National Debt: FIXED! Crisis: AVERTED! Non-Rich: SCREWED!

Capitulation. Is there anything our president does better? A deal has been reached and passed through both houses of Congress and signed by the president to extend the debt ceiling. Well, problem solved! Crisis averted! All accept the part where the president gave the Republicans nearly everything they wanted and got nothing in return.

The compromise deal to persuade GOP lawmakers to raise the federal debt limit — U.S. borrowing was to collide with it at midnight — will cut federal spending by $2.1 trillion or more over the next decade. But Obama immediately challenged Republicans to accept higher taxes on the wealthy in a second round of deficit cuts this fall. They adamantly refused to accept that idea during the past months' dispute.

What is it with this guy and making demands after a “deal” has already been capitulated to? The president brokered a deal with the Republicans for $2.1 trillion in cuts and the president got was an “I Fucked the American People” t-shirt. Sounds like a good deal.

Challenging the Republicans to accept higher taxes after they have already won is like asking a bank robber to return the money after he has already gotten away with the crime. This guy has to be the absolute worst when it comes to negotiations. Either that or his heart was never in to fighting for the people that put him in office.

"We've got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put America back to work," the president said, arguing forcefully for including revenue increases as well as spending cuts in the next round of efforts to trim huge government deficits.

You don’t accomplish growing the economy and creating jobs by cutting money out from under the American people. Austerity measures are going to do nothing here but send us back into a recession and possibly into a depression. I am sure that the economy will shrink when the people who were being supported by social programs are all dead.

I had more sources to add to this article and more to say, but honestly I am so tired of being surprised at the level of stupidity/complicity of this administration. Every time the Republicans fight the Democrats (and especially the President) lay down and take the beat like the good little cowards that they are.

What the president has done since day one is worse than anything a Republican president could have done. Obama gave us hope and then rubbed our face in being stupid enough to vote for him. At least with a Republican president we all know what we are getting. There are no surprises when a Republican president fights to attempt to balance the budget with tax cuts and social program cuts.

Take it from me: if you are stupid enough to vote for this dickhole next year then you deserve to lose everything in the coming depression.

Other Sources:

Washington Post

Associated Press - 1

Associated Press - 2

Weak Obama vs Homophobic Republican Party Over DOMA

I am glad that the Republicans are doing what they do best: attacking social issues that have nothing to do with them. The Obama Administration has decided that DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act) is not constitutional (no shit) because it singles out one group of people (gays) and denies them the right of marriage. It sounds great, but the Justice Department is still enforcing the law. Typical Obama weakness bullshit.

The great part of this is that John Boehner has formed a panel to try to defend the ban on gay marriage. Methinks he does protest too much. Anyway, our great congress will now waste time on stamping out the gay marriage disease just like they had to stamp out the abortion disease and the planned parenthood disease.

Am I the only fucker out there who remembers the Republicans campaigning on jobs?

Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?

Originally posted by Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks. For all links referred to in the original post, please check out the article here.


Was Jared Loughner's act in shooting Rep. Giffords political? Apparently this is what's being debated with a straight face now. Is this a joke? He shot a politician in the head. He called it an "assassination." What part of that was unclear?

He didn't shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to kill her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.

So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that's not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.

But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It's obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What's so hard to understand about that?

Then, the next question is whether both sides are equally at fault. Again, I'm confused by this question. What the hell did the Democrats or liberals do here? Nothing, except get shot. How can the media possibly attach false equivalency to this? Are the Democrats equally culpable for getting shot as the conservatives are for shooting them?

Loughner shot a Democrat. Gee, I wonder which side he was on? He hated the government and thought they were out to get us. Gee, I wonder which side he was on?

I thought conservatives said liberals love big government. But now some have the audacity to claim Loughner was a liberal . But if one thing is obvious from Loughner's political writings, it was that he hated the government. So, which one is it -- do liberals love or hate the government?

Come on, this is all a smoke screen to make sure people don't see what's going on here. In the last two years, there have been dozens of attacks and shootings aimed at government officials and political organizations. Every single one of them was directed at liberals, Democrats or the government. Now we're to believe that's the world's largest coincidence?

The conservative hate-mongers don't create psychos. We get that there will always be disturbed individuals out there. But the right-wing directs these lunatics to a source. They channel their fear, anger and paranoia -- and they point them toward the Democrats. They use them as hate seeking missiles.

They load them up them up with violent imagery, whether it's talk of cross-hairs or second amendment remedies or the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood. Then when they get a violent reaction they pretend to be surprised and outraged that anyone would suggest they were the least bit culpable. The reality is that it is a simple formula -- violence in, violence out. Violent imagery in, violent results out.

If pretending this isn't political or that somehow it is both-sided doesn't work (which they shouldn't worry about because so far it has worked perfectly in white-washing their culpability in the media), then they say it's political exploitation to point out what they have done.

How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can't mention the issue for fear of being charged with political exploitation? Would it be exploiting the tragedy of the BP oil spill to point out that maybe we should be a little careful about oil drilling? Or are we not supposed to make the most obvious points so that we don't offend the other political side's delicate sensibilities?

You know who exploited a tragedy for political gain? George W. Bush and the entire Republican Party. They used 9/11 as a gimmick to get re-elected. Then they exploited it to attack a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It is nearly impossible to exploit a tragedy anymore than they did with 9/11. And maybe that's why they level the charge against us now, because they know that's the first thing they'd do.

But pointing out that conservative commentators and politicians have been inciting their followers isn't done to get anyone elected. I don't even know whose election this would theoretically effect. This isn't done to press some policy agenda (again, outside of gun control, I can't even think of what agenda we are supposed to theoretically be pushing for). This is to point out an obvious fact that is getting people killed -- if you incite violence, you get violence.

To pretend that isn't happening all across the country everyday on talk radio, etc. is to be willfully blind to reality -- and to allow it to happen again. And trust me, next time they'll also say no one could have seen it coming and that whatever we do we mustn't talk about it. Preventing another tragedy like this would be such terrible exploitation. Better to be quiet and let them do it again.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Clarifications:

I didn't think these clarifications were necessary, but apparently they are for some. So, here it goes.

1. I am not saying all conservatives are responsible. I got an e-mail from a conservative saying I am blaming him for breathing. I am not blaming him at all (unless he had a national platform and talked about "targeting" liberals, Democrats, etc.), let alone for breathing.

2. I don't believe the proper remedy is limiting anyone's freedom of speech. I never suggested that. In fact, I am sure if anyone passed such a law, not only would it be unconstitutional, but it would be almost exclusively used against the left.

2A. Of course, I don't mind Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin attacking Democrats. That's their job. I am asking them to use some caution in how they frame their attacks and not to use violent imagery that eggs people on.

On the show, I was very specific on what kinds of language I was referring to (I also have a link in the story above to examples). Here is the video where I list some of the examples of conservatives using violent imagery.

3. I don't think that Jared Loughner necessarily listened to an episode of the Glenn Beck show and then went and did this (although others, like Byron Williams did specifically do just that). I am saying that these conservative leaders are purposely creating an environment in which this type of violence festers.

4. Lastly, I am not saying that these conservative leaders celebrated this news or wanted this specific outcome. I assume they are still human. But they knew, or should have known, that they were creating the environment that led to this kind of violence -- and they didn't give a damn.

What did you think was going to happen when you kept telling people to grab their guns, the government was endangering their family and way of life and that they should defend themselves? This was going to happen. Don't pretend otherwise.

A History Of Weakness

Two years ago we had just elected Barack Obama as President. The nation was elated because they thought that finally we would have someone who would change the way the government runs and how we do business as a nation. I, like many people at the time, was fully on board with the President coming into office and getting us back on some sort of reasonable course, a course that had been shifted so far to the right that Reagan started to seem like a left-of-center Democrat. As of this week, what little confidence I had in the President to do the right thing came to a halt.

My discontent had been growing with this administration since the health care debate. I was angry enough to declare that I would not be voting for him again, with good reason. The health care bill gave us so little change that it may as well have not even been passed. Health care costs continue to rise, health insurance companies who are forced to cover preexisting conditions in children are just refusing to cover children at all, and the bill as a whole won't start to take a real effect until 2014. In 2014, the bill will have been gutted because it wasn't strong and it wasn't immediate. This entire episode would have been attributed to a new administration trying to find their way. Things would surely get better after this. Right?

Since the health care debate the President has been cowering in a corner, or more precisely he has been on his knees under Mitch McConnell's and John Boehner's desks. He collapses under any kind of pressure from the right and them throws his arms in the air and says “What could I have done? I had to compromise.” I haven't seen compromise, all I have seen is capitulation. There is a lot of big talk coming from this guy. He says he would love to fight the Republicans on every piece of major legislation that he can. When the opportunity presents itself, he runs and hides behind the curtains in the oval office.

Then there are the areas that he has stood up to fight which is a long list of right-wing goals. He failed to close Guantanamo Bay, he continues to policy of warrantless wiretapping, and seems to be apathetic to the issue of Net Neutrality. The only conclusion I can draw from any of these issues is that he doesn't care. If you do not take a stand against a bad idea than you may as well be a supporter of the bad idea. There is no room for compromise when it comes to failed or bad ideas from the Bush Administration.

Now comes to two issues that the President could have redeemed himself on: Repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” and repeal of the Bush tax cuts. On the issue of DADT, how can he expect anything to get done while he is doing nothing but sitting on his hands waiting for the turtle of congress to take action? I agree that the bill has to be repealed through congress, but there is the option of enacting a stop-loss in the mean time. Then you start to tighten the screws on congress until they scream for mercy. The public is for the repeal of DADT and so is most of congress, minus John McCain who should be treated like a child and told to go stand in the corner until he calms down. Instead, we get a President who pays great lip service but does nothing in the end. Gays are still being discharged under DADT and congress has still not taken up the issue. You know why? Weak leadership, which also applies to Pelosi and Reed.

On the second issue, why is the President making the case for the Republicans? It doesn't make any sense at all. He went out as he usually does and crumbled at the first sign of pressure from the right. Not only did he crumble, but he gave away all of his bargaining chips before negotiations even started. As with DADT, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts was supported by a majority of the nation. The middle class should get to keep their tax cuts (that's anyone making less than $250,000 a year, which is too high in my opinion) and the wealthiest 2% of the nation has to go back to what their taxes were under Clinton (which is way too low in my opinion). However this President can't seem to wrap his mind around standing on principle. He actually thinks that he lost the House in 2010 because he wasn't enough of a Republican. What really happened was people started to wake up to his bullshit and realize that he has no back bone. The people voted for the Republicans because they had no other choice. Why would they vote for a spineless Democrat?

I can only urge the Democrats to run a primary against the President. After he stood on stage and blamed all of his problems on the liberals (his base, you know the ones who support him most) and said that we were being sanctimonious, the entire party should have started the process of finding someone who wasn't going to be a weakling who cowers in fear every time a Republican walks into the room.

I stick by my decision to never vote for this guy again. He is a lost cause at best and a Republican at worst. The question now is who is going to challenge him? Who can beat him for the nomination or who could run as a viable third-party candidate? I'm looking at you Russ Feingold.

This Is The Tea Party

Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving, kind of like herpes. She recently retweeted a tweet from one of her friends that said the following:

The entire post read: "The blood of Jesus against Obama History made November 2008 a Taliban Muslim illegally elected President USA: Hussein."

What? That doesn't even really make any sense, but I get the picture. I am less interested in this bat-shit crazy moron who thinks Obama is an al Qaeda operative than I am of the response of Palin.

"I've never purposefully 'favorited' any Tweet," she told ABC News. "I had to go back to my BlackBerry to even see if such a function was possible. I was traveling to Alaska that day ... it was an obvious accidental 'favoriting'."

Didn't know anything about being able to “favorite” another twitter-head? As much time as she spends on the damned software, you would think she would know about the “favorite” function. This is example 4289743 of Palin allying herself with the crazy and then denying it when it backfires on her. Oh well, she could just be a moron who doesn't know any better.

Republicans And Libertarians: A Vote Against The People

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

John Boehner: PWNed By Joe Scarborough

This is fantastic. You know, sometimes I would like to fight Joe Scarborough in the street, then he does something like this and makes me like him, just a very little bit.

Nothing makes me happier then seeing John Boehner getting the smack down, even if it is just an ad hominem attack.

-----

Sorry to all three of you that I haven't been around for the past few days. I am having some personal changes going on right now and some great projects that I am about to start. I will do what I can over the next week to post every day. I think that the planned projects will be worth it.

Republican God

The Washington Post really has nothing better to write about. In this travesty of an article in the “Faith” section, Elizabeth Tenety asks the logical question of “Is God a Republican?” Sometimes, I just want to scream.

God, if you believe His messengers, also spoke to Sarah Palin, George Bush and Norm Coleman, calling them to public office.

Why does God always pick a group of idiots and assholes as his representatives in Politics? I don't think I would be proud of a deity that planned for Sarah Palin, George Bush, or Sharron Angle to run for anything.

The simpler answer here is one that we know: The only thing these politicians in the GOP are doing is using the idea of the invisible sky daddy to get the slack-jawed yokels of the nation to vote for them. There is no god, and the sooner people realize that, the better off we will all be.

Republican Purge?

We were watching Real Time the other night, with guests Chris Matthews, who alternates between screaming and laughing like a really happy baby, some frisky economics lady who couldn't get to her point, and fucking asshat Ross Douthat who needs to die in a freak Vespa accident. Anyway, they talked about stuff. The thing I wanted to talk about that they talked about was governor of Florida Charlie Crist, who will be running as an Independent this fall instead of a Republican. Matthews and Maher think that the Republican party is purging moderates; this guy that I randomly found (at Newsbusters, so beware nutjobbery, oh it is there) think they're morons. Crist is not alone: Tom Marsh, running for governor of Connecticut, jumped as well. Not that running as Independent really means much; it's really just a cover mostly for people (white dudes) who consider themselves conservative but don't want to be seen with the mouth-foamers and be racist by association.

Maybe Crist is intentionally abandoning what everyone knows is a dying party; maybe he did have his funding pulled and was forced out. Whatever the case, it does seem pretty obvious (and this is mentioned in the Real Time episode) that the Republicans who are in power, with what has been going on in Arizona , Nebraska, etc, are completely alienating Hispanics, women, gays, other growing minority groups, hell, pretty much everybody except fat white xenophobic guys that cling to their guns with Cheeto-encrusted fingers.

Not that I'm upset about that---go for it guys! Destroy yourselves! The faster you go away the better.

Reccommended:
A GOP Purity Test?
Charlie Crist to GOP: Drop Dead

Doctor Tells Obama Voters To Go Away

Right-wingers never cease to amaze me. A urologist in Florida has decided to turn any patients away if they voted for Obama. After all of the bitching about death panels, you have a doctor come out and refuse service to anyone who doesn't agree with his politics? This is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wonder if there is a way to get this guys license revoked for unethical practices.

This Is What Happens When You Defy The Republican Party

Ask David Frum (R, Dickhead) what happens when you criticize the Republican Party. He will tell you that you will get shit-canned.

The Republican Party has turned themselves into a group of yes-men. When you get to the point that you are firing your own people because they voice concern about how you are handling things, then the end is nigh. Either that, of your party becomes a group that has been hijacked by crazy people... oh wait.

Man, if these guys can't take David Frum, David Frum!, throwing out a little criticism, then they have seriously become the most brittle object on the face of the planet.