Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Glenn Kessler Demonstrates Once Again How Useless He Is

As much as I dislike right-wing media, at least I know what to expect from their ilk. Conversely, I have far less compassion for so-called "centrist" journalists who ought to know better.

One such example is the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, who runs their "fact checking" division. The other day he decided to take on the accusation from the Democrats that the Republicans have been responsible for cutting funding for the CDC and NIH over the past several years. He gave this claim four Pinnochios, which is the worst level of lying one can achieve on the Fact Checker page.

Needless to say, conservative media outlets all over the intertubes praised Kessler's verdict. Sites like The National Review, Newsbusters, and Hot Air were absolutely giddy that someone from the evil lamestream media was on their side.

As you might have guessed, I took issue with Kessler's analysis.

This is the crux of Kessler's argument:

There’s no doubt that spending has been cut, or at least failed to keep pace with inflation, but the fingerprints of both parties are on the knives.
 "Both parties". Why is that the case?  Well, most of the cuts that the CDC and NIH have received were due to sequestration, which Kessler blames on the White House for proposing. The implication is that Obama himself wanted brutal cuts to these agencies.

Of course, this is an idiotic assumption.

Just to quickly review, the idea of sequestration manifested when the newly insane Republican congress in 2011 thought it would be fun to blow up the world economy (again). In an attempt to prevent this catastrophe, the idea of sequestration was introduced. Kessler has gone to great lengths to prove that this horrible proposal was Obama's idea.

Though whether it was Obama's idea or not, is completely irrelevant. The point of the sequester was that it would initiate such massive, draconian cuts to all parts of the government, that both sides would be forced to come to some sort of compromise. In other words, this was supposed to be such an awful, horrible idea that no one would actually want it to go through.

Of course, in due time we learned that Republicans thought that this remarkably idiotic initiative wasn't idiotic enough, and decided it was just fine and dandy to keep after all. Obama once again, misjudged how pathologically insane the opposition was.

If a mugger tried to rob someone and they ordered him to hand over all their cash, and the muggee offers to give only half, would anyone in their right mind say that the muggee was the one who wanted to hand over half their cash? Presumably the muggee wouldn't want to have handed over anything. Obama didn't want sequestration. It was a response to Republican threats to burn down the world.

Let's also not ignore the bizarre gloating from right-wing websites because of this article. The big government loving, socialism supporting, most liberal President in history...is the one that wants cuts in government spending, not the Republicans! RNC Chairman, Reince Preibus was bragging about how the Bush Administration spent far more than Obama on the CDC and NIH. Yet do any of these right-wingers want to actually increase funding for these agencies? Of course not! If they did, they would have already done so.

They just simply want to have it both ways. They want to attack Obama for supposedly wanting to cut funding, while not actually doing anything about it. If Obama had any opportunity whatsoever to reverse the sequester cuts, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

Seriously, with useless "centrist" journalists like Glenn Kessler, who needs Michelle Malkin?

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Scott Walker: "We don't have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem!"

Wisconsin will probably be seeing a lot of ads featuring this sound bite, I reckon:


"We don't have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem," Walker said during a discussion about raising the minimum wage.

 See, the unemployment rate would be so much better if the unemployed would stop being lazy during a recession. Yeah, that oughta go over real well.

Apparently realizing that wasn't the smartest thing to say, here's Walker's inevitable attempt at damage control:

Walker said that his opponents were taking the comment out of context.
 
During an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Walker explained that he is seeking to boost workers in two areas. First, he pointed to employers who need trained workers for higher-skilled jobs like welding.

"We have jobs, we don't just have enough people with the skill sets to fill those jobs," he said.
 A bit less derisive than the original statement. Unfortunately, here's Walker again, refuting himself moments later:

Walker also said he wants to help others acquire the basic skills needed to hold down any job. Walker has proposed requiring drug tests for working-age recipients of public benefits.

"Many employers tell us they have work but they can't get people who know how to work and can pass a drug test," Walker said. "That drug test provision is obviously new."

"Again, we've got more than 70,000 job openings" on a state website, Walker added. "But one of the challenges is removing some of the disincentives for people not to work."

"Removing disincentives for people not to work"? Yeah, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume Walker wasn't referring to a skills gap after all.

Monday, October 6, 2014

VIDEO: Steven Crowder and Dana Loesch Destroy Feminist Nazis!

Right-wing "comedian", Steven Crowder, teamed up with ex-Breitbart columnist, Dana Loesch to do a thing, apparently:



You know what? I'm not even really bothered by the inane attempts by these chuckleheads to mock feminists. The most aggravating issue is that right-wingers have no goddamned understanding of the fundamentals of comedy. The directing is completely incompetent, the acting is completely flat, and there's zero sense of comedic timing.

Fortunately for Crowder, Loesch and co., their viewer base couldn't care less about such trivial things.

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Even Mitt Romney Didn't Think He Could Get The Unemployment Rate To Fall This Fast

This is what Presidential silver medalist, Mitt Romney said back in 2012:

"I can't possibly predict precisely what the unemployment rate would be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the policies that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, or perhaps a little lower," he said.
Well, look at that. Seems Mittens thought that even the power of FREEDOM that his policies would unleash wouldn't be enough to get the UE rate down to 6% until 2016. Yet here we are at 5.9% in 2014, two years ahead of schedule, and with more of Obama's job killing tax hikes and regulations in place than in 2012.

By Romney's own standards, he should be glad that he lost the presidency. After all, would he really want to subject the American people to another two years of less than impressive job growth?

So What Did Some Republican Compare To The Holocaust This Time?

If you said the separation of Church and State, congratulations, you get a cookie:

After placing his hand on the Bible and taking the oath of office, state Sen. Charles Perry compared what he called the “spiritual battle” brewing across the nation to the Holocaust.
God has a place in the government, Perry explained in his inaugural speech as he vividly recalled a recent trip to a concentration camp in Berlin.
“There were 10,000 people that were paraded into a medical office under the guise of a physical. As they stood with their back against the wall, they were executed with a bullet through the throat. Before they left, 10,000 people met their fate that way,” Perry said.
“Is it not the same than when our government continues to perpetuate laws that lead citizens away from God? The only difference is that the fraud of the Germans was more immediate and whereas the fraud of today’s government will not be exposed until the final days and will have eternal-lasting effects.”

 Yup, having a government that doesn't attempt to prefer one religion over another exactly the same (if not worse) than the systematic killing of an entire race of people.

Also, you would think that if God were so important to the Founding Fathers, they might have bothered to mention him at least once when they were writing that constitution thing.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Conservatives Explain Why Bush's Dog Salute Wasn't As Treasonous As Obama's

Sorry for the lack of updates. It's been an incredibly hectic and busy several weeks with my new (very distant) job. I was planning to resume blogging on Saturday, but the latest bit of idiocy from conservatives has motivated me to return ahead of schedule.

I'm sure you've heard of the most recent worst thing ever that President Obama's done. Yes, he insulted the entire military and the ghost of George Washington by saluting to two brave marines  with a coffee cup in his hand. As would be expected, the right-wing proceeded to once again, completely lose their shit.

What made this latest "scandal" all the more irritating was that you had real, legitimate, not-completely-shitty, news outlets report on this as well for some odd reason.

As you would expect from generally stupid "controversies" like this, it would only be a matter before liberals brought up examples of heroic, Republican presidents committing the same crime:




I would have figured by this point conservatives would more than likely never acknowledge what Bush did and get back to whining about BENGHAZI! But no, once again right-wingers manage to exceed my expectations, and proceeded to explain why the two situations are NOTHING alike.

The staff at Twitchy's responded to Sally Kohn's tweet:

And we offer a giant “you are an idiot.”

As Twitchy reported, President Obama once again let his disgraceful show when he saluted U.S. Marines with a styrofoam cup. No, really. That happened.

Pitiful libs swiftly tried to protect The One. Because, Bush!!111
Newsbusters' Kyle Drennen:

 Rather then just cover the incident as a gaffe for Obama, the NBC morning show sought to muddy the waters by seizing on a photo of Bush put out by liberal spin doctors and dismiss the whole thing as just another "back and forth" between political partisans.

Breitbart's John Hayward:

 For starters, you don't have to know anything about military protocol to see that holding a live animal is rather different than strolling past the Marines with a styrofoam cup of coffee in your hands.
Also, President Bush is rendering the salute correctly, a detail Kohn apparently couldn't be bothered to research.  He's using his right hand while managing his burden with the left.  It looks a bit goofy because he's wrestling with a dog and he's got the dog leash wrapped around his arm, but he's clearly making a real effort to show proper respect.

Liberal Logic 101 (this site appears to be quite popular in the world of chain e-mails):

 Of course Liberals are arguing that Obama’s Coffee Salute is not nearly as bad as George Bush’s “Puppy Salute”. The trouble is, one is obviously meant as, “You don’t deserver the effort it takes to shift this coffee cup to my other hand, which is free,” while the other is, “I’m struggling to keep my dog from jumping out of my arms, but I’m still going to try to salute you, because you deserve the effort.”

So basically, the arguments come down to:

1. Holding a dog is completely different than holding a coffee cup
2. Even if a dog was the same thing as a coffee cup, it's okay cause Bush used the correct hand to salute.
3. None of this matters anyway cause Bush didn't hate the military, unlike Obama.

Now, I don't care about either president's less than optimal salute, but I do wonder why Bush had the dog in his arms to begin with. Surely he must have known he was gonna be in the presence of soldiers, so shouldn't he have gotten someone else to hold his dog for him while he salutes the way Ronald Reagan intended?

Also, too. When Obama commits these type of transgressions, why does he always do them so half-assed? I mean, everyone knows that Obama hate the troops so why bother saluting them at all? Wouldn't it just be easier that way? ( It's like when he thought of the ingenious idea to fabricate the September 2012 jobs report, yet used absolutely middling numbers for some reason)

Maybe he thinks doing things this way would be less boring or something.
Rather then just cover the incident as a gaffe for Obama, the NBC morning show sought to muddy the waters by seizing on a photo of Bush put out by liberal spin doctors and dismiss the whole thing as just another "back and forth" between political partisans. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/09/24/nbc-uses-bush-photo-distract-obamas-latte-salute-gaffe#sthash.Jk7GCFNt.dpuf

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Todd Starnes Wonders Why Obama Wouldn't Offer Condolences To Non-Dead Officer

Fox News' Todd Starnes has been doing a bang up job over the past few months posting remarkably idiotic comments on the Twitters, and he continues that tradition with his most recent tweet:





Yes, Fox News' Todd Starnes does not seem to understand why our racist-in-chief would not offer condolences to the guy who is not currently dead. If Obama did do what Todd wanted, how would that go? "Sorry that Black kid got in the way of your bullets, officer"?

And now that Obama's went ahead and once again offered sympathy to a family of a slain African American teenager, prepare to see the floodgates open for more of this sort of vile, disgusting sewage spewed by every right-wing gasbag in the Party of Lincoln.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Judge Rules Ten Commandments Monument Must Go

Good:

BLOOMFIELD, N.M. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a New Mexico city must remove a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lawn in front of Bloomfield City Hall.

Senior U.S. District Judge James A. Parker said in his ruling in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that the monument amounts to government speech and has the "principal effect of endorsing religion."

Because of the context and history surrounding the granite monument, Parker said Bloomfield clearly violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. He gave a Sept. 10 deadline for its removal.

The suit was filed in 2012 on behalf of two Bloomfield residents who practice the Wiccan religion.
Peter Simonson, ACLU of New Mexico executive director, called the decision a victory for protection against government-supported religion.

"We firmly support the right of individuals, religious groups, and community associations to publicly display religious monuments, but the government should not be in the business of picking which sets of religious beliefs belong at City Hall," Simonson said Friday.

According to previous court testimony, plaintiff Jane Felix said the display "says that anybody who doesn't agree with this monument on city grounds is an outsider."

"It has no place on City Hall property," Felix said in March.

City attorneys say private individuals erected and paid for the monument under a 2007 city resolution. That resolution allows people to erect historical monuments of their choosing.

 About damn time, I say. It was absurd that the monument managed to stay up as long as it did. The guys who paid for it claimed it was for "historical" purposes, though they seem to be getting history confused with theology.

Definitely good news for supports of separation of Church and State.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Conservative Radio Host Has Had ENOUGH And Actually Goes Galt

Let this be a warning to all you tax and spend Democrats:

Twin Cities talk-show host Jason Lewis made a sudden exit from radio Thursday night, quitting in the middle of his syndicated show, heard locally on Clear Channel’s KTLK (1130 AM).

Reached Friday morning, the conservative commentator said he decided to end “The Jason Lewis Show” to devote his full attention to his fledgling libertarian website, Galt.io, but also to put his money where his mouth is on taxation and highly regulated businesses.

“There’s a tipping point for everyone and for the economy as well,” he said. “I’m going to try to make certain [Minnesota Gov.] Mark Dayton gets as little of my money as possible going forward. My ending may have been a bit dramatic, but it’s a suitable one, because it’s happening all over. If people who take capital risks keep getting demonized, they will stop playing the game.”
 Oh no! Please don't leave! How will the world go on without another smug, right-wing asshat whining on the radio about how it's so hard to be a rich, White guy these days?

The story doesn't specify whether Lewis will remain in Minnesota or relocate to a more freedom-y state. But assuming he does stay in Minnesota, I don't really see how he would be making sure that Gov. Mark Dayton "gets as little" of his money as possible. The only way I can see that is if Lewis winds up taking in a smaller paycheck from his newest venture than what he would be getting on his radio show. In which case, I would say, good job socking it to the man! That'll teach him!

Lewis made a 15-minute video that the site calls a “parody of what it is like working in a highly regulated industry and some of the events that led to his decision” to end his show.
Galt.io, named for John Galt, the protagonist of libertarian hero Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged,” will be a “marketplace for causes,” said Lewis, who plans to contribute commentary as well. “We want to reward activism, but have fun as well, offering rewards for points.”
The site’s members are part of a virtual economy that uses “Galtcoins,” earned through dividends, voting and updates, to invest in such causes as supporting the Keystone XL pipeline or contributing to a political candidate’s campaign.
The site was launched after an independent crowdfunding campaign last November that raised nearly $800,000, largely on the strength of on-air promotions by Lewis, whose show was carried by more than 50 stations nationwide. According to the site’s co-founder and president, tech start-up consultant Alex Huff, most contributions were in the $25 range, with fewer than 10 topping $1,000.
The 7,000-member site had been invitation-only, Lewis said, but the goal is to expand membership and increase capital.


I watched the entire 15 minutes of that "parody" video so you don't have to (the things I do for my viewer base), and here are the lowlights:

- Libertarians/Conservatives to this day still do not understand what a "parody" is supposed to be.
- Seriously, this is just 15 minutes of this smug douchebag walking around, regurgitating right-wing economic talking points.
- Lewis has this female assistant in the beginning who he mocks for not paying any taxes (yes, he's mocking his own employee). But wait, why isn't she paying taxes? Is she an unpaid intern? Cause that would be why, asshole!
- Taxation is theft, as usual.
- He cut off an entire portion of the Ed Show explaining why professional golfer, Phil Mickelson wasn't being accurate about his tax bill, and also why it's in his interest to pay them. Wouldn't want his audience to see that now, would we?
- If you keep taxing all the rich people, there won't be any rich people left to tax.
- The video ends with Lewis abruptly quitting his job at the beginning of his show, completely ignoring his assistant's reaction of being shocked and upset at what will happen to her now that she's unemployed. Just to remind everyone, it's Lewis who we're supposed to be feel sympathetic for in this scene, apparently.


Now if only we can have every right-wing mouth piece on radio and T.V. follow suit, that would really teach that commie Obama a lesson.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Republicans Refuse To Pass Bill That Honors Pope Francis Because He Sounds Like Obama

From the party of Bible thumping, folks:

A popular piece of legislation that seeks to honor Pope Francis is stuck in Congress.

With time running out on the Capitol Hill calendar, the lawmakers who crafted the bipartisan measure are getting impatient with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The resolution, written by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.), congratulates Francis on his March 2013 election and recognizes “his inspirational statements and actions.”
The seemingly innocuous resolution was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which hasn’t acted on it. The panel didn’t comment for this article.

The inaction and the lack of a white smoke signal from Boehner have sparked speculation that politics is at play.

Only 19 of the 221 co-sponsors are Republicans. The dearth of GOP members on the measure could be attributable to assertions that the pope is “too liberal,” according to a Republican backer of the legislation.

The source noted that Francis last year denounced “trickle-down economics.”

Some Republicans believe the pope is “sounding like [President] Obama. [The pope] talks about equality — he actually used the term ‘trickle-down economics,’ which is politically charged,” the GOP official said.

I never tire of seeing Republicans turn their backs on religious figures whenever they advocate something that goes against the "correct" Republican teachings of Christianity.

If Republicans are annoyed at Pope Francis for attacking our beloved job creators, imagine how they'll react once they learn about that Jesus Christ fellow.

ads