Thursday, June 26, 2014

Quote of the Day

OK. So what was your other point about Tea Party misconceptions?

My other point was that [Tea Partyers are] not crazy. People want to say that they’re crazy, and they’re really not. They want to maintain their social position, their social prestige; and as Frederick Douglass once said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.” So it’s rational to want to hold onto your position; it’s completely rational. It’s about the means through which [Tea Partyers] do that — that’s what the problem is.

One could say, “Maybe they need to be more educated!” But that’s another fallacy as it pertains to the Tea Party: People think they’re dumb. They’re not dumb. Twenty-six percent of all strong Tea Party identifiers have at least a bachelor’s degree. People think they’re poor, or that they’re working-class. No, they’re not. Twenty percent of all Tea Party households have at least a $100,000 of income. So they’re not dumb, and they’re not working-class or poor — and this has been the case with Birchers, this was the case with the 1920s Ku Klux Klan, this was the case with the Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s. Same demographic group, every time.

Another problem is just the double-talk that they use. They claim they’re about small government; they’re really not. They claim that they don’t like Barack Obama cause he’s a progressive; have they really looked at his legislative record? He governs as a centrist, regardless of what they believe his beliefs to be. On that, if you look at what happened on George Bush’s watch — I mean, let’s be for real: the deficit on George Bush’s … expanded 104 percent … If you look at Clinton’s tenure, it only expanded about 14 percent. If you look at the national debt, how much that expanded on George 

Bush’s watch; if you look at the extent to which discretionary spending in George Bush’s first term expanded — I think it expanded by like 48-49 percent. I mean, come on! We didn’t see any Tea Partyers out there at the time. We saw nothing when George Bush was doing all this stuff. George W. Bush got TARP passed. We saw nothing. Now we get Obama in, and now the world is going to shit …

That's been my only real peeve with the Tea Party (I knew from early on they were just a refurbished Birch Society): the things they whine about? The Bush Administration was soooo guilty of all that stuff, and where were they. Their timing has always been suspect.

Anyway, read the whole thing.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Around The Internets

Friday, June 20, 2014

No Main Topic

What's Rape Got to Do With It?

I guess some people don't understand what rape/sexual assualt really is, why people do it and how important an issue it is.

First there's the story of Wagatwe Wanjuki: she was sexually assaulted when she was a student at Tuffs University. Instead of tracking her assailant down, the school told her that she should leave. By peer coincidence, the Dean involved advised her attacker.   Then George "I switch to talking about baseball when I stick my foot in my mouth about politics" Will decided to get involved and claimed Wanjuki just wanted some sympathy.What a hero!

If things couldn't get worse, there's Lawrence Lockman. Let's just go to the quote:

“If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”

So in the political "Fair Exchange is no Robbery" realm, a woman who aborts pretty much deserves to be raped. Equality at last!

In a world where rape and sexual assault is looked at as "the woman's fault" still, in 2014, it's no wonder there are so many victims who decide to not come forward.


Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Stange Bedfellows: "Don't Go Back To Iraq" Edition

General Petraeus (who conservatives LOVED back when G.W. Bush was president) and Glenn Beck (who conservatives LOVED back when he was on FoxNews) have both taken stances on Iraq that don't fit with their conservative-created caricature.

For the former general, he pretty much says that if Iraq has become a nation-wide version of the Hatfields and the McCoys, we should stay out of it.

Beck, meanwhile, is giving what best can be described as a mea culpa:

"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have."

What's next: Dick Cheney donating money to orphans of both sides of the last war? 

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Around The Internets

Friday, June 13, 2014

Old Testement Politics

Here's the thing about the Bible: if you are a practicing Christian who adheres to it's teachings, you can't pick and choose what parts to endorse. The Bible was put together to be followed as a whole, so either you do that or you deal with the various interpretations of certain books.

What you don't do is pluck a verse and/or story to use as justification for killing someone who, in your eyes, is a sinner:

A little-known Oklahoma state house primary candidate is getting some national attention this week, after a local magazine found Facebook comments he made last year that appear to endorse killing homosexuals—via stoning, specifically. 

Republican Scott Esk made the comments on another user’s link to a BBC article which quotes Pope Francis last July telling reporters “if a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” 


Esk responds by quoting Bible verses from the book of Romans and Leviticus which some Christians interpret to condemn homosexual behavior. Adam Bates, the Facebook user who posted the original link, replied that only God has final judgment over the sins of man. 

Esk was not having it.

“Adam asked about the fitness to judge others,” he wrote. “That right was given to us in verses like Lev 20:13. Men were commanded to put guilty parties to death who were guilty of certain acts, like homosexuality...if men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities.”

“So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?” Bates replies.

“I think we would be totally right to do it,” Esk replies. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

Of course he's libertarian. "Leave me alone and don't force your rules, life or lifestyle on me, but if I feel offended, I'm free to stone you to death, because Bible."

Just for the record: things like murder, adultery, theft, and worshiping false idols are considered sins as well.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 12, 2014

"Post-Racial America"

I remember a few years back when conservative pundits were saying that Barack Obama's election proved that America had finally moved forward in terms of race relations. I also remember how the conservative media immediately went on a political temper-tantrum that caused our government to be, at best, stagnant.

Anyway, I came across two different stories regarding "post-racial America." One is about a black man who has been converting people out of the KKK.  It's a brave mission he's undertaken, and I hope he can continue it unabated.

Then there's a story about a Texas councilwoman who believes that the reason schools are doing poorly is because black people are on the school board. She's standing by her comments.

So this is a snapshot of America right now: a black man risking his life to show members of one the most racist groups in American history the upside of tolerance, and an elected official claiming that black people corrupt each other as well as government overall. Let Freedom Ring.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 22, 2014

In Wisconsin, A Boy Scout Troop = "New Business"

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Around the Internets

Friday, May 09, 2014

The GOP's 3-Pronged Attack For Winning Congress & The White House!

It seems to be the following:
  1. Attack Obamacare (Obama's biggest domestic initiative)
  2. Benghazi! (Obama's foreign policy)
  3. Attack Hillary Clinton (potential Democratic frontrunner)

Instead of rallying around potential Republican candidates, the party has decided to attack their opponents (again). Why? Because (1) their potential candidates are all flawed; (2) their political ideas are either stale or unpopular; and (3) the President has moderately successful despite their machinations.

Well, so far attacking Obamacare has been epic fail. As for Bennghazi, even if Obama didn't just respond with that with "Osama bin Laden," there's things like this:
  

  So all that's left is attacking Clinton, who's still on the fence about running...not to mention that we are so far removed from the Bill Clinton Administration anything pulled from that era will seem like ancient history (and remember, this will be coming from the same party who wants Democrats to stop attacking former President Bush and "get over it.").

Labels: , , , , , ,