Israel, the country we're rebuking:

- Under Israeli law, Muslims have as much freedom as Jewish citizens do, including the right to vote or own a business.

- Although Israel has earned quite a bit of land through military actions, it has given most of the land back through peace treaties.

- Israel has produced numerous Nobel winners in the areas of science and medicine.

- Although the land in Israel is arid, the Israelis have managed to find ways to make the land prosperous.

- Israel is a strong military ally whose form of government is similar to our own in many ways.

- The United States played a sizable role in Israel's reformation in the 1940s.

And we're rebuking these folks?

YEP. What are you going to do about it? The fuckers shouldn't be there. They deserve rebuking.

Sorry, guys... Israel is its own worst enemy.

Let's see some right-wing solutions. Oh! Here's one:

Mike Huckabee wants Israel to keep Gaza, and let the Palestinians make a new state from some other country. That is high-grade retardation from the right. Never mind that Palestine is their home and has been for centuries.

They don't want some other land. They want their home, the one Israel has decided it deserves and has all the rights in the world to take from them. Never mind if any other country in the world took land like Israel takes from Palestine they'd be charged for war crimes. It's Zionists like you that caused 9/11 to happen.

Better solution: Give the West Bank territory to Jordan and the Gaza strip to Egypt. Problem solved!

It has to be said again and again, lest someone get confused: The one and only reason right-wingers are in favor of supporting Israel, is because of Armageddon in their Christian book of bullshit, and because they want to stay in good standing with rich Neocons. They still actually hate Jews because they killed their fictional messiah.

Israel is playing the right-wingers like a fiddle. And in doing so, taking a lot of American cash to basically run amok. Surely we could use that money for something else, right?

Come on, Teabaggers, you know this is wasteful. Call out all those nasty RINOs. All that Israel money could be going for American jobs.

Got A Condo Made Of Stone-A

2011-02-13T13:11:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman says Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak isn't going to step down, then he does... the very next day. Oops!

For damage control, Lindaman has to pull out his usual soundbite of "Obama isn't a leader", accusing him of being indecisive regarding Egypt.

Right-wingers who think these Republicans aren't the ones playing it safe are either quick to forget or simply kidding themselves. In the grand tradition of chickenhawk right-wing motherfuckers everywhere, the GOP talks a lot but aren't really saying (or doing) anything of substance.

Do you know why people like Lindaman isn't saying what Obama should've done? Because what the President did, is pretty much what any intelligent President would've been able to do: offer assistance for peaceful resolution, and support for the legal government, while standing for a solution that ends up with less people dead by their own government's forces, and where all parties are represented in the formation of a new government.

Of course, that won't stop right-wing cow-fuckers from waving the flag to support the Freedom Loving Peoples of Egypt, or trying to scare folks about the scary Muslims and trying to make poor analogies to the Iranian Revolution that has little to no relation to the current crisis in Egypt, but in the end, for the GOP candidates, it isn't really an issue, because they are personally powerless to do much, and in the end, it has little to do with the US, and by not engaging the issue, they don't have to admit that there isn't much different really to do.

Right-wing idiots have no idea. Seriously. This was one of the most delicate diplomatic situations we could have possibly faced. Mubarak, though a dictator, was our ally in the war on terror. He was also an ally of Israel. Had we backed the protesters and he then stayed in power, we'd be in deep trouble in the region as far as diplomacy and intelligence gathering goes.

If you look at this in the context of the Bush administration's disastrous "support" for democracy, it is clear as can be that the result of the Egyptian uprising was the best possible outcome. If Obama had come out swinging for the "freedom fighters" in Tahrir Square, or some Reaganesque tripe along those lines, you can bet the dictatorship would have immediately accused the protesters of being foreign agents, with predictable results. (Compare Iran's failed Green Revolution.)

We can support what the protesters want, we can push for a peaceful resolution, and we can condemn the fighting, but we cannot openly back an internal revolution against a legitimate government. Obama took a hands off approach, but was in favor of the guy stepping down. End result? The guy steps down, Obama gets his end result of choice, and it cost us very little. The right would have had us make the revolution about us, and not the Egyptians, and that would have made things worse.

Obama did the intelligent thing and let our military and their military talk through the thirty years of back channels to figure out what the hell needed to happen. The right has no idea how to handle something like this, as they are short-sighted failures when it comes to statesmenship.

Thank Christ this happened while the deliberative (not indecisive) Obama was president instead of Bush or McCain - or, god help us, Palin. Can you imagine?

A peaceful revolution in a Muslim country flies in the face of the 'spread democracy though force' ideology of the right. To make matters worse, Egypt tossed out a guy they were heavy supporters of.

It's a huge embarrassment for the right-wingers. It proved popular revolution can come without the US having to attack, or support a violent anti-government party.

It's a wrench in the Neocon fucked up book of foreign policy. No more grand American narrative about being the peacekeepers, no more fantasies about running roughshod all over brown people to be the white savior of a oppressed but simple mass of people. Nope, they can do it just fine on their own, which means all our of military buildup (justification for our budget wasted on expensive shit that can't stop a jetliner full of people as a terrorist threat) is wasted cash, effort, and time.

Obama played this one just right. And it absolutely infuriates the right wingers. Yay!

Thanks, Republicans!

2011-02-02T21:08:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes about the federal district court judge ruling the health care reform bill as unconstitutional.

The funniest part is when he says Obama was weak because he wanted others to help on it. Oh, and he wanted Obama to pander to the judge. Yeah, that'd be a showing of strong leadership there!

Meh, hillbilly Republican redneck district judge toes the party line, pandering to right-wing lunatics. Didn't stop enforcement or implementation. The fact that the judge refused to enjoin or suspend the enactment of the law is very telling. He obviously knows his decision doesn't rest on a sound argument and is unwilling to put his ass on the line. He just wanted to stir the pot and make a few headlines by sucking political Neanderthal-dick. The righties are eating it up too.

What's hilarious is that he basically struck down what was pretty much the Republican healthcare package of 1990s. lol

This is an enormous trap for the right wing. Many classes of citizens have already begun to receive the benefits of HCR. People who could not get insurance now can. Drug benefits for seniors exist that do not exist before. Millions of people will be directly impacted. Now that is going to be taken away. By Republicans and nothing but Republicans. Let's see how this kind of populism works out for them.

The Republicans are protecting the HMOs and have been since Nixon introduced them. HMOs are about making money, not helping patients.

We have the most ass-backward health system in the civilized world, despite being the richest country in the entire world.

How anyone with a brain could be against universal health care is beyond me.

You get sick in Canada? Walk into a hospital and they treat you. Get sick in America? If you can't pay they literally stick you in a taxi cab and drop you off on the side of the road like trash. And Republicans get off on that. Loving Christians, all of them.

To think that some people actually believe these low-level wingnutty Federal judges are really putting the brakes on health care reform. Truly adorable.

These rulings will almost certainly be overruled at the circuit courts. I really doubt SCOTUS will want to touch it. Even though the supremes are dominated by Republican judges, they can't easily gut HRC without opening nearly every Federal mandate to successful challenge by the states. There are a hell of a lot of Federal mandates in our legal code, to open them all to successful legal challenge would spell mayhem.

This is a can of worms even our overtly right wing SCOTUS will probably not dare risk opening. Nobody will touch it. There is no way to please everyone and to touch it would only piss a lot of people off. Bad for your political future, bad for your party.

There is absolutely no chance that the US Supreme Court will rule against the individual mandate. It was a provision put in for the benefit of the health insurance industry. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations in the Citizens United case, so shall they rule in favor of the insurance companies regarding the individual mandate.

Ruling against the mandate would only accelerate the health care delivery crisis in this country, and there may very well be a reinvigorated cause for *GASP!* a public health plan. Big health insurance and lobbyist influenced politicians on both sides of the aisle don't want that.

Wake me when the SCOTUS makes a ruling on the matter. Good luck with that!

Thanks to you hicks, we're now even closer to a public option! Thanks guys!

UPDATE: Health Care Repeal Is Dead. HAHAHAHAHAHAA

Get Off Da Stage!

2011-01-25T19:05:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

President Obama has a State of the Union Address tonight. Although it's Constitutionally mandated that the President deliver a status report on the country, the past few years it's become less and less of a report and more and more of a PR statement from the chief executive. Seriously, what President in his right mind is going to come out on national television and say, "The country's in the crapper and I can't fix it"?

Too bad for you guys that Obama is fixing it. lol

Yet, at some point, we do need to be honest about where we are as a country. Since neither major party will do it, I'll do it.

That's fine. Just don't start your speech with some irrelevant rambling about Salt Lake City.

My fellow Americans, we face difficult times economically. This is a direct result of a failure of leadership, Democrat and Republican.

Nope, just Republican.

We have mortgaged our future as an economic superpower and the time for payment is coming due.

Much of our problem stems from one of our so-called allies, China. Right now, China owns a lot of our debt and holds something else that has a bearing on our financial future: a desire to see us fail. Of course, there are plenty of people who scoff at this notion, suggesting that China would hurt itself if it allowed us to fail. That is true for now, but there will come a point at which China will no longer need us because they will be able to subsist without us. When that point comes, nothing on Earth will stop China from calling in our debt and ruining us.

Again, even if they could ruin us (they can't, as I'll point out later), how would China creating a global economic collapse benefit them?

For the better part of two decades, we have taken the wrong approach with China. From George H. W. Bush to Barack Obama, China has been allowed to gain more and more economic power on the world stage because we have turned a blind eye to their atrocious human rights record. For years, we held their human rights record above their heads as a carrot to try to bring them forward. Since we've abandoned that approach, China has had no incentive to improve.

Annnnd... what's your solution?

The Obama Administration is hardly abandoning issues regarding China's human rights record. As a matter of fact, things are actually being accomplished thanks to this Administration.

Now, they rival the US in sheer economic strength, and they are not afraid to flex it.

Pffft.

There is a solution, though, one that will help our economy on so many levels and bring back pride in America. We need to start manufacturing again. For decades, we were the country that made stuff, but that changed. Once we moved into a service-based economy, we pretty much stopped making stuff and started making noise about stuff. But that didn't last long, either. Today, we're not even really a service-based economy because we've given up on even basic service. Let someone in India take that customer service job because we don't want it!

It's not because we don't want it, it's because it's cheaper for the huge corporations to do so.

That has to change, and it must start today. We cannot sustain our current consumer-based economy and expect to remain an economically viable country. We need to get back to basics and rebuild our manufacturing base. When John F. Kennedy introduced the Space Race to America, we responded with great enthusiasm and put our minds to work. We have the same spirit, but it's been dormant for too long. I say it's time we unleash the power of American intellectual might.

We start by giving businesses a reason to locate in America. That will require massive tax breaks for said companies willing to take a chance on America again. With even the start up of a single manufacturing plant, there will be jobs to be had. To ensure the economic strength is restored, those jobs will need to be good paying jobs, jobs where hard work is rewarded instead of scorned.

The problem is that most of the larger corporations don't pay taxes anyway, and the CEO's find enough loopholes to get away with paying 17%. It's the small businesses and the workers that are getting hurt. Thanks to the large corporations. You know, the large corporations that you guys defend endlessly.

Tax breaks aren't the solution. Making it illegal for companies to outsource is the solution.

Furthermore, there will be strict enforcement of immigration laws. Any company who benefits from my proposal in any way must hire legal workers or all benefits will be stripped from them and any benefits they received will be repaid in full, plus applicable legal fees.

"They took our jerbs!"

If any Republican politician actually cracked down on illegal workers, they would lose all of their backroom support from Big Business. And you know that. The only reason you guys pay lip service to illegal workers, is to pander to your racist base.

Liberals are soft on immigration because they aren't racist. Conservatives are soft on immigration because they can exploit them for cheap labor. Once again, we're the good guys.

To meet the demands of the future requires a greater emphasis on education, particularly in the areas of math and science. We must commit to holding our students and teachers to higher standards, but we must also commit to ensuring schools have the resources they need and the incentive to excel. Therefore, we will do an assessment of the public school system from top to bottom and fix our weaknesses. That will require a level of honesty we haven't seen in years, but the end result will be worth it.

And cutting the Department of Education, don't forget that. That'll help, right? The Invisible Hand of the Free Market will help education just like it did for health care!

Our choice is clear: continue down the path we are on and face economic extinction, or change our path, blaze a new trail, and reform our economy. I say we roll up our sleeves and change the game. That way China can eat our dust for a change.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

After all that Chinese Boogeyman silliness, it's time for some reality:

China only owns between 7%-10% of US debt. Minute in the overall scheme of things. It just barely beats out Japan. The majority of the debt (almost 70%) is owned by intergovernmental agencies.

So why is Lindaman so scared of China? Because Glenn Beck said to be scared of them a few days earlier?

Teabaggers like Lindaman never uttered a word about the size of government or national debt when Bush was in control. Now that the Democrats have control its all about how the sky is falling.

Sorry to disappoint you Republicans, but America is still a strong and very powerful country. Not just in military power, but in creativity and productivity.

Fortunately, liberals (who "hate America" according to Lindaman) apparently have more faith in America than Lindaman does. Why else would people like him support secessionists?

And Right-Wingers Fold... Again.

2011-01-17T20:00:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

During a recent trip to Salt Lake City,

Um... why were you going to Salt Lake City? That has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your post. So it's totally irrelevant. Have you learned nothing from flushing away all that money on Toastmasters? Either at least say why you went there, or don't bring it up.

I got to thinking about the recent Arizona shooting and how the Left has used it to justify some of their pet ideas being brought back to the forefront.

It figures that would be what you would immediately think of when it comes to human tragedy. Must have been a long bus trip to Salt Lake City. After all, you weren't going to pay for two plane seats, were you? lol

Here is a list of the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

- gun control
- revamping health care, especially mental health care
- reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine
- "hate speech" on talk radio
- painting the TEA Party as violent extremists

If I were more conspiratorial, I'd say this was more than just a coincidence.

How can you possibly be more conspiratorial?

However, I don't think it's an orchestrated effort so much as it is the Left trying to take advantage of the Arizona shooting to bring back some ideas they've tried and failed to make the case for previously.

The problem the Left faces in this case is trying to hook too many initiatives to the Arizona shooting when the connections aren't clear or are tenuous at best. For example, gun control advocates say the access to guns by the Arizona shooter proves there's a need for stricter gun control laws. The problem with this argument is it ignores a salient fact: the Arizona shooter was legally allowed to get the gun he used under current federal gun laws.

Put another way, he beat the system.

What the hell?

You're saying that we should not make stricter gun laws... because the current gun control laws allowed the killer to have that gun?

Lindaman, you glorious idiot. You have just created a logic hole that could implode the universe.

Anyways, you're also leaving out a crucial fact (yet again): The 30 round expanded magazine he used would not have been legal if Republicans had not allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire. At the very least, you guys probably helped at least a couple of those victims die just on that fact alone.

So, adding more gun control laws will prevent another Arizona shooting? Not so much, and it's not because of the "gun culture" in Arizona, either. It's because their laws are of no consequence to those who aren't going to follow the laws in the first place. You can pass any number of laws you want, but it won't change the fact there are people who won't follow
them.

Oh, really? So does that mean you're now against the racist anti-immigration laws that Arizona passed? After all, there will be people who won't follow the laws, so why have the laws?

Anyways, this is nothing new from the radical right. They still live in a fantasy world where they think in terms of bumper stickers: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Too bad the evidence shows otherwise.

You guys always weep when mass gun-related killings happen in the United States. Too bad the weeping is not for the victims.

We always know what the right-wing solution to gun violence is.

But don't worry, you guys always scramble when these shootings happen, even though it's really not needed.

Would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine have stopped the Arizona shooter? Nope. Turns out he didn't pay attention to talk radio or the news. What good would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine do in that case? It wouldn't.

You see, it's not the people who got shot who are the victims here! It's the right-wingers that could have rebuttals! Those poor victims! Oh, wait... reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine was never on the table. Never mind.

Improving mental health care? It was suggested the shooter seek professional help on a number of occasions, but it wasn't acted upon. Spending more money on mental health won't help those who refuse help or those who ignore the warning signs that someone may need help.

Good lord, the measures are first aid certification courses to help identify people that have mental health issues. What's wrong with that?

The TEA Party is violent? To date, there have been zero arrests at TEA Party events due to violent crimes. You can point to the video at a Rand Paul rally of a woman being "stomped"
as proof to the contrary, but only if it's taken out of its larger context.

Here's all the updates. What was the larger context? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And while we're here, violence is a staple at Leftist protests (see any G8 protests)

ROFL! Now Lindaman has to go outside the United States to make his point. Funny how he says nothing about the fascist police at those protests.

The political right in the United States spawned a domestic terrorist who killed 168 American citizens, 19 of whom were children.

When you look at violence in the United States, the majority of violence in modern political history.. say, since World War II.. has been right wing. You were not talking about worldwide issues here, you were talking about political violence within the United States. Now you pathetically try to widen it to claim that "lefties are violent" when modern history proves you wrong.

or in response to TEA Party and conservative rallies (a Leftist actually bit an old man who responded to his taunts).

Oh, not this bullshit again. Lindaman yet again leaves out the facts: The "old man" (Bill Rice) punched the "Leftist" in the mouth, twice, before he bit Rice's pinkie. Rice himself admits that.

Honestly, Lindaman, how do you live with yourself?

If the TEA Party is violent, they suck at it.

I for one would love to see the Teabaggers in any kind of violent physical altercation with another opposing party. I'd give them a minute and a half, tops, before they collapsed in a wheezing, gasping pile of sweaty, fat, middle-American flesh.

"Hate speech" on talk radio? A favorite target of the Left in this regard is Glenn Beck, a man who has advocated non-violent protest with regards to Obama's initiatives. Has he said things that could be construed as hateful? Yes, but only if you distort the context, as Media Matters loves to do. Even so, given the fact the shooter didn't listen to talk radio, taking on "hate speech" in talk radio wouldn't have stopped him.

Lindaman, you have spent this entire article distorting and outright lying. This is an undeniable fact.

And when you were asked repeatedly in the past to present any evidence whatsoever that Media Matters distorts or takes Glenn Beck out of context... the best you could do was quote a proven anti-Semite. You couldn't find one goddamn thing that Media Matters said about Beck that was out of context. Not one goddamn thing.

We on the left can take credit for a guy that bit a man's pinkie after getting punched twice in the face, fine. You Becksters will have to take credit for Byron Williams.

So, to review, the Left is advancing ideas that wouldn't help anything related to the Arizona shooting, but would help them politically. And when the next tragedy occurs, something tells me they'll do the same thing.

Lindaman sure is pissed off at the Left for stating horrific things like trying to prevent gun massacres, improving health care, and denouncing violence and hate speech.

Here's an idea... instead of scrambling to defend your fellow lunatics, racists (your "card" metaphor clearly shows why you defend them), and hatemongers... why don't you become a decent human being like us? Then you could possibly move forward in your life and actually make something of yourself.

Tragic Events Give Right-Wingers Amnesia

2011-01-16T15:21:00.001-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

I have to applaud President Obama for his statements a couple of days ago telling Americans we can be better and not inject vile politics into a tragedy like the Arizona shooting. It was the right thing to say and I can't argue with it, given how vile the political rhetoric has gotten in the wake of the shooting.

If you're sensing a "but" coming, you're right. I do take issue with the President's statement from a timing aspect. This was a statement that could have and should have been made on the day of the shooting, preferably prior to the Paul Krugmans of the media world deciding Palin and conservatives were to blame for the shooter's actions (all prior to gathering those pesky things called facts). As it stands, Obama told people to tone down the rhetoric after the rhetorical barn door had already been opened and all the cattle had stampeded out of there.

This speaks to two aspects of the Obama Administration. First, it reinforces Obama's lack of leadership skills. When this series of events was unfolding, a leader would have had the foresight to see the potential for chaos to break out and try to curtail it before it happened. Obama didn't, and chaos ensued.

The other aspect is the pure political nature of the Obama Administration. Rahm Emmanuel loved to say "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and Obama didn't in this case. His delay in issuing a statement telling Americans to ratchet down the political rhetoric allowed people who agreed with him (such as the aforementioned Paul Krugman) to set the narrative on his behalf. The Left ran with the "Palin/Beck/Limbaugh/TEA Party is to blame" idea for days before Obama stepped in and told us to be better. That, I believe, was a political calculation designed to further demonize his opponents in a way that couldn't be linked directly to him and to give him an opportunity to appear above the fray.

Sorry, Mr. President, but you're hip deep in this with your silence. Like it or not, your silence actually enabled the heated rhetoric you're now telling us to discard, and your ideological pals on the Left aren't listening. That undercuts the heart of your message to the point it's now irrelevant.

Lindaman yet again has to resort to stealing from Beck and Limbaugh. Lindaman had to wait until there was something negative to extract before posting about it (in this case, they had to resort to "Obama waited too long"). Lindaman then parroted them (and tacked on the "he's not a leader" to disguise the stealing). Hell, even the title isn't original.

Obama did make a statement after the shootings. Immediately after. Was he supposed to have an hour-long speech ready immediately? Why are you right-wingers such lying fucking pricks? You guys and your faux amnesia.

What's funniest, is that if Obama made a one hour public speech on the day of the shooting, Limbaugh and Beck would say: "Why does he demand all of this attention so soon? Why does he want the spotlight so badly? Can't he give the nation some time to think about it before he consults his teleprompter? Is he trying to shut down the national discussion by speaking so soon?" And Lindaman would parrot this, then tack on "Uh, and he's not a leader. See, my stuff is totally different from Beck."

And regarding blame: Strange, wasn't the Voice of the Republican Party spending most of the last week attempting to tie this man to the... Democrats?!? And failing miserably?

Oh, and don't forget this lovely Tea Party Founder's comments on who is to blame for Gifford being shot in the head: Gifford herself!

It started with Palin, Angle, and Bachmann's pie holes. It was never about "blame," it was about illustrating in painful detail what "second amendment solutions" look like in practice -- regardless of the shooter's reason for resorting to it.

You lost your rights to speaking about exploiting a tragedy after the GOP raped 9/11 and its victims like a drunk girl on prom night for a decade.

That being said, I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the message of "don't blame anybody." The longer we continue with the farce that we are all to blame for what happened, the longer the perpetrators get to hide behind this country's fear of actually accusing the extreme right of doing something wrong. You cannot restore civility by lumping the civil and the uncivil together and saying "everybody just needs to chill out, okay?" The civil are already civil, and the uncivil will accuse the speech as an empty gesture and will continue to stoke the fire and motivate these horrors knowing everyone will take the blame when it happens again. It does nothing more than provide anonymity for the perpetrators to hide behind.

What happened when people actually named names and called Palin out for her disgusting hit-list? She took the fucking hit-list down. See? One has to stop giving them cover, and start flushing them out into the light of day so they can be punished. Call them out.

It's you right-wingers that helped create what happened with your violent rhetoric inciting lunatics. And then, OF COURSE, you try to exploit the aftermath.

You right-wingers cowered as the spotlight shone on your actions. Who are you guys to say how and when others are to mourn their deaths? You're nobody.

I wonder how you and Beck felt about Bush taking three days to get to New York after 9/11. We know how Beck felt about the victims' families, that's for damned sure.

You're just bitter because, yet again, Obama makes you guys look retarded.

Well, THOSE Republicans Don't Count...

2011-01-04T21:27:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

One of the first tests of the Republican leadership in the House is coming soon over raising the debt ceiling so the federal government can keep the doors open. Republicans have said the want spending cuts instead of raising the debt ceiling, which has made Leftists go absolutely crazy. (Well, at least crazier than they usually are.)

Yeah, those right-wingers sure aren't crazy. Just ask Byron Williams, Gregory Giusti, and Charles Wilson!

After all, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, according to them, the economy will collapse! Vital needs will be overlooked! Ed Schultz might bite the head off a kitten! (In other words, Schultz will be himself.)

The only fearmongering is from you guys. But it's okay, don't be scared.

The big question I have is why do we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can keep the federal government's doors open. That's clearly not the only option, as the Republicans have so adeptly pointed out with their statements as to why the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised. When you have to make hard financial decisions to stay afloat, most people look to ways they can spend less. They don't just say, "I'm giving myself an extra $1000 this month to pay bills" and then expect everyone else to go along with it. Either you have the money or you don't. End of story.

It's not as though Washington, DC, has been careful with our money, especially not as of late. And, yes, Democrats and Republicans are responsible for that. Raising the debt ceiling enables our politicians to be irresponsible longer and without much consequence, since most people don't even know what a debt ceiling is.

House Republicans have a winner with their proposal with two caveats. First, they have to be willing to make actual cuts, not just reductions to proposed increases. I would suggest they start with some of their pet programs because it would show how serious they are about making actual cuts, not just saying they believe in making cuts. Second, they need to be willing to play on the battlefield the Left has already laid out for them, but beat them to the punch. Granted, Leftists are going to try to paint this issue as the GOP not caring about the poor by denying services to them or some such rot. The retort should be this: We're going to live by the rules the average American has to in order to live right now. You don't think that will put the Left on the defensive, especially when coupled with real spending cuts?

The risk may be great for House Republicans to oppose raising the debt ceiling, but if done right, there will be an ever greater reward waiting for them.

Well, we saw how the first Republican test, as you call it, turned out.

Republicans acknowledge debt limit should rise

I'm sure you will now switch parties and totally not keep lying about the Democrats that are doing a better job with the economy than Republicans have since Eisenhower. lol

2011: What New Right-Wing Nuttery Will Come?

2011-01-03T08:27:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Another tradition I had at CommonConservative.com was an annual column where I made New Year's Resolutions for other people since I was so bad at making them for myself. Since I still suck at it, I put together a list of resolutions for others because, dang it, I CARE. (That, and it makes up for the lack of blogging recently.)

To President Obama, I resolve you pick up a leadership training course and fast. Blaming Republicans for your failures (and there are many) isn't the sign of a great leader. It's the sign of a poor leader who can't or won't take responsibility for his/her actions and instead deflects blame to others as a means to protect his/her ego.

Name his "many failures" and how he isn't taking responsibility for them.

You talk of responsibility? When you're proven wrong, you just keep repeating the same bullshit. For example, you keep repeating manmade global warming data was fudged, even when it was proven otherwise.

To Nancy Pelosi, I resolve you take a hard look at your performance as Speaker of the House. I know what you think you did, but what you did was to alienate people of your own party in an attempt to force through your agenda. As a result, your accomplishments were meager at best. Sure, you passed a version of health care reform, but it was a bill that will get challenged in court and possibly be deemed unconstitutional. And your lame excuses and stupid comments ("We have to pass the bill to know what's in it.") insults the intelligence of average Americans.

She said they have to pass the bill so that you can know what's in it. You won't comprehend it until you experience the benefits. Because people are too busy listening to shitheads saying "Socialismz" and "ObamaCare" instead of facts.

But at least you got the menu changed in the House cafeteria.

Lord forbid they lead by example by not using Styrofoam and chugging down high fructose corn syrup.

To Harry Reid,I resolve you count your blessings. You dodged an electoral bullet this past November and by all accounts, you haven't earned your position as Senate Majority Leader, but you survived. The next time, you may not be so lucky. Not every Republican is Sharron Angle.

They aren't?

Regardless, I think it's hilarious that Republicans really had to go out and find the world's biggest freak to run against him.

Even if Reid had lost, we'd have probably gotten Durbin in his place. Then you'd really have to lay on the bullshit!

It's amazing that the Republicans have managed to quarter the retard vote into thinking "Obama is whatever is bad" through emotional appeals -- but then, that's one of the reasons why Reid could be better. If he could reach out to retards like yourself and your toothless cousins and get you angry that Republicans actually voted for rape, or point out to you that Republicans actually killed small business lending recently, I think that the Democrats could make inroads into your lizard-like communities.

To John Boehner, I resolve you pay attention to the TEA Party movement and bring the Republican Party back to its small government roots. What has happened over the past two years isn't a fluke. It was the direct result of Republicans moving to the Left in ideology and spending. Ignore the TEA Party movement, and you'll find your tenure as Speaker of the House to be a short one.

The Tea Party cost the GOP four Senate seats. They will be ignored in action. You'll vote Republican anyway.

To Sarah Palin, I resolve you learn to pick your battles. There are a lot of conservatives and Republicans who attack you, but you don't have to respond to them all. Take the time to judge the legitimacy of the charges and respond accordingly. If you know it's complete crap, laugh it off.

She is! "Blood Libel" was pretty funny, wasn't it?

To Janet Napolitano, I resolve you learn to do your job. Since taking the job, you've shown an incredible lack of understanding of even the basic functions of the Department of Homeland Security. Seriously, sending DHS agents to the Gulf Coast to oversee the oil spill?

While you push for the EPA, which isn't their job?

More airport security regulations that make do nothing to help security?

You're the one that bitched about the feds regarding Faisal Shahzad getting on the plane, when it was the airline itself that allowed him to get on the plane and it was the federal government that actually caught him. lol

Not working on a way to secure our borders?

Get immigration reform addressed, then you'll see more. In the meantime, the 1500 added border patrol agents certainly didn't hurt.

Lady, you're a long way from competent.

You're going to talk about competence, when you don't even know what she's saying? You said that Janet Napolitano said that it was premature to say whether the Obama administration's response to the Gulf oil spill was adequate, when Janet was clearly talking about BP's response. When you know what she's actually saying, get back to us.

To George Soros, I resolve you spend more of your money trying to take down Glenn Beck. That way you lose more money on a futile effort.

Facts sure piss you guys off, don't they?

What's funniest, is that neither Beck nor Lindaman can point to anything stated about Beck that was wrong. What's the matter, Lindaman? Doesn't your good friend and Anti-Semite ANDY MARTIN have new nuggets of wisdom?

To the TEA Party movement, I resolve you stay true to your roots. Now is not the time to compromise with those who want to see your message diluted or distorted for political gains. Stay intellectually honest and stay on our politicians if their ideas run counter to yours.

Like when they scream "JEW!" when their candidate loses?

Or when they try to bring back segregation?

Or when they say Methodists are Socialists?

Or pushing to have history books changed to history books won't say anything about the Founding Fathers "intruding on the Indians or having slaves"?

You guys are a bunch of kooks, which is repeatedly proven.

To Lady Gaga, I resolve you let Madonna know you stole her shtick, circa 1990.

That's very true, and very relevant... back in 2008. Good to know you're on cutting edge of pop culture.

To Sean Hannity, I resolve you expand your horizons to pick up more than six basic talking points to repeat every day and to use other guests than your usual ten who you seem to have on every week for one reason or another. Seriously, you're boring and it's amazing someone else hasn't overtaken your position as second most listened to talk radio show in the country.

Dude, you brought up the so-called "Climategate" emails in your last few posts over and over again, ignoring that they were cleared.

To America's enemies around the world, I resolve you remember we have an election coming up in 2 years, and if current trends continue, you won't have Obama helping you by being incompetent.

Prove he's incompetent. And don't forget folks: Lindaman also said Obama would lose the presidential election.

To America's allies around the world, I resolve you remember we have an election coming up in 2 years, and if current trends continue, you won't have to put up with Obama's incompetence for much longer. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Maybe we should have Palin instead, right? After all, she'll stand with our "NORTH KOREAN" allies. lol

To the manmade global warming cultists, I resolve you get up the courage to admit you were wrong and fudged data to try to hide it. Science isn't helped by your decades of dishonesty, and only after you come clean can you restore what shreds of credibility you have in the scientific community.

Hey, you deluded liar: When are YOU going to grow a sack and admit you were wrong? They. Were. Cleared. Read that goddamn pdf in the last link.

You're just praying people won't remember they were cleared.

Just like when you posted for days and days trying to prove manmade global warming is a fraud, and claimed you used climatologists as sources. When the fact is: You weren't able to produce a single climatologist as a source. You lied.

That's why you ignorant nutjob neanderthals have to say all of those climatologists are in on a vast global conspiracy. Because all you have are a handful of cranks. You're nuts. Completely nuts. You've taken a course in Science Denial For Beginners.

To my critics,

Critic. Not "critics."

I resolve you keep pointing out my flaws as you see them. Without you acting as a jeweler's cloth, I wouldn't be able to continue to improve my skills.

You haven't learned a thing. When your mistakes (re: "Hide the decline", the Doug Ross BP Timeline) are pointed out, you just keep repeating them and ignore the facts.

Even your pointless criticism teaches me something, mainly that there are people out there who will complain about anything no matter how inconsequential.

You are inconsequential, yes. But your lies are monumental.

And finally...

To my fans, friends, and family, I resolve you enjoy my humble musings next year and take me to task when you disagree. This blog is as much about you as it is about me. I enjoy bringing my perspective to you, and I am humbled when you offer feedback. Thank you.

Happy New Year, everybody!

You have many fans, friends, and family that support you, that's for sure. Even when you beg them to leave feedback, like you just did. lol

Can't wait to see what new bullshit you right-wing lunatics pull out of your collective asses for 2011. It'll be difficult to top your ClimateGate Climatologist failure, your BP Timeline failure, and your "Choke on it, I have ANDY MARTIN as a source!" failure. Bated breath!

Nothing In

2010-12-30T08:30:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Leftists have always attempted to paint conservatives of any stripe as mentally deficient. Over the past two weeks, though, they've been positively orgasmic over two studies that "prove" their positions correct.

Orgasmic? LOL Similar studies have been around for ages and they simply keep confirming what is already blatantly obvious.

The first is a study by WorldPublicOpinion.org that shows (according to them) Fox News viewers are the most misinformed about matters ranging from the state of the economy to who supported TARP. Since its appearance in the media, I, among many, have taken the time to review the study. To put it mildly, the study's conclusions make global warming look like the settled science Al Gore claims it to be. Without going into too much technical detail, the study's major flaw attempted to create a correlation between actual knowledge and whether that actual knowledge agreed with experts those conducting the study deemed to be credible. (Never mind the fact the "experts" chosen may not have been credible on the subject matter themselves, but that's speculation since the researchers never bothered to ask that question.)

When you try to create a link between something concrete and something that is subject to opinion, the argument in favor of the link had better be solid. In this case, it wasn't, judging from the reseachers' own report where they attempt to define what misinformation is. If they were so confident in their conclusions, they wouldn't have needed the disclaimer they added.

Did you even read the study? The study was not asking people if they thought global warming was real. They were asking people if they thought scientists agreed on whether it was real.

And vast overwhelming majority of scientists do agree that climate change is real. There is a consensus. There is no squabbling among them about it.

But Fox News viewers, being tards, think there isn't a consensus among scientists. That is absolutely not true. That is a fact even if you don't believe manmade climate change is real. That clearly shows that Fox News viewers are misinformed. Considering Fox News ordered their staff to cast doubt, that's no shock, is it?

The second study was reported in the Telegraph, and it reflects conservatives (at least in England) have a larger portion of the brain that controls fear than liberals do. After a small bit of research, I found a fatal flaw in the study: the sample size was too small. When a study is done, the sample size must be statistically valid, meaning it's large enough to weed out any anomalies that would presumably occur. The sample size for this particular study: 93 people. Out of a country as big as England (and a city as large as London, for that matter), fewer than 100 people were used to support the conclusions in the study.

So, in addition to being a global warming expert, and a crowd estimator expert, you're now a brain research expert?

There's an underlying question that should be asked at this point: Why now? The Left have claimed science as their exclusive intellectual stronghold for decades and they've tried to use it in the past to establish themselves as intelligent. To have two studies come out in two weeks that affirm what Leftists already believe is no mere coincidence, in my opinion. I feel it's a reaction to the recent midterm elections where Republicans made great strides to advance a more conservative vision for the country. Had Democrats won, I doubt either one of these studies would have seen the light of day, save for Leftist blogs. Given the current situation, however, the studies in question are being touted as hard fact.

The problem is when you push flawed science as hard fact, it's only a matter of time before someone finds the flaws and exposes them. Take, for example, the Climategate emails. Even though the Left had the better part of two decades of nodding agreement because of the scientific community, this past year has shown the depths to which the Left will sink to support and maintain their politically-driven "science."

Still waiting for Lindaman to show what exactly the emails showed that proves some vast cover-up.

I guess Lindaman didn't get the memo: All the inquiries cleared them, and showed they did not tamper with data or exaggerate the threat of global warming. There was no "Climategate", just as I was saying all along.

But Lindaman is hoping people won't know or remember that.

Kind of like Fox News. Not that other media outlets aren't also guilty of spreading right-wing ignorance.

But you're still among the most uninformed.

There's an old computer programming idea that comes to mind here: GIGO. For the uninitiated, it means "Garbage In, Garbage Out." With both of these laughable studies, GIGO appears to be playing out nicely.

With right-wingers and Fox News, it's just "Garbage Out". You won't even allow information in your clouded noggins. Your whole philosophy is based on ignorance.

It's Allliiiive!

2010-12-27T10:30:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Back in the heady days of CommonConservative.com, we would run annual awards celebrating the highlights and lowlights of the year.

CommonConservative.com had "heady days"?

Since CommonConservative.com is no more,

You're the anti-Midas!

Just kidding. You're a guy who slices into liberal illogic with your "quick wit and logical mind". At least that's what your blurb always said on CommonConservative.com, a blurb totally not written by Lindaman himself. After all, it's perfectly logical to ignore facts, and parroting other pundits while tacking ":-)" at the end is the ultimate in rapier-like wit.

I wanted to continue the tradition, mainly because it's so much fun to put them together.

As always, you are welcome to comment or add awards of your own. If they're good enough, they may become part of next year's annual awards. So without further ado...

Democrat to Watch: Harry Reid. After retaining his Senate seat and his party retaining control of the Senate, Reid is in a unique position: the only name-brand Democrat with any kind of political clout. President Obama hasn’t used the bully pulpit to bully anyone stronger than BP, and Nancy Pelosi has been relegated to a leadership position with the minority party in the House. It may not help him overcome gridlock, but watching Reid come away from the 2010 elections in the position he’s in now will be great fun indeed.

Democrat to Forget: Nancy Pelosi. From the first woman to be Speaker of the House to being the first woman to be Speaker of the House who oversaw the wholesale crushing of her party in a midterm election. Nancy, here’s a clue for you. Maybe the reason you’ll no longer be Speaker of the House come January is because you suck as a leader.

"Crushing"? Really? The Democrats kept control of the Senate! Bush, Clinton, and Reagan couldn't do that.

Oh, noes! We lost Blue Dogs that shouldn't have been elected in their Conservative areas to begin with! The Blue Dogs as a caucus have been largely worthless. Take the health care bill. Polls show that a majority of the public doesn't like the health care reform bill. However, when you decouple the actual parts of the bill from the bill itself, an overwhelming majority supports those parts. Clearly, the public has internalized the GOP line about socialism and government-run health care. The obvious strategy is a coordinated effort to advertise the parts of the bill that the public likes and then leverage that into support for the bill. Instead, we had idiot Ben Nelson running around talking about death panels and terrified Democrats clutching their mikes at town hall meetings while some slavering moron screams at them to keep the government out of our medicare!

We saw the same thing with financial reform, student loan reform, climate change legislation, etc. If it was just one issue, it wouldn't be a big deal. But literally every major policy initiative has run afoul of the Blue Dogs. It's almost instinctive that if the President supports something, some Blue Dog is going to pop up and oppose it.

Now, on Pelosi: Pelosi has been the most successful speaker since the 1960s. She's able to accomplish the impossible and consistently whip the votes to pass legislation.

So what gives? I am genuinely curious to hear a conservative (a smart, reasonable one, not one of you poop-flingers) explain specifically why they hate Pelosi. I mean, it's entirely possible that I missed something and I'd like to know what it is about her that draws so much ire aside from being effective and for the most part liberal. Of course, people despised Ted Kennedy for precisely these reasons - he was a liberal who generally managed to get shit done.

Conservatives hate her because she's a strong, intelligent liberal woman who makes things happen. Similar to why they hate Obama because he makes them look stupid.

I suppose that Conservatives would prefer to have Dem opposition that is little more than a sock puppet with whom to trade barbs at a podium, and not someone who actually moves and shakes things.

Republican to Watch: Sarah Palin. Last year I picked her as the Republican to Forget, but this past year has made me think she has something else on her plate that would make a 2012 run the last thing on her mind. In the 2010 elections, she had a pretty good track record in picking the winners (around 70-75% if memory serves), and she was instrumental in helping several candidates win. And there are rumors (not circulated by her, by the way) she’s running for President in 2012. Keep an eye on Palin over this upcoming year.

One better keep an eye on Palin, that's for sure.

Republican to Forget: Christine O’Donnell. Seriously, hang it up. You may not be a witch, but you sure as heck aren’t a serious candidate for public office.

Palin's no better, so why favor her over O'Donnell?

Independents to Watch: The TEA Party movement. After a year where they were mocked, maligned, and slandered by the Left, the TEA Party movement got the last laugh by fielding winning candidates for public office. Now, comes the hard part: governing by the TEA Party standards. If the TEA Party has any legs at all, this upcoming year will prove it.

Anyone who thinks that a "movement" that has network support is still "grassroots" needs to have their damn head examined. Which pretty much explains a great deal of the folks who joined this Astroturf. Seriously. You cannot call yourself "grassroots" when you have a network shilling for you. You cannot call yourself "grassroots" when you have AEI Fellows shilling for you--or rather, your leaders disguise their own shilling for the AEI as their own positions.

Dissatisfaction in the ranks as folks realize that they've been hoodwinked? Yeah, that's going to be ugly if the hicks realize how badly you rooked them. Which is sort of the point. The Teabaggers is the only way for Neocons to preserve anything like control or power. By harnessing dissatisfaction with the very policies that they advocated, they ride the tiger and point it anywhere that isn't on themselves. Supporting rebranded Neocon ideas and policies ISN'T grassroots. And the record for failure on those policies doesn't make them any more appealing, save if you wrap them up a bit in flag and Jesus, but no matter how you rebrand them, they remain the same policies that have failed.

Neoconservatism can try to hide its agenda within these folks, but it remains the radicalized idiocy that is steeped in ideology over reason. It remains the same policies that have led us to this recession and two wars, while coupling with another radicalized agenda with the Religious Right. It doesn't add up to rationale debate or reasonable policy that is far reaching and forward looking. Rebranding radical ideas as "Conservatism" may work for a while, but it when the risks that you've taken with the economy and domestic policy keep coming home from such a radical position, then you have to examine if these policies have any real basis.

And we keep seeing these radical policies unraveling. Because they are NOT prudent, thoughtful, or particularly Conservative positions. The one thing that these radicals have done is successfully repackaged what are terribly radical ideas that despise our government and Constitution, and painted it as both Conservative and patriotic. And they are truly neither, and I welcome the day when folks realize this and return to reasonable Conservative positions, based on fact, based on the Constitution, and based on long term planning.

“Independents” to Forget: The “No Labels” movement. The great irony of the “No Labels” rally recently was they lamented partisanship…while being partisan attack dogs. You guys are about as independent as Michael Moore, but at least you’re as full of crap as he is.

Notice how Lindaman can't specify how Moore is full of crap, BTW. What's the matter, can't link up to some bullshit freeper anti-MM website?

As far as the "No Labels" movement: It's only non-partisan when promoted by Fox news, right?

But, unlike the "non-partisan" Tea Party, this at least has opposition members in it.

Reality tends to have a liberal bias. The nature of conservatism makes it irrational, and as such it is inherently opposed to reality.

This isn't a surprise; any party that wants to focus on inclusion is naturally going to appear liberal when compared to the party of "Screw everyone else, I want mine."

Thanks to the radical goalpost-shifting of modern conservatism, "non-partisan" and "Democratic" are essentially equivalent. Bernie Sanders is the most left-wing politician in Congress but by objective standards he's a center-left technocrat.

There is no left-wing in the US and we're in worse shape because of it.

Why am I not surprised that the people who feel most threatened by a group that pushes for non-partisan solutions are... the Republicans? lol

Underreported Story: the Obama Administration’s bungling of the Gulf Coast oil spill. It’s no secret (except to those who still worship Obama) the President lacks certain leadership skills, not the least of which being knowing when to lead. The Gulf Coast oil spill was a ready-made issue he could have used to showcase his leadership, but instead he let others take care of it for him, and they blew it. Sending lawyers and Homeland Security personnel to the Gulf Coast before sending down the EPA? Monumentally dumb.

It's not the EPA's job, dingaling.

Blaming BP? Dumber still.

BP is to blame because it's THEIR fucking responsibility.

The photo ops in lieu of actual policy? Even dumber.

First you blame Obama for not being vocal enough, then when he is, you say it's a "photo-op" just as I predicted you would. Idiot.

Pushing for a moratorium of offshore oil drilling? The mother of all stupidity.

That's capitalism, bub. If you show you can't drive, you can't have the keys. Sorry!

For you Leftists who think Michael Brown was a disaster for the Bush Administration, he was competent compared to the multiple missteps by the Obama Administration to address the Gulf Coast oil spill.

They were on the scene as soon as the accident occurred and immediately started saving workers, and trying to contain the spill once they learned that it was leaking as much as it was. The Coast Guard rescued scores from that doomed platform before it sank. That's with no notice at all. Brown had two weeks.

And Obama got a shitload of money for the victims. Which I'm sure pisses you right-wingers off to no end, since in your eyes, the victims are BP. You know, the ones that killed eleven workers.

They handled things just fine.

Overreported Story: Wikileaks. With the release of secret and embarrassing information, Wikileaks became a major story overnight, and it seems as though every day there’s some new scandal arising from Wikileaks (“Lindsey Lohan Consulted on China Policy”). Given the amount of attention paid to this matter, Julian Assage couldn’t have asked for better advertising, but I think we could have done with a bit more actual reporting instead of the multitude of half-stories regarding Wikileaks.

That's what's great about getting news from the internet, you can filter the junk.

Unreported Story: the overuse of the race card. The Left has never been scared to play the race card whenever it was useful to their agenda. This year, anything became an excuse to use the race card. Obama getting criticized? It’s because of racism.

But Beck's the one that wondered if Obama hates white people and white culture. Remember?

People opposing the Ground Zero mosque? It’s because of racism.

No, bigotry. Two different things.

The TEA Party movement gaining favor with the American people? It’s because of racism.

And stupidity and ignorance, don't forget that.

And the more they use it, the less effective it became.

1. Right-wingers take video of Al Sharpton talking about equality, and state it's about black people wanting free stuff.
2. Right-wingers fall over themselves to keep an AZ law that has racial profiling.
3. Black male John Lewis states he was called the n-word and was spat upon. Right-wingers fall over themselves and say he's lying by default.
4. Right-wingers post old National Geographic footage of a New Black Panther party member being a dick, and say that's somehow connected to the NAACP.
5. Right-winger Breitbart posts video deliberately cut down to falsely imply a black member of the NAACP is racist. Right-wingers add on and falsely say the NAACP is cheering and applauding her racist comments.
6. Right-wing Fox News's website and right-wing Fox Nation immediately run with the right-wing Breitbart story. After the video is proven deceptive, Right-wingers pretend this didn't happen.
7. Right-wingers want to stop a community center that's two city blocks away from Ground Zero, because it's Islamist and has a prayer room.
8. Dr. Laura spews the n-word, and right-wingers defend her.

And that was just within about a month.

Man of the Year: George W. Bush. When the Left isn’t attacking him for every bad thing that has ever happened from the economy to them not getting a bike for Christmas when they were 7, Bush is starting to carve a place in history by being right. One of the funnier aspects of the Wikileaks scandal that isn’t getting covered by the media is how Wikileaks actually produced proof there were WMDs in Iraq.

Nope. It was nothing that wasn't already known. And regarding that, here's a brief primer for the tards.

Combine that with the fact President Obama publicly joined the pro-tax cut bandwagon by pushing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts, it’s clear Bush has earned the Man of the Year Award for being a better and more influential President than his critics want to admit. Miss him yet?

You mean the tax cuts that cost more than the stimulus?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/10/the-number-858-billion/

Again, the GOP is willing to let everyone's taxes go up rather than give up tax cuts for the highest income bracket. They will blame Obama for this bullshit because they are lying, disingenuous assholes.

You are aware that the Republicans now control the House, aren't you? That means the Republicans can simply present Obama with a choice: either veto any extensions to the cuts, or accept extensions to all the cuts. Raising taxes during an economic downturn is hardly orthodox left-wing economics. The Democrats have long wanted an extension of the "middle class" tax cuts--they only opposed extending the tax cuts on the top brackets. Obama, indeed, promised not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 during the election. So to present this as a simple black and white, good and evil choice for Obama is fatuous. He can either raise taxes on everyone, which certainly has some good effects from the p.o.v of the deficit, but which also risks putting the brakes on the economic recovery at a dangerous time, and definitely hurts the middle class that Obama had promised to try to help. Or he can extend the tax cuts for everyone, which is probably better from the p.o.v of the economic recovery, but which makes the deficit problem worse.

This is a tricky political and economic calculation, and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not Obama is "willing to play hardball" or "is being wimp" or any of the other no-brain children's playground analyses you are so wedded to.

So how much of a surrender was Obama's deal with Republicans? 48% of the compromise was stuff Obama wanted, 13% was stuff Republicans wanted, and 39% was stuff both parties wanted going in.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/why-obama-won.html

It had to be done. Franken explained this best.

R. I. P.: global warming as a scientific certainty. For decades, the Left has been riding its high horse on global warming by citing scientist after scientist stating global warming was real and manmade. Three little words changed that forever: “hide the decline.” With the Climategate scandal where climate scientists out of England were caught fudging results and weren’t able to produce their evidence (a big no-no in the scientific community, by the way), the Left’s high horse has become a Shetland Pony. Ginning up results to promote a position that cannot be justified isn’t good science.

Yet when I asked Lindaman what "hide the decline" meant, and what was wrong with it, he didn't answer. Why? Because he didn't know. Right-wingers just repeat soundbites like "hide the decline" and hope nobody else knows what it means, either.

Here's what it meant: The "decline" was the decline of reliability of tree ring data compared to instrumental temperature data after 1960 (the data becomes more and more divergent). So they didn't use that unreliable data, in order to maintain accuracy. Again I ask: what's wrong with that? If they didn't hide the decline, the output would've been inaccurate. Heck, they're not even hiding the unreliable data, because you can get it elsewhere. They're just not using the unreliable data. Would you prefer they used the decline? That would make things inaccurate! So again I ask: what's wrong with hiding the decline?

If they didn't "hide the decline", it would have made global warming look WORSE. Are you getting it through your fat head yet? You're criticizing them for not using unreliable data that would have made the case for manmade global warming even stronger! You are criticizing them for not having a manmade global warming propaganda agenda, and being honest.

I also remember when Lindaman was cheering for Penn State's inquiry of Dr. Mann. I said "Good!" because I also wanted an inquiry, as I knew he would be cleared (because I actually read the emails, ya see). Sure enough, Mann was cleared. Lindaman clammed up and said nothing. Big shocker! Of course, even if Lindaman had said anything, he would just say they were in on the Big But Simple Conspiracy.

Flash in the Pan: Obama’s global presence. Since his election, Obama has been touted as a departure from George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy,” which would (according to his followers) bring about America’s return to dignified status in the world community. Of course, that isn’t what happened. World leaders treat Obama as badly, if not worse, than they treated Bush. Even our allies have a hard time taking Obama seriously. A stark contrast to the fawning media coverage of Obama’s European trip when he was running for President, to be sure.

He backs this up with nothing.

The Real Deal: net neutrality. You may not have heard a lot about this subject this year, but it is a vital issue. Leftists are suggesting the government needs to step in to guarantee Internet service providers treat all data the same way instead of picking and choosing what data gets preferential treatment. On the surface, it’s a nice idea, but after a deeper review, it loses a lot of its appeal when you think about the implications of the federal government dictating to private industry how they are to provide a service. And just think, kids. There are some Leftists who think the “net neutrality” proposal already on the table isn’t strict enough.

The use of the term Net Neutrality is just wrong in 99% of its applications in the media when they refuse to differentiate between content filtering and bandwidth capping/throttling.

Since the barrier to entry in the ISP market is so high, it is likely necessary to have some regulation necessary to preserve the openness of the market and preserve the free-flow of information.

But yeah, get people worked up over this by being dishonest instead of getting them worked up over the absolutely PATHETIC state of broadband access in the United States. Great idea!

To recap: In 2010, Net Neutrality suddenly became a huge talking point with right-wing crazies. Right-wingers going on big rants about how this was apparently Obama taking control of the Internet. Apparently the week or so before Christmas the Rush Limbaugh show and several other right wing talk shows got marching orders from their friends at Comcast. There was no actual mention of net neutrality or what the FCC was trying to do, it was all a bunch of nonsense about how Obama was trying to single handed take control of the Internet, and how the FCC would start blocking access to websites of opponents.

Do you want your internet provider to be able to limit your access to certain websites unless you paid a higher amount every month? No? Then clam up. The government isn't 'regulating the internet'. The FCC is trying to make sure that various corporations don't fuck over consumers.

You see, right-wingers have an irrational fear of the "Government" and believe that the "free market" will save them, despite the fact that there's very little ISP competition in most areas. Nobody is asking for the FCC to take control of everything, but merely make a statement that no one shall discriminate among web traffic and that consumers are entitled to the bandwidth that they PAID FOR. You see, right-wingers? This stance actually supports your position to have unfettered access to FreeRepublic and Glenn Beck's site.

For the last time, retards: It's regulation of the actions of ISPs to prevent them from manipulating the content of the internet. It's not regulation of the content of the internet.

Raw Deal: The TEA Party being responsible for the GOP not taking back the Senate. A common theme with the Left and some members of the Right is that the TEA Parties cost the GOP control of the Senate, thanks to the campaigns of TEA Party favorites Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. The problem with that line of thought is the TEA Party wouldn’t be necessary if the GOP (especially those who claim the TEA Party cost the GOP the Senate) hadn’t sold out to the Left. Some of the people the GOP establishment were pushing were nothing more than the same RINOs the party faithful have been complaining about for decades. And given how the GOP Establishment wasn’t too keen on helping Angle and O’Donnell on winning, maybe the TEA Party wasn’t the problem. Maybe, just maybe, it was the GOP Establishment.

Missed Opportunity: For the second year in a row, Republicans completely botched the TEA Party situation. Political operatives on the Right started acting and sounding like Leftists when it came to the TEA Party’s influence on the 2010 elections. Instead of taking their concerns seriously, Republicans treated them like lost children needing to be taken home (i.e. back to the GOP voting ranks). They just don’t get it. There wouldn’t be a need for the TEA Party if Republicans acted like, well, Republicans. Until Republicans get this concept, watch for more missed opportunities with the TEA Party.

Teabaggers: The Republicans are ignoring you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/us/politics/02teaparty.html?_r=1

Courting the Christian rubes and then ditching them when it's over is a Reagan invention. And they still support him, being the uneducated retards that they are.

And you can tell the Tea Party is being dumped. Palin is being dumped too. There's at least 21 months left until the next election and the Teabaggers will be called on when their Republican Masters tell them who to vote for. The Teabaggers never got that when you threaten not to vote or to vote for the other guy, sometimes you have to show an example of that power they speak of. That power, according to 2010, is that they can put their people into high places only when they do it on the sly or among other Republicans. If they threaten the Party Masters and then all vote for Obama in 2012, that might get them some juice to use for 2014. But as it stands, the Teabaggers are the base, like it or not. You don't have to cater to them at all. All you need to do is promise them the moon or offer them to vote for the Other that they hate. Not rocket science, and it works when your base is full of people who are deaf to any opposition, think that the Republican Party is 'their own' that they have to free, and are toothless because their threats simply don't matter.

The Teabaggers are the very emblems of the sad Republican base in this country: they have a lot of talk, but no action. They threaten violence, they threaten a lot, but in the end they're ineffectual fatasses without any teeth. They like to play revolutionary but they are the essential shiat of the American populace: useless, shiftless, projecting their own hatred onto others, but unable to do anything because they are simply too lazy. Even the Party Masters know this and use it to great effect. Now, when Palin's out of the way, they'll simply vote for whomever has the R in their name. Rinse and Repeat, it seems, is what the R really stands for.

I would laugh, but it's so sad. It'll be wiped from history in a few months anyway, right after they start the cheering chorus for their next Master to be pushed into the White House unsuccessfully.

You know... the rich people who need the Republican Party have got to be sick from all this Teabagger nonsense.

In order to garner enough votes to control anything, the rich folks have had to align themselves with all of the right-wing kooks -- the fundies, tea baggers, "Constitutional conservatives", etc...

When you boil it down, it all amounts to one thing: Money. The rich people don't want to pay taxes. They want to keep all of their money to themselves and live in comfort and opulent luxury. That's it. They don't care about "conservative issues" and they don't care about any of the other baloney hot-button topics. It's about not wanting to pay taxes. It's about making as much money as possible and piling up as much wealth as possible and not having to give/pay anything back to the country for it.

The problem they're having is, that as they consolidate true wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, the Republican Party must come up with more creative ways of drawing in the numbers of voters they need to stay in control. This means that they've had to go after every right-wing nutjob they can find, using every trick they can come up with. They incur a tremendous amount of baggage having to associate themselves with these people, but they need the votes.

I wonder what all the kooks in the GOP would think if they knew how the true party leadership (the folks with the money) really feel about all of their petty causes.

It's all about the money. It's not about the Constitution... or abortion... or guns... or small government... or religion... or any of that stuff. It's about money.

Defining Moment: Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally in Washington, DC. Although the TEA Party gatherings had an impact on this year, it was Beck’s 8/28 rally that opened a lot of people’s eyes to just how many people felt America needed to get back on a proper course. Hard attendance numbers vary from the laughable CBS-concocted number to the overly optimistic conservative numbers, but it’s safe to say Beck’s rally was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 people gathered together for a non-partisan purpose. That showed people on both sides of the political aisle there are people unhappy with the way the country’s being run, and they will be holding everyone accountable.

CBS didn't "concoct" the number, liar.

CBS News was the only media outlet to hire a professional overhead photography company (AirPhotosLive) that specialized in estimating crowd size. Their consultant used well-established methods in making his estimate, which was double and triple checked. They also do documented time-lapsed aerial analysis of people entering/exiting. They have done similar crowd estimates for Homeland Security in the past. They're as close to unbiased as it comes.

The other crowd estimates for Beck's rally were completely anecdotal.

All of the neutral professional estimators put the Beck rally at under 100k. The three professionals hired to estimate the crowd averaged out at 76k. The “liberal” CBS went with the highest estimate of 87,000.

Here's the methodology by AirPhotosLive. Try to dispute it (he won't): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html

And you lost the ability to call it "non-partisan" when you right-wingers marching in lock-step with the Republicans tried to half-assed compare the Beck rally with a little known liberal rally (while leaving out that the actual counter-rally had two and a half times more people than Beck's).

Stuck on Stupid: Anthony Weiner (D-NY). With a virtual one man war against Glenn Beck and Goldline, Weiner has shown himself to be arrogant, dismissive of any opinion that doesn’t match his own, and completely in over his head against anyone with a lick of sense. In other words, Democrats have a new Alan Grayson to replace the original after he got booted in the midterm elections for…well, for acting like Weiner is now. At least in Anthony’s case, his last name is pretty accurate for the kind of man he is.

Ooooo that's original!

You hate Weiner for the same reason you hate every Dem that doesn't roll over for Republican retards: Because he calls you shitkickers out. Funny how you don't dispute anything Weiner or Grayson said.

Now sit down.

The Bottom Line Award: Chris Christie. The New Jersey Governor has raised a lot of eyebrows since taking control of the state, but he has maintained his brutal honesty and lack of concern over the opinion of those predisposed to condemn him for his political ideology.

Of course, if he was a Democrat, you would say he was "arrogant, dismissive of any opinion that doesn’t match his own, and completely in over his head against anyone with a lick of sense."

He’s shown integrity in government, honor in defending women against Leftist boors, and generally shown the traits that make up the Bottom Line Award.

Yeah, like going to Disneyworld while Jersey freezes to death. "HURR HURR, SO MUCH FOR ALL HANDS ON DECK!"

The Anna Nicole Smith Lifetime Achievement Award: Christine O’Donnell. From cute-as-a-button spoiler in Delaware to cute-as-a-button buffoon, all in the span of a few months. In retrospect, it seems she never quite understood the media environment that came after her and continues to make Joe Biden-sized gaffes at the most inopportune times. And with rumors surrounding her lack of financial acumen (read: potential misappropriation of funds), O’Donnell has certainly set back women in politics significantly.

Meh, the stuff coming out of her mouth wasn't much different from what we normally hear from right-wingers.

The Dan Rather Award for “Excellence” in Media: Rick Sanchez. The former CNN anchor made quite an impact this year, mainly because of his ham-fisted buffoonery. He lost his job at CNN because he said Jews run the media, as evidenced by Jon Stewart. Of course, Stewart caused a stir by pointing out just how vapid Sanchez was and then laughing about it on “The Daily Show.” Here’s a clue for you, Rick. Maybe the reason you were mocked for being such a moron…is because you’re a moron. And now, you’re an unemployed moron because you let your ego get in the way of doing your job. Congratulations, Rick. You’ve earned this award.

Rick Sanchez is just a poor man's Steve Doocy anyway. At least Doocy is dumber than a box of old dentures AND unintentionally funny.

The DEE DEE DEE Award: Alan Grayson. Take a smug Congressman, add a Leftist mean streak to beat the band, and throw in a tone-deaf approach to the electorate…and you’d have a pale imitation of Alan Grayson. He may have been the darling of Leftist radio and TV shows, but he forgot to consider what the electorate wanted him to do and it cost him his job. At least he’ll have a future on MSNBC.

The only reason Grayson got elected in such a Conservative area, was because the incumbent he beat was a crook. Republicans hate Grayson because he does the same things they do, only better.

The “It Looked Better on Paper” Award: Obamacare. Any time the government gets involved in health care, the results usually don’t turn out that well (case in point: Medicare). Now, thanks to Obamacare, we’ll all get the same attention to swift, quality customer service in health care that we get at the DMV. And when you get to the bottom of it, Obamacare really doesn’t do anything to address the problems in the health care arena, but does a lot to enrich the very people Obama and his Democrat allies were demonizing throughout the debate over Obamacare.

"Doesn't do anything"? Here's five things that have already kicked in:

1. Insurance companies can't deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Children can remain covered under parents' policies until 26.
3. Insurers can't terminate coverage.
4. Insurers can't cap lifetime benefits.
5. Insurers can't charge for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies.

That's five more things than you guys would ever bring to the table. You're too busy sucking BP's dick.

The Padded Resume Award: Barack Obama. The more we see him try to be Presidential, the more we see how little actual experience he brings to the table. From “Hope” and “Change” to “Hope we can change Presidents soon.”

Backed up by nothing.

The 14:59 Award: Andy Warhol once said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, but some personalities are quickly running out of their allotted time. This award celebrates one such personality. This year’s award goes to the “Octomom,” Nadya Suleman. Her claim to fame is dubious at best, and it seems she’s on the verge of eviction from her home in Southern California. Wow. Who would have guessed a media-created “celebrity” could be so bad with money?

One word: Idiocracy. That's why I know the Republicans will have another president someday.

Chickity China The Chinese Chicken

2010-12-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

I've often said Leftists aren't good with an economy because they don't understand the basics of economics.

TARP has been an overwhelming success. The same goes for the Stimulus, which has apparently saved somewhere around 3 million jobs. The car bailout turns out to have been a good thing too. The bailouts kept us from going off the cliff. The lack of bailouts in Europe still have them toeing the edge. History will show who was right. Healthcare reform will also ultimately save this country a good deal of money, if you self-absorbed corporate anarchist bastards don't manage to kill it in the House.

Essentially the Republican plan is to keep things just the way they are now--no better, no worse--until they can get into office in 2012 and take credit for fixing the economy. If the American people have to suffer, so be it. After all, we had the gall to elect a Democrat in 2008, we deserve whatever befalls us.

Republicans are the party of people who don't know how to manage their (inherited) wealth, and rapists. The rapists thing really surprised me, but they are what they vote.

Republicans understand the basics of economics? Are you going to fix it the way you fixed it last time?

Almost Zero Job Creation Under Bush

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost _ decade_f.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2J1196.html

Stock Market Was The Worst Ever Under Bush

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704786204574607993448916718.html

Bush Produced The Worst Economy In Decades

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html

IMF Declared America To Be In A Depression 2 Weeks After Bush Left Office

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6aaWZ8ab8yU

But tell us more about "the basics of economics", you REPUBLICANS you.

This was made abundantly clear recently with a quiet little event that caught very little attention.

The EU's economy is tanking as badly as ours is. To help matters, America is sending money to some of the EU's banks as a means to help them along. Of course, the first big question is where we are going to get the money since we're still recovering from our own economic downturn. The short answer is...we don't know.

There's another question that should concern us all. As we've seen, the dollar has been losing its value in recent years. While the Left said it was bad under George W. Bush, the Left has said it's great under Barack Obama because a weak dollar stimulates trade by making our products cheaper. However, no one will be forced to buy our products, even if they are cheaper because it's a free market. People have a vested interest in buying products at a lower price, but they're not bound to it.

Now, for the question. What impact will a weak dollar have on the money we're sending to the EU? The answer lies with the Chinese. Right now, China owns a lot of our debt, due to the political and economic bungling of both President Bushs, Bill Clinton, and now Obama. By granting Most Favored Nation status to China, we've given them access to our economy.

And here's the punchline, kids. China will use that against us.

At any time, China can call in our debt, meaning we either need to pay them in full or they essentially own us. And they have told us to watch our spending in recent months. Extending a monetary helping hand to the EU isn't exactly being miserly, especially considering how poorly the dollar has fared against the Euro.

Now for the question. What would happen if China decided to call in our debt after floating a loan to the EU?

The short answer: nothing good.

The longer answer: it would ruin two major global economies, leaving China as a sole economic superpower. America would be unable to pay its debt to China and unable to pay its loan to the EU. The latter, in turn, would cause the EU's economy to continue its death spiral until it either pulled itself together and pulled out of it or crashed and burned. The instability of the EU right now makes the latter the more likely outcome. China will have beaten us and the EU without even firing a shot.

So, does anyone else want to rethink our generosity to the EU?

Well, the United States could do the same thing and "demand payment" of all our debts.

It won't happen. Not by us or by China. Because we both know that doing so would destroy the worldwide economy.

How could China remain an economic superpower, if the economy of the world has collapsed? It would ruin their own economy, as well. Fortunately China understands economics better than right-wingers.

As far as the EU: Allies help each other out, that's what allies do. Helping to stave a worldwide economic collapse not only helps them, it also helps us.

And one last thing: It's a loan. We're not just "sending money."

I say let's finally start calling out the Chinese for the problems their currency manipulation has caused for industrialized economies all over the world. America could use a good scapegoat these days anyway, and the Chinese are infinitely more deserving than the (very ugly) anti-Islam sentiment going around lately.

Hang It Up, Charlie

2010-11-15T11:00:00.000-05:00

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Today's House Ethics Committee hearing about the alleged crimes of Rep. Charles Rangel took an interesting turn as Rangel walked out of the hearing, citing a desire for legal representation and objecting to the Committee denying it to him. At first, I had the reaction a lot of people did: shock and amusement.

Yet, if you really think about it, Rangel's actions today were part of a brilliant political move designed to minimize the damage to himself and the Democratic Party. At this point, I honestly do not believe Rangel ever intended to testify before the House Ethics Committee because to do so would have meant he would be under oath. Lying to Congress could be grounds for a contempt of Congress charge, which would have made things a lot tougher on Rangel. What he needed was a way for his side of the story to get an airing, but not subject himself to the possibility of lying under oath to Congress.

That's where Rangel had an ace up his sleeve, or to be more precise, two. The chair of the House Ethics Committee is Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). Until Republicans fill that position in January, Lofgren is still the Chair, which means she controls how things will go. That gives Rangel at least one sympathetic ear. The other ace is Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel of the House Ethics Committee. He has direct ties to...you guessed it, Zoe Lofgren. And as Rangel's primary defender before the Committee, he was the voice Rangel needed. That made Rangel bulletproof, politically speaking. He had nobody at home who would take him to task (he won reelection handily in his home District), and the likelihood of the House Ethics Committee punishing him beyond a slap on the wrist during a lame duck session of Congress was high. He really didn't need to be there, so he made a scene and walked out.

This was the best defense he could have concocted, and he played it brilliantly. It also takes a lot of heat off the Democrats because it would have been harder and harder for them to defend him if the hearing went on beyond a day or two. As it stands, the Ethics Committee should be ruling on the matter by the end of the week, thus putting the issue behind the Democrats once and for all.

He may be a dishonest scumbag, but I have to give Charles Rangel credit for such a brilliant political move.

You're probably right that Rangel never intended to testify.

As far as I am concerned if the voters of a district want to send anyone at all, they have the right; if he is bent, then it is up to them to vote him out.

In the spirit of that, the Supreme Court should be able to send a rep back to his district to stand in a special reelection. That should be the ultimate sanction, but if he wins reelection then that is that.

The only time someone should be forbidden from taking up a Congress post is if they are actually currently incarcerated. In that circumstance they should be forbidden from attending Congress till their release, but on release should be back in their seat. Of course being incarcerated should trigger a special election.

The reason ethics violations don't get you banned from Congress is that it is up to the voters of a district to decide who to send to Congress, not up to Congress to decide who it wants. If mere ethics violations (as opposed to breaking the law) were punished by expulsion every time it would have the effect of the majority (who can decide ethics rules) having too much control over membership, which in turn partially disenfranchises the voters by allowing their congressman to be done in by his political opponents rather than them.

It would devolve to the point where the majority party would bring ethics charges against any Congressman where they thought they could change the dynamics of that district enough to win the seat.

Charlie, you're 80 years old. You've been serving in the House for almost 40 years. Go home.

WE'RE WAITING!

2010-11-09T09:03:00.000-05:00

Lindaman writes:

In the aftermath of last Tuesday's midterm elections, a new narrative has come from the Obama camp: the election results were due to bad communication from the White House to the American people. The idea is if they had communicated their successes more effectively, voters wouldn't have voted for Republicans overwhelmingly.

On the one hand, they have a point. The Obama Administration has a communication problem, one they have suffered with since Obama took the Oath of Office. On the campaign trail, the Obama team was effective in packaging a message and getting it out to the people. We may not have agreed with the message, but it cannot be denied that Obama's campaign communication team was a well-oiled machine.

Once in office, however, Obama has suffered with communication missteps, many of which can be left at the feet of former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. While the communication during the campaign was accessible to everyone, the post-campaign communication has become smug, snarky, and condescending towards anyone who holds a contrary view. Look at the Obama Administration's treatment of Fox News, for example. Whether it was the occasional off-handed remark about whether Fox News is a legitimate news network or the more ham-fisted attempts to treat Fox News as illegitimate, the Obama Administration spent a lot more time attacking a cable news network than they did in articulating a message related to their efforts. That shows a poor communication strategy designed not to trumpet their successes, but bleat out a poor tuba solo and blame it on others.

While I admit the Obama Administration's communication hasn't been as effective as it should have been, I can't completely chalk up the midterm election results to it. A huge part of any communication strategy is determining the message to send to the intended audience, while containing as well as possible any unintended messages. In the absence of the former, the latter becomes the message by default. We can argue about what the Obama Administration has done, but it means little if the source of those accomplishments isn't talking. That cedes the ground to third parties on both sides of the aisle, which can lead to a distortion of the intended message.

In this case, the message that was conveyed to the public was a disjointed mess of Leftist arrogance, partisan fear-mongering, and rampant hypocrisy. Combined with the TEA Party's rhetoric energizing people to get involved and the way the political winds tend to shift in midterm elections, it was assumed the Democrats would suffer losses. The question was how many.

Chalking up the political drubbing Obama's party received last Tuesday on a failure to communicate is appropriate, but only to an extent. If Obama wants to avoid another setback for his party (and possibly himself) in 2012, he'll need to address the communication issues within his own circle of power soon.

WHY HAVEN'T YOU GUYS FIXED THE ECONOMY YET? YOU'VE HELD A SUPERDUPERMAJORITY FOR DAYS NOW!

As expected, Republicans gained seats. The Democrats got Health Care and Financial Reform passed by spending their 'Political Capital' on that (heck of a lot better than pointless wars). Of course there was a backlash to that in addition to the usual anti-incumbency due to Americans wanting instant gratification.

But there IS good news here. The Democrats kept control of the Senate. This was something Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were unable to do, which is a good reflection that people still aren't crazy about the Republicans taking total control. And Pelosi, Frank, Reid, and Boxer made it. Wasn't the bloodbath some folks were predicting.

This will also secure Obama's second term. Whew!

Come 2012, he'll have something to point at while the Republicans won't have much at all to point at except obstructionism and birth certificates.

And finally:

Percent of Dem member losses: Progressives 5%, Blue Dogs 45%.
Percent of Dem members returning: Progressives 95%, Blue Dogs 46%

To that, I say HOORAY! The plurality of opinion regarding health care reform, wall street reform, and economic stimulus has not been that Democrats and the Obama administration went too far, it is that they did not go far enough. Losing House control was worth it even to get that message out. Dems also criticize our own elected officials, instead of just blaming everything on the other guy.

It must really suck to be a Democratic Party politician. None of the fawning ignorance, blind support, and your voters/donors won't support you if you don't vote the way they want.

Obama gave people tax cuts. Obama reduced the deficit. In 2008, we on average lost 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. But people don't know this, no matter how many times they're told.

The reason Democrats have a "communication" problem, is because the majority of people are simply stupid and/or ignorant.

Seen Juan, Seen ‘Em All

2010-10-31T20:10:00.001-04:00

Lindaman writes:

As I'm sure you've heard, National Pubic Radio has fired commentator Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that they felt were "inconsistent with its editorial standards and practices." What did Williams say that was so beyond the pale for NPR?

This.

Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Later in that same segment, Williams also took O'Reilly to task for his statement on "The View" where he painted Muslims as terrorists, saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Timothy McVeigh.

First off, I'm not a fan of Mr. Williams' politics by any stretch of the imagination. But I will stand behind him on his firing because, in truth, his "offense" was taken out of context. When combined with his statement about Christians not being responsible for McVeigh (an odd comparison to make, but that's a blog post for another time), Williams doesn't come off as bigoted as NPR seems to think he is.

It's not unlike the Shirley Sherrod situation where her comments were taken out of context

By a right-wing website.

and used as justification for her to lose her job with the Department of Agriculture.

“Used as justification”? What are you implying here?

Personally, I think Sherrod should have lost her job for reasons other than the comments she made at a meeting of the NAACP, but that's neither here nor there. The Juan Williams situation bears an eerie resemblance to the Shirley Sherrod situation in one important way.

Shirley Sherrod tells a story about how she had a change of heart and abandoned her justified racism and is fired hastily based on an edited tape and for that, she is racist. Juan Williams on the other hand says a personal, bigoted statement with the credentials of a corporation (NPR) in a public forum in full context and is fired by his company, but he’s not a bigot? Must have been because the former was about white people while the latter about Muslims, who we all know are not people, right? Funny, i didn't hear clapping (like that dipshit Breitbart said repeatedly) in that edited video.

The Agriculture Department fired Sherrod before they had the full story. Sherrod's comments were made at an obscure event, and the full video didn't emerge before Sherrod was asked to resign. Thus, they made their decision based solely on the out of context clip posted on the right-wing Breitbart's site (and Fox News.com). By contrast, Williams made his statement on a national cable broadcast -- NPR had access to as much context as they wanted.

It was white Leftists doing the firing in both cases.

Seems our lily white friends on the Left have no problem dumping a person of color when they become "radioactive," even when the comments in question are taken out of context and whipped up into a frothy glass of self-righteous indignation. But Leftists never take someone's words out of context and creates straw man arguments out of them, right? I mean, aside from Media Matters...and the Huffington Post...and DailyKos...and DemocraticUnderground...and MoveOn.org...okay, you get the picture.

This comment by Lindaman is pretty funny, considering when asked to prove Media Matters was dishonest, he had to use a proven Anti-Semite (Andy Martin) as a source… because Media Matters said he was, well, an Anti-Semite.

As of this posting, our good friends at the NAACP have yet to weigh in on the Williams firing, but I'm sure they're working on their statement as we speak. Unless, of course, they're too busy whipping up more racist lies about the TEA Parties. Then, their response might be delayed, but I'm sure it will be lightning fast when they do it.

“Racist lies?” Do tell!

- Virtually no demonstrated Teabagger anger at GW Bush
-The Mark Williams letter
-Teabagger Sarah Palin attacks the NAACP and makes no mention of Williams' letter
-Tea Party Gingrich/Beck embrace D'Souza’s racist article
-Paladrino racist emails
-Rand Paul’s anti Civil Rights position
-VA Beach Teabagger Republican racist black dog email
-Texas Tea Party voter intimidation against minorities
-POTUS attacked as "angel of Death” by Colorado TP group
-Dick Armey accuses Democratic Minority early voters of voter fraud
-Several racist Billboards against POTUS this year
-Viral attacks against NAACP for seeing racist elements in TP
-TP racism always denied by TP leaders( ex M. Williams)
-TP defends Breitbart and O'Keefe
-TP only sees racism in NAACP,POTUS,Holder,Sotomayor, Michelle Obama

While I'm sure Mr. Williams isn't holding his breath waiting for the NAACP's statement, plenty of people from both sides of the aisle are upset with NPR's rash action, as we should be. Williams was fired for nothing more than expressing an honest personal opinion within the context of a larger conversation, a conversation I might add that the Left doesn't want. NPR's actions reek of the same reflexive desperation that Shirley Sherrod faced from the Department of Agriculture, and I see the same result coming. The white Leftists will eventually cave and give Williams his job back in the hopes that everything will be forgiven and forgotten.

Let's hope Juan Williams forgives, but never forgets.

It's about time NPR fired Juan! Long overdue.

The 9/11 hijackers weren't dressed in "traditional Muslim garb" (whatever THAT is). They blended in. Too bad bigots like Juan don't understand that.

Juan's comments are the equivalent of "If I see a black man dressed in a way I don't like, I get nervous when I'm near him." I guarantee you if a white liberal candidate said that, Fox and right-wing bloggers would be all over him.

Fox is upset about this, of course. Fox is mad because Juan appeared on Fox frequently (being Bill O'Reilly's little bitch), thus Fox could claim they had a black "Democrat" on there. Liberals knew better, of course. Now Juan's credibility is gone, and Fox has lost even more credibility.

Williams was not a "commentator" like Glenn Beck, therefore he has to have journalistic integrity. Williams knew the rules at NPR on how to conduct himself. Williams had been previously warned about making statements which were in violation of NPR rules. Juan's recent comments destroyed any sense of impartiality he may have had, and his statements damage the integrity of NPR. They had every right to fire him.

And before right-wingers try to say it: No, NPR is not federally funded. It's public and privately funded. It's a non profit, private organization, not a government one. The ONLY government money they get adds up to less than 2% of their budget, and comes from federal grants, which they compete for, to support specific programs. Similar to what happens with faith-based initiatives. Even if NPR gets a small amount of public financing, much like a church that receives public money through faith based initiatives, it is not a government entity for purposes of the First Amendment. Getting fired by your employer for saying stupid, bigoted things is not a threat to free speech. That's why it's called the free market, you bootstrappers.

And now Juan is in bigot heaven: Fox News, where credibility and integrity do not matter.

Just like the Sherrod situation, right-wingers are red-faced and absolutely pissed because "leftists" aren't tolerating bigotry and are quick (in Sherrod's case, TOO quick) to dump their trash.

The "leftists" dump bigots, while the right-wingers put them on a pedestal and give them multi-million dollar contracts.

Naturally, right-wingers are going to say NPR is intolerant for being intolerant of intolerance.

Right-wingers sticking up for (and in this case, actually hiring) bigotry yet again. Gotta love it!