Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Adam Carolla Thinks School Lunch Programs Will Make Kids Hate Their Parents

Former The Man Show host, Adam Corolla, explained on his radio show yesterday why he's become more outspoken about politics over the past few years :



Well, you know, I've not changed my tune to any great extent. I think I've become more conservative as I've gotten older, as I've had a family. As people do when they get older and they get older and have a family and pay taxes. You start looking for school systems for their kids that are usable and things like that. There's a move toward a more conservative life in general as you get older. It goes -- many of the principles sort of bode with frankly getting older, having a family, focusing on your children and your family and things like that.
He was doing pretty good so far, but then he makes the mistake of continuing to speak:

But as far as my talking points go, you know, stop shitting out kids you can't afford. You pay for their school breakfast, not because I want you to pay for their school breakfast but because the kid should know that mom and/or dad are paying for breakfast, making the effort. It's a psychological thing, it's not a matter of I don't want to pay 39 cents a day for your kid. I don't give a fuck about that. The fucking government takes half of money and does whatever the fuck it wants with it anyway. I mean, your kid's breakfast is the least of my worries. I worry about your kid and the message that is being sent to your kid by momma not making a breakfast. That's what I a worry about.

Well, now. Isn't that compassionate of him? He cares so much for the kiddies, you see. It's oddly similar to the rationale provided by Republican boy genius, Paul Ryan, a few months back for why we should completely destroy the idea of government funded school lunches. The possibility that many of these parents can't provide lunches as opposed to not wanting to make them for their kids doesn't seem to ever come up in these conversations for some reason.

Carolla speaks from experience though. His family lived off welfare growing up and he himself received government subsidized school lunches:



The lesson seems  to be pretty clear. Parents should buy/make their kids their own lunch, otherwise they may grow up to be bitter, right-wing douchebags some day.

What was also amusing was how Carolla was whining about how the word "conservative" is seen as a negative nowadays:

It’s bizarre and that’s what we have turned it into. But also, it’s the left turning conservatism into a pejorative, number one. Being conservative didn’t used to be a pejorative in any stretch of the imagination. Being a conservative with your money was being prudent. Being conservative as it pertains to work or investments or even at the poker table it was sort of prudent. Conservative meant prudent; it was not a pejorative.
The left has taken over the word conservative and turned it into a pejorative. So it’s like, “Oh, you’re a conservative?” They’ve done a wonderful smear campaign.
“Oh, are you a conservative?” “Yes, I’m a conservative.” “Oh, great. You hate women. You hate blacks. You hate all cultures. You love people’s money. You hate poor people.”
“No, no. I just want to focus on education. I want to focus on hard work. I want to focus on being motivated and getting ahead in a country that made for that ethic…”
Now, it’s weird that I can be conservative and never talk about religion. Because conservatives are a bunch of Bible-thumping, you know, brainwashed, you know, they believe the earth is 1,000 years old. How come I’m not religious? I’m an atheist. See, they just pick and choose whatever they want.

Sorry, Adam. You guys are doing a great job ruining that word on your own. You definitely don't need any help from liberals on that front.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Sorry Republicans, Looks Like Obamacare Is Here To Stay

Here's a poll that should make every conservative pundit and politician soil their undies:

Republicans who signed up for Obamacare this year are liking their new insurance coverage, according to a new survey.

A poll of Obamacare enrollees published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year.

The survey revealed the current uninsured rate among working-age adults in the U.S. has dropped to 15 percent, down from 20 percent in July-September 2013 -- meaning an estimated 9.5 million people have gained coverage since then.

74% of Republicans - REPUBLICANS!! - are happy with their new government-defiled health insurance. Just to give you an idea of the significance of such a number, only 21% of Republicans had a positive opinion of Obama after Bin Laden was killed. As Bill Maher once said, Obama could save an average Republican from drowning, and they'd still hate his guts. The fact that we have not just a majority, but nearly 3/4 of Republicans accepting something positive came out of the socialist, Kenyan anti-Christ is a colossal accomplishment.

Truth be told however, this shouldn't really be that surprising. Obamacare, for all its faults, really does have some very pleasing things that make it very attractive to most non-wealthy folks. Indeed this very thing was predicted correctly (for once) by Bill Kristol in 1993:


The long term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse — much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependency for “security” on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government…
Conservative complain all the time about big government not being able to do anything right, and being awful for the populace. But the truth is that the real reason they don't want big government policies to be in place is that they might end up actually being popular. That's what conservatives fear more than anything. They've seen how popular programs like social security and medicare are, and how that makes it much more difficult to eliminate them.

And now conservatives have to face the frightening fact that repealing Obamacare has just gotten significantly more challenging. In a few years, you're going to see right-wing nitwits holding up signs like this:



But with Obamacare instead.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Grover Norquist Thinks Song About Man Killing His Wife Is "Pro-Family"

You can't make this stuff up:




According to Grover Norquist, the song "Hey Joe" (which by the way, Jimi Hendrix only did a cover for), is "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment". Here are the lyrics so you can judge for yourselves:

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
Hey Joe, I said where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
Alright. I'm goin down to shoot my old lady,
you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Yeah,! I'm goin' down to shoot my old lady,
you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Huh! And that ain't too cool.
You don't really have to listen to the song very long to understand that it's about a man planning to kill someone. In this case, his wife. Yes, Grover thinks a song about a man killing his wife with a gun is "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment".

Seriously, the guy gives it away in the third fricken line! You hear this in the first 30 seconds. It's kind of hard to miss.

After many twitter users on Grover's feed kindly pointed out this little detail to him, Grover tried to offer a defense:









Okay, now Grover's trying to claim that he knew about the song being about a "horrible crime" the whole time? So where does the whole "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment" thing fit in again?

This shouldn't really be shocking, though. After all, the prophet Reagan (peace be upon him) seemed to entirely miss the point of Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A., so it should come as no surprise that one of his most prominent minions would be equally dense when it comes to comprehending musical verses.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Joe Scarborough Forgets Why He Was Supposed to Be Outraged At The IRS

On Tuesday's episode of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough provided yet another wonderful example of why no sentient human being should ever listen to Republican complaints about anything ever.

Scarborough and his panel were once again whining about IRS-gate. Scarborough was particularly perturbed by the New York Times not giving the story the exposure it so rightfully deserved:

You know, if George W. Bush or any Republican and an IRS member that went after Democrats, and then there was an internal investigation launched, you would not have time, or space on the front page to talk about women's issues. This is a scam.
 But later on in the show, a funny thing occurs. Scarbrough says the following:

If it was Henry Waxman or Darrell Issa or whomever, when the IRS gets involved in this sort of play, whether it’s against Democrats or Republicans, I think that is the time the Hill should go after him.  I’d love to see some Democrats come out and start pounding this guy too. Because there were Democratic groups also targeted as well, right? I slept through three years of law school, but even I know political speech is held to a higher standard.

Did you catch that?

Remember, the entire point of this moronic farce to begin with was that the evil thugs at the IRS were targeting poor, innocent, little conservative organizations. But here's Scarborough whining about the fact that Democrats aren't as outraged as Republicans are at the IRS, despite Democratic organizations being targeted as well. If left leaning organizations weren't able catch a break, and had to be examined closely as well, then what the hell are you guys complaining about?

By admitting that liberal groups were also the victims of scrutiny by the IRS, Scarborough manages to unwittingly destroy the entire original right-wing rationale for this inane "scandal".

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

GOP Rep Suggests IRS Conspiracy Might Not Involve Obama

It appears that IRS-gate, a scandal that's way worse than illegally selling thousands of missiles to terrorists, has been given new life since it was revealed that former IRS official, Lois Lerner, traveled back in time to destroy a hard drive that held indisputable evidence of IRS' insidious plot to inconvenience Right-wing organizations applying for tax exemptions.

Today we had yet another hearing, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC). He provided a head scratching comment when he was grilling current IRS commissioner, John Koskinen.

Koskinen was getting noticeably irritated by Gowdy's inane questions, and tried to explain to him that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by either Lois Lerner or the White House. This led to the following exchange (skip to 5:18):


Koskinen: It's a good argument. All I said was the White House has revealed there were no Lois Lerner e-mails, Treasury has given you all their e-mails, but to the extent that the argument was that Lois Lerner was conspiring and e-mailing back and forth, thus far I haven't seen any...

Gowdy: You can be engaged in a conspiracy that doesn't include the White House.
Guh?

What are we supposed to make of that line? There was a conspiracy involved to make conservative groups sad, and it didn't involve direct orders from Obama? This makes no sense because seconds earlier Gowdy was whining about the Obama administration sticking their noses in this "scandal", with Gowdy clearly implying that the only reason they would do that is to cover their tracks. 

But let's pretend for a minute that Gowdy doesn't think the White House wasn't involved. If that was the case, then whose orders was Lois Lerner acting on? 'Or was she leading this operation?

Of course, it is quite possible that Lois Lerner, and a few other IRS agents were acting independently, but that would be a fairly boring scandal, now wouldn't it? Let's not pretend for a second that Gowdy and his ilk aren't trying their damndest to implicate Obama for this some how. After all, Gowdy's clownish colleague, Darryl Issa, isn't.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Twitter Wars: Conan O'Brien VS. Grover Norquist!

So Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist offered a suggestion for a possible name change for the Washington Redskins, one that should surprise no one:

Washington, D.C., anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has been on a long campaign to name pretty much everything after Ronald Reagan, said renaming Washington’s football team the “Washington Reagans” is a “great idea.”

...

“This is a great idea,” Norquist told BuzzFeed when asked about chatter about the new name on social media. “The former Redskins can be the Ronald Reagans on winning years and the Nancy Reagans on losing years. Unless that gets us in more trouble elsewhere.”
The bolded is a really nice touch. It helps perpetuate the fanatically religious belief that the Gipper could do no wrong. Ever.

As it happens, late night comedian, Conan O'Brien decided to comment on Grover's suggestion:





 This led to a little back and forth between the two:
















Lots to chew on in those tweets. But Conan should know very well that without Reagan, the Soviet Union would never have fallen. I mean, it's not like conservatives have ever made the claim that communism was a highly flawed economic system that would never work and was destined to crumble or anything.


Also, too. Grover also sent out this other tweet which led to an exchange of my own:












For some reason he didn't respond to that. And here I thought I made a new friend. Alas.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Mitch McConnell: The Democrats Are Secret Republicans!

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) provides a rather odd defense for why he voted against Sen. Warren's student loan relief bill:

"The Senate Democrats' bill really isn't about students at all, its really all about Senate Democrats, because Senate Democrats don't actually want a solution for their students, they want an issue to campaign on to save their own hides this November," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Of course, this is an incoherent mess. Democrats don't actually want to pass this bill that helps our poor people with student loan debt, and that's financed by taxing the wealthy? The only way for that to make sense is that Democrats are in fact, secret Republicans who don't truly want to pursue the class warfare policies that Republicans have claimed Democrats have wanted to do for the past few decades.

But just to pretend McConnell is serious for a nanosecond, if he truly believes what he claims, then shouldn't he and his Republican alllies have voted for the bill?  If McConnell truly believed the crap that he's spewing, he would have called the Dems bluff, but obviously he didn't, cause he himself doesn't want that to pass.

This isn't surprising of course. As I'm mentioned in the past, this sort of thing happens occasionally. Republicans realize they may not be on the side of most of the public on a given issue, so they have to resort to a bit of Karl Rovian political jiu-jitsu. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan attempted a similar gambit during the election by hilariously claiming that it was noted socialist dictator, Barack Hussein, and not they who truly wanted to eliminate the crown jewel of socialized health care after all.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Welfare Recipient Ben Carson Complains About Welfare Recipients On The View

Wonderful. I was planning on going to sleep early today cause I have to wake up early for my second job, but that was before it was brought to my attention that Dr. Ben Carson, AKA, Herman Cain Jr. (God willing) was being an idiot again.

Carson went on The View earlier today and when discussing the topic of losers living on welfare had this to say:


When you rob someone of their incentive to go out there and improve themselves, you are not doing them any favors. When you take somebody and pat them on the head and say, ‘There, there, you poor little thing. … Let me give you housing subsidies, let me give you free health care because you can’t do that.’ What would be much more empowering is to use our intellect and our resources to give those people a way up and out.”

He said this in front of The View co-host, Whoopi Goldberg, herself being a welfare mother. As you could probably guess, doing such a thing made the wingnutosphere go wild with joy.

Joe Saunders from Bizpac Review:

He might or might not run for president, but there isn’t a better spokesman for conservative values in America today.
Cheryl Chumley from the Washington Times:

Ben Carson took to “The View” stage this week to explain to his mostly liberal hosts and largely liberal audience just why the liberal-driven welfare system stinks — and he emerged not only unscathed, but a big winner.
The Right Scoop:

But I must say, that after watching this interview, he might be closer to a presidential type than I had originally thought.


See here's the thing, though. It turns out that for some strange reason, the evil welfare system didn't seem to destroy the incentive for his own mother to go out and make things better for her and her family:

No doubt, Mother Carson deserves tremendous credit, but – in the words of a political sound bite from the last presidential election – she didn’t do it alone. Carson, in his book, tells how his grades improved tremendously when a government program provided him with free eyeglasses because he could barely see. Not only that, in “Gifted Hands” we read this nugget: “By the time I reached ninth grade, mother had made such strides that she received nothing but food stamps. She couldn’t have provided for us and kept up the house without that subsidy.”

Well, isn't that interesting? Ah, but you see, Carson has an excuse as to why the situation with his mother is completely different from the situations with everyone else currently on welfare:

It’s hard not to see Carson’s own upbringing coming into view here. He grew up in meager surroundings in Detroit and Boston, in a family that made use of public assistance programs like food stamps. The culture was different then, Carson insists. “I think there was a time when people were not proud of taking handouts,” he said. “There were more people who did have that drive and determination. You do what you have to do."
So according to Carson, it's okay to accept government assistance as long as you feel bad about it. And he seems to think that nobody who is on welfare today feels shame, cause apparently nobody seems to demonize it or anything. But even so, what about all that stuff about self reliance and bootstrapping and whatnot? Once you accept government aid, doesn't Ronald Reagan begin weeping from White Heaven?

He goes on to say:

Did food stamps allow me to achieve my dream?” He laughed. “Of course not.”

 Directly contradicting what he said in his book:

He writes elsewhere, “As I’ve said, we received food stamps and couldn’t have made it without them.”

The depressing thing about all this is that conservatives won't see this inconvenient little bit of history as an example of hypocrisy. Why? Because while Carson himself may have grown up on welfare, he's now espousing policies that make sure other people can't get on welfare, so it's totally cool (this is an actual defense that I've seen thrown around by right-wing bloggers, by the way). After all, did the fact that former vice presidential candidate and child prodigy, Paul Ryan supported himself with the social security benefits of his deceased father hurt his status as a conservative ubermensch in the least? Of course not. And it won't hurt Carson either.

Watch the interview:



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/26/18dr-ben-carsons-baffling.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

BREAKING: Bundy Ranch Supporters Repeatedly Shoot Irony In The Face

These guys deserve an award for being just so amazingly Republican:


The life of an ever-vigilant anti-government armed patriot is hard. And by hard, I mean dull and unproductive. Also, not very profitable. Maybe that's why all those guys hanging out cleaning their guns in Nevada are now begging hard-working Americans to please give them some money.
One enterprising ranch defender needs funds so badly, he's taken to GoFundMe:
To all American Patriots:
I am the Team Leader that took Charlie Delta, the black marine, out to Nevada along with two other volunteers that all did an outstanding job at the Bundy Ranch. I understand most of you have come to know Charlie Delta through his expressed views on Cliven Bundy and the good we are all doing as patriots at the ranch. I am coming to you tonight humbly asking for your help. We may be the front line soldiers facing down an overbearing govt bureaucracy, but we are first off family men and women that have our own homes and jobs and families left behind to take on this endeavor. Therefore we have spent our fortunes for freedom and love of our fellow man and need your help to continue our efforts to keep all Americans free from tyranny. Please if you can spare even a few dollars for food, fuel and supplies to continue the stand against tyranny and an overbearing governtment [sic] please help. Even the smallext [sic] amount will help keep up the pressure to return this land to the people. I thank you all sincerely for your contribution.
Christopher E Ferrell
United we stand! Divided we fall!

So basically, you have a group of people who presumably hate the idea of people mooching off the government, attempting to mooch off other people so that they could continue their crusade to help some guy continue mooching off the government. Sounds about right.

Ah, but wait! Conservatives will claim that what these wonderful patriots are doing doesn't count as begging for welfare because said patriots are begging for help from the private sector and not relying on the evil, oppressive government.

This might sound like a reasonable defense if it wasn't for the fact that conservatives disapprove of the idea of begging in general. Does anyone think that the Right would have any non-negative feelings towards say, a minority panhandling on some street corner? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they wouldn't be too fond of such a person, even if they were receiving money from willing donors. I would further assume that said panhandler would be criticized for having weak moral fiber and instead of begging for assistance, would be encouraged to just starve to death (Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.”) as written in the holy texts by the Prophet Reagan (PBUH).

Of course, this sort of criticism only applies to us mooching mortals. For you see, Republicans are God's chosen people, and they are entitled to any form of aid, either by the private or public sector, and thus it is impossible for them to be considered hypocrites (This is known as the IOIYAR Doctrine, if you want to get all technical).

Nice try, liberals.



UPDATE: Hahaha, looks like these idiots are capable of feeling shame after all. Seems Ferrell took down his GoFundMe page.

UPDATE 2: He seems to have another fundraising page still up for some reason. This one seems to be doing even worse than the other one (click to enlarge) ...



Ouch.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Did a Conservative Columnist Just Admit That Hannity And Right-Wing Media Wanted Cliven Bundy To Be Killed?

From Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller:

Conservatives do this to themselves. In the grand scheme of things — with scandals like Benghazi and topics like Iran to cover — should it matter that some rancher in Nevada is a racist? Should it matter what some random guy thinks about race relations? Of course, not! But it’s hard to make that argument after you’ve spent weeks building him up just so someone else can tear him down.
So why do conservatives keep doing this?

Here’s a theory: When the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff resulted in the death of Randy Weaver’s wife and son — and when the disastrous 1993 Federal raid on the Branch Davidian in Waco, Texas took place — it’s fair to say that it did have a negative impact on the Clinton Administration (*Note: The Ruby Ridge standoff occurred in 1992, on President George H.W. Bush’s watch).

Both events were tragic, of course, but they also (understandably) fed an anti-government sentiment that was very good for the nascent conservative entertainment complex. Could it be that conservatives are still fighting the last war?

Like the aforementioned examples, Cliven Bundy had an “armed militia of supporters.” (As the New York Times recalled in 1995: “The Ruby Ridge confrontation involved an armed separatist brigade. The Davidians were also well equipped with weapons.”)

So if you are a conservative talk radio host, for example, might you not look at Bundy through the prism of Ruby Ridge? In the beginning, it might have been easy to assume Bundy would also go out in a blaze of glory, becoming a sort of martyr. And in this scenario, it would have been important to have staked out a pro-Bundy position before the government turned him into a real folk hero.
Of course, it was rather obvious when you watched Sean Hannity interview Bundy back when they were BFFs, and he kept prodding Bundy to confirm that he was going to fire at BLM officials if they continued to pursue his cattle. But we weren't supposed to jump to any conclusions at the time. For all we knew, Hannity was probably trying to convince him to give himself up and surrender peacefully. 

Matt Lewis is a loyal Right-wing soldier, so to see someone like him admit that this was the end goal for people like Hannity and the rest of RWNM is pretty shocking to say the least.

ads