Thursday, February 28, 2013

Idiot Congressman Says It's Not The Job of the Federal Government To Deal With Natural Disasters

MSNBC's Martin Bashir invited Republican congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) to discuss the looming sequester. Towards the end of the interview, Bashir questioned Huelskamp on why he (of course) voted against the Hurricane Sandy relief package. The congressman said among the reasons he voted against the bill was because it wasn't offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. That led to this noteworthy exchange (skip to 10:56):

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bashir: But sir, Hurricane Sandy was a once in a life time event. That's what the federal government exists to respond, a once in a life time event.

Huelskamp: That's nowhere in the constitution. The federal government exists for national defense.
Now, it's just my opinion, but I would think that one could make an argument that the federal government could say, defend us against natural disasters without running into any conflicts with the consitution. But whatever, let's try and go at it from another angle and see what the constitution actually says:
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Okay, I know conservatives don't think that things like universal healthcare fall under the umbrella of "general welfare", but disaster relief too? Seriously? If the federal government has no role in disaster management, then it seems no one told that socialist Thomas Jefferson:

For more than two centuries, U.S. lawmakers have recognized the need for a federal government that helps its citizens in times of disaster. The most significant and earliest instance of such federal involvement occurred in 1803. That was the year when a series of fires swept through the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

In response to the disaster, Congress passed legislation that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants. More importantly, the Congressional Act of 1803 contained the first piece of national disaster legislation ever to be passed by a United States Congress.

Furthermore, Huelskamp says that even something like a major hurricane isn't reason enough to "borrow money from our children and grandchildren".  Once again, thanks for voting for these dimwits in 2010, America.

Hey Conservatives, Stop Using My Jokes As Talking Points!

Over the years, I've constantly joked that if the government offered free wheelchairs to people who couldn't walk, conservatives would complain that such a thing would give people an incentive to break their legs. Today I find yet another example of how Right-wingers have made parody superfluous:

That would be Oklahoma state senator Anthony Sykes, who co-authored the bill in question, SB 1062, legislation that seeks to finally sock it to all those lucky duckies sucking off the government teat cause they fortuitously managed to injure themselves while working.

Seriously, guys. This isn't fun anymore.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Monday, February 25, 2013

Conservative Radio Host: "Yes, I'm Going To Make This Argument With A Straight Face"

On Friday, Fox News host, Megan Kelly held a panel to discuss the President's remarks in a recent interview he did with Al Sharpton:

“Nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations,” Obama told Sharpton of the GOP’s motivations. He said that world-view “binds” the party together.
Now I may be biased, but I don't see much wrong with the President's comments. But apparently, conservative radio host, Ben Ferguson disagreed. His arguments were something I found quite stunning to say the least:

"Yes, seven out of the top ten richest people in congress happen to be Democrats. President Barack Obama is the one who got us into this crisis that we're in right now with these budget cuts as you just mentioned statistically and he's sitting there playing this rich vs. poor man card when he's the one that allowed the payroll tax to go up that takes away sixteen bags of groceries for an average working family right now in this country. 

“So I look at the stats and say, look at Nancy Pelosi, she didn’t want to get a pay cut. In fact, she wanted a pay increase, even talking about lowering her salary right now is beneath the dignity of her job. So you tell me who actually is a rich person looking out for rich people. Republicans are looking out for average Americans.
 This is utterly remarkable. Sure, we just went through an election cycle where Obama and the Democrats were consistently criticized for allegedly vilifying the wealthiest and most hard working among us, and where the Republican presidential candidate offered an economic plan that would provide a massive blowjob to the top income brackets, but apparently, it turns out that it was the Democrats who were the ones in the tank for the rich all along!

Now, the Right does this sort of thing every so often. It's that really annoying, Karl Rovian tactic of projecting your own weaknesses onto your opponent. While most conservatives, including Ferguson, are more than happy to carry water for the wealthy, many of them also realize it's a very unpopular position to hold. So what they do is attack the Left for supposedly coddling the rich, while simultaneously continuing to fight for policies that do just that. If you'll recall, Presidential silver medalist, Mitt Romney tried to pull the same shit during the first presidential debate.

Just to drive the point home, Republicans in congress currently want to cut programs that benefit pretty much all Americans, while also easing the burden on the wealthiest among us. In fact, if you can believe it, they've offered a new plan that's even worse than stuff they've previously proposed. Not to mention you also have several Republican-led states who seem to think that the non-rich have it way too easy and are currently seeking legislation aiming to correct that.

Taken together, it's really hard to make the argument that the Republican party is in fact the party of Robin Hood.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Being Sick Sucks...

Yeah, I realize I haven't posted in a while, but I spent the last two weeks pretty much vomiting various organs and such. It was pretty bad. Which is strange, since 1) I don't normally get sick and 2) when I do, it rarely lasts for more than 2 days. Hell, I literally cannot remember the last time I was that sick.

In any case, the good news is that I'm all healthy again, so time to get back to BIDNESS.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Dig UP, Stupid!

So during the Superbowl, some guy named Todd Kincannon, who was the former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, sent out a bunch of tweets that gave the impression that he was kind of a massive scumbag. Tweets such as:



After receiving some minor blowback from the liberal media, Kincannon went on Huffpost Live to defend his remarks. He starts off by saying:

"One of the things I like to do on twitter is tweet something inflammatory and borderline crazy sounding just for fun and I enjoy watching people go nuts and one of the best things about it is that if you say something borderline offensive or it IS offensive, the people that attack you and say the awful things about you they do the very things they accuse you of."

Got that? So Kincannon is basically admitting that he says stupid and offensive shit in order to get a rise out of people, and thus prove by their reactions that it is in fact THEY who are the REAL douches for attacking him for his original douchey remarks. A few minutes later he continues:

"I think when you understand what satire is, the purpose is to offend people to teach a lesson."

So what "lesson" did Kincannon want to "teach" with his "satire"?

"I think what it's time for is a conversation in this country about why a conservative isn't allowed to state an opinion other people happen to disagree with without having death threats and being threatened with all kinds of various ridiculous things."

Two things. 1) I don't think many people would think most of the tweets he wrote would be classified as opinions and 2) once again the problem seems to be that the evil liberal  is beating up on someone like Kincannon not cause of the possibility that he spewed verbal diarrhea, but because he spewed it while being a conservative. Indeed, as if this interview wasn't amazing enough already, Kincannon then delivers the coup de grace in response to Alyona Minkovski's assertion that people would be offended at the idea of anyone making offensive remarks about a boy who got shot and killed, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they were on:

"Now wait a minute. People have said all kinds of things about the Columbine killers and good for em! Nobody's offended by that."
Yes, Kincannon just compared two deeply disturbed individuals who massacred thirteen innocent people to a seventeen year old boy who happened to get killed, himself. Just to be clear, this is Kincannon's defense!

But hey, Kincannon says this whole ordeal is much ado about nothing:

Well, there you have it, folks.