Conservative Myths Answered

Obama needs to show his birth certificate--the long form!

2010-05-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

The following answer to our birther friends by Emerald 5 8 2010 North County Times

On the outside chance someone might actually take such wacko conspiracy theories seriously, here are THREE reasons Obama ain’t gonna beg you to believe him.

1. Your request has already been fulfilled.
A certified copy was posted in Hawaii, certified by the REPUBLICAN governor (Laura Lingle) and the Department of Health, and backed up by much other evidence including local birth announcements published in both major Honolulu newspapers way back at the time of Obama’s 1961 birth.

2. There is nothing that will convince the lunatic fringe who have already decided that there was a conspiracy all the way back in 1961 to fabricate a false birth record so that a BLACK BABY could be groomed for the presidency at a time when blacks weren’t even allowed vote in some parts of the country.

3. We don’t really want you to stop.
The loonier the wacko conspiracy theory extremists become, the more the general public is turned off by them.

Heritage Foundation proved that Fannie and Freddie forced by Democrats to loan to poor caused global financial meltdow

2010-05-06T17:30:00.000-07:00

Response to Rush Limbaugh:
First, why do you think anyone would find biased conservative OPINION sites such as Heritage to be the slightest bit credible?

Second, no one minimizes the role of Freddie and Fannie, but all intelligent analysts put them in perspective relative to where they fit with other, more significant factors. You say, “For those of you who said....” PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. Who are you referring to? Which statements? Please provide the name, date, time and statement you are referring to, unless YOU JUST MADE IT UP.

Third, Freddie/Fannie were dramatically successful for decades and collapsed during the Bush years when Republicans controlled the Presidency as well as the House and Senate. Why do you consider this to be a bad reflection on the minority party that was OUT OF POWER?

The reality-reversal desperation level here is palpable.

Brick Throwing Advocate is a "Welfare Queen""

2010-03-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

This is priceless. The former militia leader so publicly advocating hurling bricks through Democratic leaders' windows? He's a welfare queen.

"Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

And why does he hate Democrats so much? He's afraid of "collectivist" tendencies.

"He said he long opposed President Obama because he believed the president has "collectivism" tendencies. But he became especially energized during the health-care debate."

Yeah, collectivist. Like federally funded disability payments.

Owwwww, the stupid, it burns!

---------------------------

This post thanks to the contribution of North County Times blogger,

CaroCogitatus said on: March 26, 2010, 9:21 am

Eric Cantor does not lie any more than Obama

2010-03-25T21:42:00.000-07:00

Yeah, right.

Imagine if a non-Republican claimed that someone shot a bullet through their office window, telling the story to try to garner sympathy and make himself sound like a victim. Then, later it was found out that the bullet was a random bullet coming down with hardly any force. It could not have been aimed at his office. No one could shoot up into the air and have it land in a particular window hundreds of yards away. The bullet was an "accident" caused by some gun nut firing into the air.

Think how much ridicule Rush Limbaugh and the hired guns at FOX not News would heap on the poor unfortunate liar's head. But with the liar/exaggerator being a Republican, we all know from experience that FOX not News will either ignore Cantor's lie or try to explain it away.

Here is what USA Today said about the bullet, "A statement from the Richmond, Va., police department says a bullet broke the window of a meeting room in Cantor's office at about 1 a.m. Tuesday. "A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window," the police statement says. "The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds.""
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/cantor-reports-bullet-being-fired-at-campaign-office/1

So far Obama has not lied once. There are no government death panels, only private insurance death panels. There is no coverage for undocumented workers. There will be no government funds for abortions. All those lies came from FOX not News, King Limbaugh and the mental case, Glenn Beck.

Say when is the Kool-Aid crew going to chip in for a mental health intervention for Beck?

My son* is no longer threatened with death by you serial sociopaths that support the lies of FOX, Limbaugh and Beck. My son can no longer be cut off by my wife's insurance when he reaches the arbitrary annual cap or life time cap on medical coverage. These caps put in place by Private Insurance Death Panels.

All hail Obama and Rahm. Life savers. Thank God for the courageous in Congress. They will lose in November because lies stick in the heads of the Kool aid crew better than facts. But those Democrats did what no Republican since Teddy Roosevelt has done, they stuck to their principles of helping ordinary Americans, damn the professional cost.

* My youngest child and second son is 27 years old and suffers from psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and worst of all ankylosing spondylitis. His first symptoms were as a twenty year old senior in college. Without costly medication, the AS freezes up his rib cage suffocating him. Twice his mother and I have sat by his bedside watching him all night long expecting every breath to be his last. Remicade saved his life when Enbrel and Humira could not.

The Remicade is VERY expensive. Out of pocket expenses for his care cost my wife and I around $10,000 a year.

I am disabled with a related immune disorder. I was forced to take a disability retirement after twenty five years in the public school system. My various jobs were as a custodian, bus driver, classroom teacher (math,algebra, bilingual math, science, US history and self contained), driver training instructor and superintendent of a tiny school district. I have six California credentials. I learned to speak Spanish while taking classes at night and teaching 6th grade during the day time.

My wife and I have lived under constant fear that we will lose her insurance and that we will not be able to afford the medication needed to keep my son alive since he almost died in the summer of 2007. Three years previous to his diagnosis I was forced from the classroom by my related immune disorder. My disease progression is much slower than my son's so I can take care of him while my wife is in the classroom teaching.

My monthly retirement check is $2100.

As a public school teacher in California of the wrong age, I have no medical insurance from my district nor do I qualify for Medicare. I cannot provide enough money for my son's meds if my wife's medical insurance is taken away nor can I provide health insurance for him as I was given none for my service.

My son and I are two of the disposable people that the folks, who acquired Selfish Con Disorder from Limbaugh and FOXnotNews, think should just go sit in a corner and die because they do not want to pay for our insurance.

Having a guarantee that our son will be covered is very nice. We thought we would have to move to Canada where my father in law's family is from if my wife lost coverage. We would sell everything and move, so my son could still get the medication he needs to live. Now we do not need to.

Obama won't consider Republican health reform ideas

2010-02-26T17:10:00.000-08:00

The propaganda of Rush Limbaugh, FOX not News, Glenn Beck et. al. that Obama is too arrogant (code for uppity) to listen to Republicans (code for white men)is brillantly refuted in the post. This excellent reply to the lies was written by blogger Ms M in the Letters to the Editor comment section of the North County Times, Friday February 26, 2010.

Fact-checking the GOP on healthcare reform
Senate Dems adopted 161 amendments and key GOP planks while soft-pedaling the public option. That's not compromise?
By Ethan Sherwood Strauss

http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments

The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

Garrett ignores GOP influence in current health care legislation to say Obama will "start" incorporating GOP ideas

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002100034

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82665-white-house-issues-list-of-gop-health-reform-ideas-included-in-obama-plan

Are the GOP's Ideas on Health Care Reform Any Good?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/are-the-gops-ideas-on-health-care-reform-any-good/35699/

Global Weirding, Thomas Friedman, New York Times

2010-02-17T12:04:00.000-08:00

Our conned friends continue to believe the dangerous nonsense that bought and paid for, conmen like Beck and Limbaugh are pedaling to the gullible about what we humans are doing to the earth's climate and oceans.

Thomas Friedman summarized what everyone should know about human induced climate change. In his column in today's New York Times (see below), he introduces us to a new and more accurate term for this human caused climate change. He calls it "Global Weirding."

Here he is in his own words. Please pass on Friedman's comments to any of your friends or relatives who are still deluded dittoheads, broken-brained Beck viewers, or have been fooled by the FOX propaganda apparatus.

February 17, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist

Global Weirding Is Here

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.

When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.

The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.

At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.

Here are the points I like to stress:

1) Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.

The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.

2) Historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly, going from Ice Ages to warming periods, driven, in part, by changes in the earth’s orbit and hence the amount of sunlight different parts of the earth get. What the current debate is about is whether humans — by emitting so much carbon and thickening the greenhouse-gas blanket around the earth so that it traps more heat — are now rapidly exacerbating nature’s natural warming cycles to a degree that could lead to dangerous disruptions.

3) Those who favor taking action are saying: “Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit — because this insurance will also actually make us richer and more secure.” We will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.

4) Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry.

China, of course, understands that, which is why it is investing heavily in clean-tech, efficiency and high-speed rail. It sees the future trends and is betting on them. Indeed, I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia.

Maureen Dowd is off today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html

Obama is incompetent. He cannot get anything done.

2010-02-07T10:25:00.000-08:00

You don’t seem to grasp the very simple concept that we have a PRESIDENT, NOT A DICTATOR.
Republicans continue to OBSTRUCT any reform, with more filibusters in ONE YEAR than all the Southern racists used in opposing civil rights during the entire 20 years of the 1950’s and 1960’s COMBINED.

Why would anyone ever trust those Republicans who broke our economic system (and obstruct those trying to undo the damage) to fix it?

Emerald

The blog editor, con no more, would add. So interesting the cons want it both ways. They say, "Obama is a terrible socialist who is ramming his facist, socialist, communist agenda down America's throat" in one breath. In the next breath he should resign or be impeached because he is lazy and incompetent. Which argument do you want to go with my CONfused friends or aren't you folks troubled by internal inconsistency?

If you haven't watched John Coleman, you cannot criticize him

2010-02-07T10:20:00.000-08:00

Why would anyone feel the need to actually watch an anti-science propaganda piece by someone with no science credentials?

I do not need to see every piece of propaganda by unofficial, uncredentialed sources in order to determine that, lacking credibility, I do not need to watch them.

In the same way, I doubt you watch very many of the liberal pieces but do not hesitate to discredit them.

While it is my opinion that Al Gore, who as DDWiz pointed out, is a non-scientist with a journalism degree just like Coleman, except that Gore also has a ton more additional achievements and has more credibility because he explains real science rather than arguing with it, I would never, ever cite him as an original source.

And don’t give me the baloney about all the “scientists” who disagree with the consensus view.
As has been pointed out by many in this blog, none more so than Wiz himself, the vast majority of them of them are (1) not real scientists, are (2) funded by oil companies, and (3)are not published in peer reviewed journals due to their ineptness.

If someone finds Coleman entertaining, watch him.
If not, there is absolutely no reason on earth to do so.

thanks to the wisdom of Emerald

The Republican Contract with America balanced the budget

2010-02-07T10:18:00.000-08:00

CLINTON vs. GINGRICH -- the BALANCED BUDGET SHOWDOWN

Our CONfused friends inappropriately tries to deflect credit away from the Clinton administration that inherited recession and record deficits from Reagan/Bush and turned them into record surpluses and economic prosperity.

The model that turned things around was the Democratic model, not the so-called “Contract on America.”

Al Gore even wrote a book to describe the specifics of the Clinton proposal titled, "Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less" (1993) with a foreword by business efficiency guru Tom Peters (author of "In Search of Excellence"). It detailed specific cuts, economic stimuli, and government by targeted incentives instead of micromanagement and regulatory detail.

It was the Clinton/Gore proposal which passed in 1993, barely, without a single Republican crossover vote when the Democrats still had a majority; the Republicans, with their usual doom-and-gloom pessimism, predicted economic disaster. As usual, they got it wrong.

Again, there was a Republican alternative but that was not the one that passed.

Remember Newt Gingrich and his little tantrum, blocking passage of the Clinton budget and letting the government shut down after the Democrats lost their majority? As a result of the public outcry, rightly blaming Gingrich, he passed down and it was the Clinton Democratic proposal that actually passed, NOT Gingrinch’s “Contract On America” alternative. If “Iceman” wants to promote his ideological beliefs, fine, but rewriting history is not going to convince any intelligent person.

And what actually happened to the Republican predictions of doom and gloom and economic collapse? Every single year of Clinton's first term, budget deficits were reduced, until at the end of that term they crossed over into surpluses for the first time since it was done by -- guess who? -- LBJ and the Democratic Congress (FY 1969, passed in February 1968), despite the costs of the Apollo Moon Program.

When government operates more efficiently, it costs less, and taxes go down. When you do more with less, taxes go down. When you proactively prevent problems instead of reactively clean up the mess in their wake (the fence at the top instead of ambulances at the bottom), it costs less. When you encourage compliance with incentives rather than only through the heavy hand of punitive government force, it costs less and taxes go down. When you broaden the base of economic prosperity, there is greater productivity all around, real wealth goes up, and the tax base expands.

Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Bush problems were a result of him kow towing to democrats

2010-02-07T10:12:00.000-08:00

Tor 6 of the 8 years that Bush was in office he had a Republican Congress, got almost everything he wanted and made more "signing statements" than all other Presidents combined. In addition he had the entire AM radio frequency and a phony cable news network worshiping, praising his every move while calling those, with even mild disagreements, traitors.

It should be quite entertaining to see your vast number of examples of how Bush "kowtowed" to the Democrats.

Much to Bush's credit, he did start distancing himself from Cheney during his second term. Although it took him a while, even Bush saw the evil, the power-lusting monster that lurks in and defines the essence of Dick Cheney.

Thanks to Swift

Those who say Happy Holidays insult Christians and Christmas

2010-02-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

Cons misstate the perspective of those who say, “Happy Holidays” to strangers during the period between mid-November and mid-January, when a number of holidays occur including Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Solstice, Yule, Christmas, Kwanzaa, New Year, Epiphany and, in some years, Ramadan and/or the Feasts of Eid al-Adha and Al-Hijra.

Some of these holidays represent religious or cultural viewpoints, some are secular. But they all occur. And when you meet a stranger, not knowing their viewpoint, saying “Happy Holidays” is simply a gesture of respect to avoid judging others or imposing your choices on them.

But there is no instance in which someone finds the celebration of Christmas by those who observe it to be “offensive” as you incorrectly stated.

My own choice is to say “Happy Holidays” if I do not know the person’s preference, and to offer the appropriate greeting to them if I do. If I know someone celebrates Christmas, as I do, I will greet them with, “Merry Christmas.”

Thanks to 3D

Obama is going to let tax increase on small business by letting Bush tax cuts end

2010-02-07T10:00:00.000-08:00

Letting tax rate changes passed by Bush expire have NO EFFECT on separate, subsequent tax cuts passed by Obama last year on those making less than $250,000, or in the current proposals which reiterate tax cuts for individuals and small businesses other than the very rich.

I can never tell whether the stench of these misrepresentations reeks of ignorance or malice, but disinfectant is in order.

Thanks to Emerald.

Obama is a socialist who hates working Americans

2010-02-07T09:51:00.000-08:00

Sure my CONfused friends, the RepubliCON party may want him to dump progressives so he has no base left and no support in the country. But did you hear what Obama said recently on this subject?

"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."

Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/obama-calls-out-conservat_n_447697.html
This quote brought to us today by blogger, Ms M.

Do you think San Diego weatherman John Coleman is lying or is he naive?

2010-02-07T09:46:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned, I have shared a stage with him in the past when each of us were representing the views of our respective political parties. I found him to be gracious, likeable and an all-around nice guy.

I have a hard time thinking that he is lying and, with his lack of science credentials, it is easy for someone with just enough science background to try figure things out and think he has answers that have eluded real scientists. This is especially true with persons who, however otherwise gregarious and positive they may be, have the kind of oversized egos necessary to succeed in the kind of media field he is in.

I prefer to believe he is simply in error and, lacking any evidence to the contrary (such as outright grants or bribes from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, which I have not seen in his case), prefer to believe that most people are basically decent.

Prior to 1492, those lacking science backgrounds believed for many centuries that the world was flat because those profiting off Big Religion (in both money and power) told them so, and because they could look out their front doors and it LOOKED flat, while the few educated scientists of the time were unanimous in their knowledge that the world is round and even knew its precise circumference (calculated by Eratosthenes back in 240BC). They were not “lying” or even particularly ignorant. They saw an optical illusion and did not have a grasp of the intricacies of the scientific realities that had been known for all those centuries.

This wisdom from blogger DDWiz

Democrats in Sacramento caused California to go bankrupt

2010-02-07T09:39:00.000-08:00

So let me see how conservative “logic” works here....

1. Republicans held the California governorship 21 out of the last 27 years....

2. During this time, Republicans have ALWAYS had enough votes to obstruct any fiscal policy by the Democrats that requires an outrageous 2/3 super majority needed to pass a state budget.

Democrats cannot pass any legislation, nor do they control the Executive branch (Arnold Schwarzenegger) that/who has all the power of appointments (judges, financial officers, bureaucratic decision-makers, contract awards), vetoes, executive orders, and all that.

So the mess is all California Democrats’ fault.

Why would anyone ever trust the Republicans who broke the system by constantly obstructing those trying to fix it?

This wisdom thanks to blogger Emerald

Canadian premier, Danny Williams is headed to U.S. for heart surgery

2010-02-07T09:12:00.000-08:00

Yes, and my son and our family may be headed to Canada soon to find health care for him. You see we are among the filthy rich in America who get fine health care when they are not making tax free donations to "think" tanks that provide disingenuous information to bought and paid for AM radio con men to convince Americans not to provide health care for the sick and dying. Why? Because the filthy rich already can afford the world's best health care no matter its location, they just want to make sure they do not have to pay their fair share for other Americans to have health insurance too.

As my college graduate son formerly newspaper editor of his college newspaper slowly withers away from four autoimmune diseases for which the medicine costs to keep him alive cost our family tens of thousands of dollars, the filthy rich can feel safe from his pain and our bills. My sons condition started hitting him in his senior year of college. After doing every thing and more America asked of my son, he is left with no help when he got sick. The filthy rich can be secure in the knowledge that they will not have to pay even a penny toward any health care for him or any other sick American.

As long as the filthy rich can buy the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and Fox not News" anchors" and opinion makers, they can securely and cheaply live off the sweat of middle class and blue collar American brows. They can feel complete safety provided by American armed forces, police and firefighters but never have to pay what they owe for this safety and security to the American middle class and blue collar workers.

Our filthy rich friends will never have know when my son and many others like him finally die from treatable illnesses that the ordinary Americans can not afford. The filthy rich will not have to interrupt their non stop partying and full social calendars. All Hail the filthy rich!

The selfish class gets richer and richer. The CONfused and deceived dittoheads continue to get the shaft from the greatest liar and class traitor America has ever produced, Rush Limbaugh and the most successful propaganda machine since the Nazis, Rupert Murdock's FOX not News.

This post provided by blog editor and blogger--con no more

Scientist email prove they are all liars

2010-02-07T09:07:00.000-08:00

It was from E-MAILs written by a few European scientist on one university's email system.
The email was not peer-reviewed science.
The ideas in the emails were rejected.

Oh, and NONE of the few discredited e-mails - which had no effect on the broad spectrum of scientific consensus - ever made it past peer review or had the slightest effect on the broad base of data used, most of which comes from American facilities such as NASA and NOAA which were not even involved.

But, anyway, what are cons trying to claim?
That because a few drops spill from one bucket that no bucket is capable of holding any water?

In fact, all cons do is discredit your own anti-science statements.
Any time anyone misrepresents sources, distorts facts and repeats trivial nonsense from unpublished sources that doesn’t even mean anything, they only discredit themselves.

Only the victims or perpetrators of Big Oil propaganda could hold such anti-science views.

I repeat, no matter how many times the CONfused repeat the same unverified propaganda, it does not alter the FACT that the EMAILS the CONfused quote from did NOT make it into peer-reviewed data, did NOT come from within the United States (from where the best and most data originates) and did NOT address ANY of the core scientific conclusions you are so desperate to misrepresent.

This information thanks to blogger, Emerald--North County Times-Lttrs to Ed.

Meterologist, John Coleman, is an American hero for debunking global warming

2010-02-07T09:01:00.000-08:00

John Coleman not only is not as an “American Hero” but he also is not a “meteorologist.” Our con friends are wrong on both counts. Coleman’s own website notes that he has a degree in JOURNALISM (not science) which he received in 1957 from the University of Illinois.

John Coleman, with whom I have shared a stage in the past, is a nice guy. Very jovial and likable. He is not a scientist. He is a TV weatherman.

In fact, all the things about Coleman could also be said of Al Gore:
Degree in journalism, not science.
Created a documentary on climate science.

Why, they could practically be twin brothers.
Well, other than Gore’s decades of actual public service (instead of just talking about it), and having won an election for presidency of the United States and that Grammy, Emmy, Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize.

And the fact that non-scientist Gore makes documentaries that explain science rather than put himself in opposition to the widespread consensus of real scientists.

So, which non-scientific journalism major do so many conservatives ridicule, and which do they call a “hero” while exaggerating his nonexistent science credentials?

Hmmmm. You don’t think those billions of dollars of propaganda from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS would have anything to do with that, do you?

Follow the money.

This post thanks to the wisdom of North County Times blogger, DDWiz

Republican hero, Everett Dirksen (R-IL) was key to getting 1964 Civil Rights bill passed, Robert Byrd, Democrat opposed it.

2010-02-07T07:20:00.000-08:00

Again, Robert Byrd acknowledged the error of his ways, repudiated his past wrongs, and changed his ways and is today a respected member of the Democratic party.

Everett Dirksen was a LIBERAL Republican.
Today, he would be ridiculed as a RINO and forced, like so many others of his contemporaries, to quit the party he would no longer recognize and become a Democrat.

Democrats applaud the liberal Republicans of the past such as Lincoln, trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt and Everett Dirksen and, in some areas, Eisenhower. None of these heroes would be welcome in the tea party of today.

Shall we start a list of those Southern Democrats who followed the lead of Strom Thurmond and quit the Democratic Party on the issue of race and race alone, to be welcomed into the warm embrace of racist Republicans.

Do you really not know this?

I know it was the Democrats that were segregationists, Rush told me so.

2010-02-07T07:10:00.000-08:00

Anyone knowledgeable about American history knows that SOUTHERN Democrats, out of step with their party, opposed Civil Rights during the 1950’s and the first half of the 1960’s.

Rush knows this fact very well. He is counting on being able to fool folks without any contradiction. With no fairness doctrine, he can say anything he wants. No one is allowed on his radio stations after his shows to set the record straight. Rush is not only a hired gun liar but he is a coward. He won't allow stations to broadcast any criticism or corrections of his lies (Randy Rhodes radio personality from Florida revealed that fact in 2005).

Further more, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill that finally passed in 1964, he lamented that he had lost the South for the Democrats for generations.

Those Democrats either retired, repented (as Byrd, who repeatedly acknowledged his error and apologized) or, like most, including Strom Thurmond, changed parties to REPUBLICAN.

Democrats say GOOD RIDDANCE to the RACISTS that were embraced with open arms by Republicans.

Why doesn't CSPAN televise filibusters? Is it because they do not like Republicans?

2010-02-07T07:07:00.000-08:00

The filisbuster has changed.

It used to be that, to filibuster, one or more senators would actually have to hold the floor.
Today, they merely invoke filibuster but do not actually give lengthy speeches.

I would support a return to the old protocol in which, if ya wanna filibuster, hold the floor, give speeches, read from the phone book, whatever, and see if we can outlast ya.

Democrats should demand that Republicans actually do this.

If Republican senators (the former Sourthern racists) actually had to do this, we would see far fewer filibusters carried through to completion
.
The failure of Democrats to demand this is a legitimate instance in which Democrats are rightly criticized for being “spineless.”

Segregations were all democrats, that is where the racism is

2010-02-07T07:01:00.000-08:00

It's no secret that the New Deal depended upon segregationist Democrats. Eleanor tried to push Franklin toward working on civil rights issues. Franklin had to explain to her that he could not achieve his economic policies without the help of segregationist democrats who opposed civil rights.

I think Democrats have been much more honest about unsavory aspects of their past than the republicans. democrats don't deny distasteful aspects of their past--Hugo Black, Harry Truman, and Robert Byrd all admitted to their brief fling with the KKK, and expressed their profound regret and sadness for having been affiliated with it.

I don't read many republicans indicating much embarrassment over Nixon's southern strategy, which openly played upon the anger of white democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. and it succeeded.

Just look at former Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott: a few years ago, right at the beginning of the 21st century, he remarked at Strom Shurmond's 100th birthday party that the country would have been better off if it had followed Mississippi's lead and voted for Thurmond for president in 1948. Thurmond's main campaign plank, and the platform for Dixiecrats in general, was segregation.

So as recently as a couple of years ago the Republican Majority Leader of the United States Senate espoused segregation.

I'm happy that the segregationists have left the democratic party. The republicans are welcome to them.

Obama and big government caused the Recession

2010-02-07T06:42:00.001-08:00

The AM radio con men and FOX not News try to convince the gullible that Obama, the Democrats and their Washington incompetence led to the economic crash and the ill-conceived bank bailout. The bought and paid for con men want to convince the public that it was government regulation that caused the problems. But those with memories understand that they are just pushing propaganda that their corporate CEO masters tell them to.

The truth is just the opposite of what the bank CEOs and their lack lackeys are trying to shovel down our throats.

Deregulation (as in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999) gave us credit default swaps and banks treating your money like a chronic gambler on a Las Vegas bender.

Republican economic policies gave us tax cuts for billionaires, 15 percent unemployment and took us from Clinton's $400 billion surplus to a $1.3 trillion deficit in only eight year.

The bank bailout was fully under way during the Bush administration. It was RepuliCON members of the Bush administration who demanded the bailouts be hurriedly passed overnight or the whole financial infrastructure would come down. When rationals said hey wait, aren't we paying too much for assets now worth pennies on the dollar? But the Bushies said no we have to pay 100% of the phony marked up value for what turned out to be almost worthless assets of Goldman Sachs.

Was that government incompetence or worse? Yes, but Bush controlled the executive branch of the government that planned the bailouts. Con men completely controlled the news cycle in America then as now with 'stories' from fact free FOX not News and the AM radio con men driving each news cycle.

The great national debt came as a result of the Bush tax cuts, the two wars fought on credit, and the huge medicare prescription drug program that was not paid for. Who was in charge of Congress when those decisions were made? Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and the other GOP leaders were in charge at the time. They took us to the brink of the next Great Depression, and you're going to trust them on economic policy again?

Obama plays golf more than Bush did

2010-02-07T06:31:00.000-08:00

The Liar Limbaugh has recently used this slight of hand propaganda talking point: President Obama has played more golf than Dubya did while in office.

What Limbaugh didn't mention were Bush's 77 trips to the "ranch" in Crawford — about 30 percent of Bush's time in office — at a cost to the taxpayers of a whopping $226,072 each!

Obama plays golf Sunday afternoons and stays in D.C to work, where he belongs.

How much does a Sunday afternoon round of golf cost?

The goals of the Liar Limbaugh are to (1) imply that Obama is lazy. (Wonderful racism there, you know them blacks they so damn lazy.)(2) indicate that the mentally incompetent and easily distracted W was not so bad after all. (3) Knowing that the public will not buy number (2) try to make the public think that Obama is at least as incompetent, distracted and just plain worthless as Bush was.

Milton Saier, liberal icon, wants to impose abortion on the poor

2010-02-06T17:16:00.000-08:00

If someone has to base their entire premise on a lie, then it shows that even they know their position is groundless.

He accuses Professor Milton Saier of writing a letter that “suggests we impose birth control or abortions” on poor people. Since I read these letters every day, and I have read letters by Milton Saier, and could not remember any suggestion of mandating abortion or birth control, I went back and checked the letter Polito is referring to. The letter suggests PROVIDING birth control and abortion services - making them AVAILABLE to women - not requiring or mandating or forcibly “imposing” these options on anyone.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_19a67997-5020-50b2-82eb-a2dbdad2791c.html

Similarly, I would agree with Prof. Saier that such services should be AVAILABLE, but I would never suggest that government impose decisions onto women that should be left to individual, personal choice.

Those who have to lie about their sources, or misrepresent those they purport to be responding to, admit that they are not able to respond to what the person actually said.
In other words, they have conceded the actual point.

The majority of voters were against healthcare reform

2010-02-06T17:15:00.000-08:00

In objective polls, almost 70% of Americans support health care with a strong public option and many other specific reforms.

The reason there was widespread opposition to the Democratic bill is that it was so watered down, no public option, and was larded with many gifts to special interests in the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical industries.

Even Democrats like myself who supported it did so holding our noses at the many weaknesses, because we felt it was at least a small step in the right direction and at least better than what we have now, and the imperfections could be addressed little by little down the line.

Christians are discriminated against by loud mouthed gays

2009-10-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

Christians are not discriminated against, they are not forbidden from marrying other Christians like homosexuals are.

If homosexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals (the right to marry, the right to serve their country without discrimination), my bet is that they would "fade into the woodwork."

As it is right now, they will not achieve those rights by keeping quiet and keeping their mouths shut.

I know of no time in which discrimination against ANY group was ended by the silence of those who were oppressed, do you?

Four firefighters died in a wild fire because environmental wackos denied them water

2009-10-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

This Con Scum lie has been circulating in the demented inner circles of paranoid echo chamber hell that now is the conservative base. It was printed without vetting as an editorial in our local North County Times and written by a local elected official. Read it here:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/article_34c99ddd-7613-5b8a-afdf-97016d10ba42.html?mode=story

LOCAL VIEW: Incredible Fish Story shows value of fish vs. humans PLANET OF THE FISH -- A PRELUDE

by GARY ARANT -- Valley Center Water District | Posted: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:00 am

"Tom Craven, 30. Karen Fitzpatrick, 18. Devin Weaver, 21. Jessica Johnson, 19.

According to an Associated Press report dated July 31, 2001, these young firefighters suffered horrific deaths in July 2000, fighting a fire in the Okanogan National Forest in Washington state because our government ---- no, evidently our society ---- values fish over people."

The actual truth given in the online comment section following the article. Following the post which gives an ASSOCIATED PRESS article to the correct information as opposed to MIS-represented lie and misquote of what the Associated Press said by Gary Arant above.

moldychum said on: October 11, 2009, 1:49 pm

This opinion piece is a blatant distortion of the facts.

Numerous safety mistakes were made that led to these unfortunate deaths. The crew boss Ellresse Daniels was charged with manslaughter and 11 other forest service managers were disciplined as a result. In addition to the fact that these firefighters were relative newcomers and sleep deprived, they were led into a box canyon where the fire was likely to overtake them. Other members of the crew who were on the road by the river survived under their shelters.

From the indictment -

At Daniels' direction, the crew stopped along the road, which ran parallel to the Chewuch River. But instead of preparing the crew for the worst -- that the fire would race over them -- Daniels told them the fire would burn around them, court papers allege. Meanwhile, Daniels watched as several firefighters scrambled up a rocky slope to get a better view of the fire. According to the documents, Daniels later said he ordered the firefighters down from the slope, but surviving crew members disputed that. That discrepancy is significant, according to charging papers. The heat is more intense on an upward slope, and uneven ground makes using fire shelters difficult. So when the fire raced through and firefighters dived for cover under their shelters, those on the road survived but those who remained on the slope were asphyxiated by superheated air. "The consensus of experts is that all four deceased firefighters would have survived if they deployed [shelters] on the road near the other crew members," the charging documents allege.

You should be ashamed of yourself for using these deaths in the debate over endangered fish.

Read the facts.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/296691_30mile21.html

Crew boss charged in Thirtymile Fire
Negligence alleged; 2001 blaze killed 4 firefighters

By JOHN K. WILEY
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Here is part of the article as my link does not work. I think because there is a symbol _that did not work between 296691_30mile21.html in the above link but I was able to print it just now. I don't understand what is wrong with the link, but here is the beginning of the article:

HE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPOKANE -- More than five years after a wildfire killed four young U.S. Forest Service firefighters huddled inside protective fire shelters on a rocky slope in the Chewuch River Canyon, the man who was their boss has been charged with manslaughter and lying to federal investigators.

Federal prosecutors Wednesday announced they had filed charges against Ellreese N. Daniels, the crew boss in charge of the firefighters who died July 10, 2001, in the Thirtymile Fire near Winthrop, in north-central Washington.

"We have been wondering why it took so long (to file charges). It was starting to look like they never would," Steve Emhoff said from his home in Yakima. His son, Jason, was badly burned but survived the fire.

"I have the knowledge that my son has given me, which the families of the four that didn't survive don't have," Emhoff said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Hopkins said Daniels has not been arrested. He will be summoned to a Jan. 4 appearance in federal court here on four counts of involuntary manslaughter and seven counts of making a false statement during investigations into the fatal fire.

Daniels' attorney, public defender Tina Hunt, did not return calls for comment Wednesday. Daniels has an unpublished telephone number.

Firefighters Tom Craven, 30, Devin Weaver, 21, Jessica Johnson, 19, and Karen Fitzpatrick, 18, perished in the extreme heat of the fire inside aluminum fire shelters intended to save their lives. All were from Central Washington.

Daniels, a seasonal Forest Service employee in East Wenatchee, no longer works as a firefighter.

Hopkins said Daniels is accused of gross negligence in the deaths for failing to order the firefighters out of harm's way as the flames advanced, then making false statements to investigators with the Forest Service and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

read the rest of the article at:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/296691_30mile21.html

Tea Parties will save America from Obama debt

2009-10-12T09:58:00.001-07:00

Opportunity, as well as a threat

In 2006, the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, announced that the unfunded commitments had risen from $20 trillion to $50 trillion in 2006. This equates to $440,000 for each American household, or nine times the median income of $49,000.

Our response was to raise the limit on the national debt and borrow another half-billion!

Where were the TEA partiers in 2006? It ill behooves us to pretend to be shocked at the current Keynesian stimulus spending when this massive and frightening debt was coldly and deliberately created by the Bush/Cheney administration.

We need a national plan to eliminate the debt that will reduce imports and level the playing field for industry through public choice, etc. We should also launch another (public works) program for high speed rail transportation, water transfer from Alaska to California by subsea pipe and alternate energy, etc.

There is a national security element to this problem and we should remember that without the (public works-created) Grand Coulee Dam, we would not have had the aluminum to build the planes to defeat the Axis powers in World War II.

Americans need to get back to work and realize that this is an opportunity as well as a threat.

Craig Lang

Oceanside

Employer provied health care is a stupid idea. Until 1948 people took care of their own doctor's bills.

2009-10-10T11:33:00.000-07:00

Hey Rush - I agreed that employer-provided health care is a stupid idea, long overdue for the trash heap of lousy ideas.

But your comment that “until 1948 or so people took care of it themselves” is equally absurd.

Prior to the formation of the first public, full-time paid professional fire department in 1853 (Cincinnati, Ohio), fire fighting was done on a contract basis with fire companies.

It didn’t work out so well, and we decided to go with “government run” and, despite squawking for the Insurance companies, people seem pretty happy with that.

Sorry, Rush, but medicine has become far more technological and advanced than the old days of a country doctor making house calls.

Just as too many houses got burned down while bickering over coverage, so also too many people are dying.*

It ain’t workin’ out so good.

Time for public policy to stop the carnage but, again, the huge corporate monsters are squawking, howling really, saying that it KANT be done.

Oh, and as for your 9:26 a.m. nonsense about only providing coverage for non-smokers or those overweight, nopsie, that’s as ridiculous as saying police or firefighters won’t respond if you have an emergency and did not take all possible advanced precautions. I do, however, support hazard taxes on specific known risky behaviors to be applied toward healthcare costs.

*According to Scientific American, 44,000 human beings -FORTY FOUR THOUSAND - die every year due to lack of health care and you dismiss it so casually.
Reference:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17

Barack and Michelle aren't black. They are mulatto

2009-10-10T11:31:00.001-07:00

Sorry, Rush your rant is not only offensive and racist, it also reflects an ignorance of racial history in the United States.

While the term “mulatto” has been used to refer to degrees of racial ancestry, slavery based on RACE and later racial segregation were based on a LEGAL definition of “Negro” which was known as the “one drop” rule: if you had “one drop” of African blood (just one single African ancestor), you were considered black for purposes of the law, no matter how “white” they appeared.

By the standards of this nation’s sad racial history, both Barack and Michelle Obama are African-Americans.

The fact that they both have white ancestors, as descendants of most slaves did due to rape by their white owners, is a matter of interest only to genealogists.

It would not have been relevant to any matter of race when such matters were enforced by law.
-------------------------

True Story comments from someone who read the above post and knows based on personal experience that it is true. Read below:

You are indeed correct about the "one drop" rule in the south. Before the civil rights laws, if you were 1/36th black in Mississippi you were legally black and were subject to the segregation laws.

In my BOQ at Keesler AFB in the early 60s there was a young Mississippian. His features were as caucasian the the average white person. He liked to show his Mississippi drivers license which indicated his race as "negro." I don't recall if he ever said how far back in his family history there was a black ancestor. I did see photos of his immediate family, and they were looked caucasian, which would seem to indicate the black ancestor was at least several generations in the past. He was proud of his bi-racial blood, and made a point of following segregation laws when he was off the base. I suspected it was his way of making a statement against the horrific laws in the south at that time. Then again, it might have been because he didn't want to get caught by the Biloxi cops and be publically humiliated or worse, go to jail.

Whenever I see a southern teabagger my age shouting "I want my country back," this is "his country" I remember.

Capitalism in America today is just what Adam Smith ordered

2009-10-10T11:28:00.000-07:00

CAPITALISM vs. ANARCHY

The published letter from Darrell McGuire reflects common misunderstandings about the economic theory of capitalism perpetrated by the propaganda of a few elites trying co-opt and misrepresent the theory of Adam Smith in a way he would find unrecognizable, confusing his theory of market economics (capitalism) with a lack of regulation or responsible oversight (laissez-faire).

McGuire clearly has no understanding of what “freedom” means. “Freedom” does not mean an absence of rules; that is chaos or anarchy, not freedom. Absolute freedom for one person means zero freedom for everyone else. Rules, regulations and oversight are required in order to maintain order, and to MAXIMIZE freedom for all.

A protective regulatory framework that sets the boundaries defining where you must be restricted from harming others does not in any restrict an infinite range of freedoms within that framework. As I have said many times, the rules of sports do not restrict an infinite range of possibilities, such that no two games have ever been the same, they make it possible; the rules of the road do not prevent you from getting in your car and driving anywhere you want, they make it possible.

Capitalism originates from the theories espoused by Adam Smith, a liberal, in his seminal five-volume masterpiece, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," written in 1776 in London. Yes, it is about the “invisible hand” of the “free” market. But “free” does not mean chaotic or in anarchy. It wouldn’t take FIVE VOLUMES for Smith to just say, “abolish all government.”

The fact is that Smith supported progressive taxes (Book V, Chapter 2, Article I), proportionality of profits (Book I, Chapter 6), public oversight of rental policies (Book I, Chapter 11), and saw the role of government as including public infrastructure, SOCIAL JUSTICE, and public order (Book IV, Chapter 9). And all this in a book written in a time of largely rural, agrarian societies, when mercantile endeavors were largely Mom and Pop butchers, bakers and candlestick makers -- not behemoth corporations with enormous capacity (or rapacity) to concentrate wealth and power and develop huge capacities to do great harm to workers and consumers.

While no one can say how he would have adapted his theories to the complexities of the modern industrial, high-tech area, the idea that Smith would equate capitalism with laissez-faire -- a term that he had never used in the entire five volumes, though the term goes back to a 1736 speech by René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (40 years earlier), and first appears in print in 1751, 25 years before his work.
A man of Smith’s education would surely be familiar with that term; its omission seems intentional and refutes McGuires nonsense.

Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Americans do NOT support the Public Option

2009-10-10T11:24:00.000-07:00

According to the New York Times / CBS poll
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html

65% - SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT - want a PUBLIC OPTION.

Well, technically, the WORD "public" was not in the poll.

It uses the term "government-administered insurance."

I do understand that there are some people who will swear that “public option” is not the same as “government-administered insurance,” but, for the life of me, I’ll be satisfied with either one.

I suspect Keith Olbermann was confusing the number who support the public option (or "government-administered insurance”) with the number who support the need for some kind of reform (that might not include the public option).

As for the idea that if that many “Americans supported the public option it would have been enacted by now”, don’t be naïve.

Too many legislators, FROM BOTH PARTIES, are bought and paid for by Big Insurance.
They represent the megabucks, not the every day real people.

Conservatives do not have free speech in America

2009-10-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

It's a pretty amazing country when the airwaves (and this blogspace) are inundated with radical, extremist opinions from the right, and those same people complain that their free speech is being taken away.

This is just more proof that these folks are, quite literally, delusional.

And also that they are totalitarian in philosophy, because they seem to believe that until ONLY they get their voices heard, that their free speech will be under attack...they will only be free, in their minds, when the opposition isn't.

Is there a more unAmerican sentiment possible?

Get Tort reform and we do not need Health Care Reform

2009-10-10T11:16:00.000-07:00

On Oct. 1 I posted a quote from Michael Hiltzik's LA Times column headlined "TORT REFORM IS THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE'S FRIVOLOUS SIDESHOW."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik1-2009oct01,1,2715712.column

He wrote "The truth is that medical liability isn't a big driver of health costs overall. Studdert estimates the cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, at roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending -- in other words, no more than $50 billion out of a total annual bill of $1.7 trillion."

The cost of malpractice litigation is even lower than previously estimated in Mr. Hiltzik's column. A new report published in today's LA Times refutes the 2% - 3% estimate as being at least 4 times too high.

"The cost of malpractice Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year --$11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency." This is from the Congressional Budget Office.

"The figure is far lower than previous estimates by groups backing malpractice reform."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-malpractice10-2009oct10,0,4877440.story

I hope this finally puts to rest the straw man "tort reform" argument as a solution to high medical costs.

Obama is miring us down in Afghanistan

2009-10-10T11:14:00.000-07:00

Trying to make sense out of Rush Limbaugh's rants, complaining about being mired down in the muck of a quagmire that Bush got us into, then diverted the necessary resources AWAY from (why no “shock and awe” in Afghanistan;

Why no capture of Bin Laden at Tora Bora? Right when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the ropes and could have been crushed.

Instead, he is going to ridicule and call names of our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, who is trying to be, as he repeatedly promised, “as careful getting out as we were careless going in.”

What does Limbaugh want?

A return to the shoot-from-the-lip cowboy diplomacy run by loose cannon lunatics?

Glenn Beck for president

2009-10-10T11:12:00.000-07:00

In addition to Vivian Horowitz praise for Beck, appreciation also to Alexandra Cloney.

Together, the two compile a convenient list of some of the most hilarious Internet rumors, conservative myths, and examples of how conservative derangement syndrome prevents rational engagement with reality, ever put together in a single page!

It also demonstrates the lengths the conservos have to go through to try to avoid responding to liberals’ real issues and actual policy proposals, and thus the extent to which even they know

THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND

Appreciation to Vivian Horowitz for standing up for the free speech rights of Glenn Beck.
Time to stop calling for his ouster.
On the contrary, Beck should take an even more high profile role:
Let’s all get on the bandwagon and support a Glenn Beck third-party candidacy in 2012!

Glenn beck is an AMERICAN Patriot!!

2009-10-10T11:10:00.001-07:00

What's up with writers like Vivian Horowitz and Alexandra Cloney? Glenn Beck a patriot? Is there some bad acid floating around North County? Poor old gals - they are in a tizzy!

These 2 letter writers exemplify the dismal and discouraging view of our nation being expressed by pundits like Beck and all too many pseudo-conservatives in these letters and blogs. Hopelessness for the hopeless.

A far cry from the optimism of Reagan and a self defeating attitude that will only yield more negativity. Have these folks nothing good to say about our country and our president? Or are they just sore losers who crave more failure? Their complaints seem anti-American and down right disparaging of our country.

Instead of reading Beck's books, they should try some Norman Vincent Peale. Unless they are afraid of positive thinking.

There are many important issues that we need to resolve in America. Beck's patriotism or lack there of is not one of them. America is bigger and better than Glen Beck's sour vision of reality.

I reckon I'll listen to Jeff Beck - instead of Glen.

Ha, Ha, Obama couldn't get the Olympics, he is a bust

2009-10-03T13:01:00.000-07:00

The anti-Obama insanity is so extreme that now our not getting the Olympics is painted as a dismal failure of Obama's, a crash of his ego, as the truth being out about the so-called Messiah.

Seriously, folks, you are the inventors of both sides of your little debate.

It was you guys on the right and only the right that magnified Obama to super-human proportions just so it could use this phony image sarcastically against Obama supporters. You won't find that image on the left.

To us he reprented hope and change, but not miracles, not a Messiah (although any random American, even Sarah Palin, would look like a Messiah after Bush).

It was you guys on the right that said, sarcastically, 'they think Obama can walk on water', and then, when he didn't, they said, 'So how's your water-walker doing?'

Don't you see? It's all bull.

You all should spend more time considering that we on the left speak for our personal views. We do not repeat the latest Rush or Hannity talking points. You'd sound a whole lot less foolish if you would craft your own views instead of having your opinions crafted for you by your 'dear leaders'.

Conservatives are NOT anti-Amercian!

2009-10-03T12:53:00.001-07:00

What conservatives have been against so far:

(1) Bill Clinton freeing American journalists from North Korea

(2) Marines rescuing Americans from Somali pirates

(3) Rescuing American automobile manufacturers

(4) Health care for all Americans

(5)An American city hosting the Olympics, costing us billions of organizational, infrastructure, and tourist dollars, which meant jobs! Not to mention the prestige and an opportunity to show the World our good manners.

Can we call them anti-American yet?

Liberals in Congress approved use of force in Iraq

2009-10-03T12:50:00.000-07:00

Oooopsie, Rush jumps to conclusions (and gets it wrong) and can't remember his history (and gets that wrong, too.)

Democrats virtually unanimously supported military action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan that was harboring the terrorists who actually invaded us.

Democrats were split almost in half on allowing the authorization of force in Iraq, THE WRONG COUNTRY, in which Bush used false, fabricated, dishonest "intelligence" to INVADE THE WRONG COUNTRY and divert our troops AWAY FROM THE REAL TERRORISTS for the purpose of enriching his oil cronies in a WAR FOR OIL.

(Half the Democrats made the MISTAKE of trusting the prez, not imagining anyone could be so dastardly and treasonous as to falsify data on which to invade the wrong country, endanger our troops, purely for political and financial gain.

And Rush, if you are going to engage in character assassination, aimed at specific politicians, then please at least back it up with specific instances, examples, sources WITH VERIFIABLE LINKS.

A REAL JOURNALIST would be able to do this.

When is Obama going to return GM to the private sector

2009-10-03T10:55:00.000-07:00

Oh come on, Rush.

I know you understand better than most the complexity of large-scale bankruptcy reorganization through a 363 sale having gone bankrupt yourself more than once.

Current, GM is owned 61% by the U.S. Govt, 17.5% by the UAW workers who actually create its wealth rather than those who made the fiscally irresponsible decisions that doomed it, and the rest by various private and foreign interests.

As to “why don’t they return it to the private sector?”
Come on, Rebel, you know these complex transactions take time to complete!
It was SOCIALIST Bush who privatized large segments of our financial and industrial sectors.
It is CAPITALIST OBAMA who is repatriating them back to the private sector.

Even your own beloved Wall Street Journal reports that they plan an IPO for next year (2010), with FULL DIVESTITURE NOT LATER THAN 2018.

Stoll, John D.; David McLaughlin (July 2, 2009). "General Motors Aims for IPO Next Year". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
Online link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124646098696280443.html

Cons tell off Obama, lacks pedigree, indoctrinating school children, and death panels

2009-10-02T14:36:00.000-07:00

Boy, the paranoid, delusional, lying anti-Obama freaks are out in force again today!

Rush refers to “Obama’s lack of pedigree” - could there be a more overtly racist basis for opposing a man? His “pedigree”? Thanks for the admission, Rush.

Glenn Beck hysterically rants: “Parents were not objecting to a speech about wiping your nose and doing your homework!” Yes, that is exactly what they were objecting to. There was not this kind of outlandish paranoia when Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush gave speeches (in presidential election years), when Ronald Reagan discussed his bizarre views on the economy and tax cuts for the rich, or when GHW Bush also offered a “homework” project that included ways to “help the president.”

And Mike Savage continues the ongoing Republican campaign of LIES because she CANNOT RESPOND BASED ON TRUTH OR FACTS. Every time they have to LIE about death panels, covering illegal aliens, taking away rather than increasing choices, “pulling the plug on granny” and all the rest, they have completely admitted that they can’t win on the issue so they’ll try to win on propaganda that would make Goebbels or George Orwell blush.

Savage's big complaint, that Obama said, “I will not tolerate....” and that makes him a “dictator”?

Why didn’t you finish the sentence, Marcy?

Because if you FINISH THE SENTENCE and put it in context, the President suddenly doesn’t sound so bad.

For the truth-averse, I will finish the sentence: “I will not tolerate us continuing to pay more for less in health care.”

It is like the cop on the beat DOING HIS JOB and saying he “will not tolerate” crime on his watch.

The public option is dead

2009-10-02T13:05:00.001-07:00

Will wonders never cease? Rush is wrong, AGAIN!

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.

"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.

"I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.

Reid also mentioned the inclusion of incentives for healthy behavior, something suggested by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/Reid-Final-health-bill-will-have-a-public-option-63155937.html

Michael Moore challenges America

2009-10-02T13:04:00.001-07:00

And now a word from my friend Michael Moore:

For two months, we've sat and watched the rabid right achieve the unimaginable: Derail universal health care and send the Democrats in Congress running for cover. Many have asked, "How did this happen? How could a small minority of angry people control the public agenda? Where is the majority's response? Why the silence?"

I don't have the answers to all these questions. But I do know this: I've had enough. As far as I'm concerned, Tea Bag Nation ends today -- at noon to be precise. For that's when I set loose, on a thousand screens across this great land, a movie I've made that's so relentless, so dangerous, so damning in its humor, that it will -- I can only hope -- do what no movie has done before: Take them down, take them all down, once and for all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/capitalism-opens-today-at_b_307390.html

Iraq had to be invaded by Bush because it was a threat, just like Iran is now.

2009-10-02T13:01:00.000-07:00

Rush, your analogy between Iraq and Iran is comical.

You might remember that Bush's Iraq had no WMDs, practically no army, had a dictator who had been rendered impotent, was being inspected by UN (and our) people.

You forget that the things we heard during the runup to the Iraq invasion were all untrue. That's, um, a rather significant difference between the two, wouldn't you say?

I posted recently that I was very disturbed by Iran's missiles and nuclear development and asked what people here thought we should do about this genuine possible threat. (I said that 'nuke em all' or other juvenile 'answers' were not welcome...only grown ups)

No one posted a thing. But now I see that Obama HAS forced Ahmadinejab to bend.

I guess there are those who will insist that the only response is to send hundreds of thousands of our troops and bombers to slaughter the Iranian people (Ahmadinejab's victims).

For the rest of us, it seems like Obama and our allies are doing a fine job on this very difficult front.

NO, NO, NO, Bush never lied even once

2009-10-02T12:54:00.000-07:00

Wrong, Mars. You are so Left Behind. Ho hum.

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations has found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study was posted on the web site of the Center for Public Integrity on January 22. CPI had worked on the project with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. The report counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them, or had links to al-Qaeda, or both.

The report also breaks down who told how many lies:

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The groups concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush never technically lied

2009-10-02T12:51:00.000-07:00

While Rush fusses over the technicalities of what, exactly, is a 'lie', I'll repeat that I've always preferred "deliberately misleading". There's no controversy or legalese involved, and there's not much doubt that the Bush team deliberately misled us.

I agree with most rationals that the Dems who supported the Iraq invasion before they were against it are contemptible.

Many of us had it right from the first days of the run-up. We saw the deliberate misleading and called them on it, every step of the way.

Rush can also yammer about how Clinton believed the same things, bla-bla-bla, but Bush and only Bush sent our kids there to die and kill. It's Bush's war, plain and simple.

Afghanistan, you might realize, is also Bush's war. He started it (for good reason), he messed it up, he passed it on to Obama.

Now it's Obama's to figure out, but it was Bush's action, no way around it.

All historians will be clear that Bush did Iraq and started Afghanistan, without any doubt at all. And the many efforts to deliberately mislead the American public and Congress about Iraq are, and always will be, richly and precisely documented.

The desperate attempts by con-men like Rush simply to save face mean nothing to history. The actual acts of the President of the United States ARE history.

Sorry, Rush. Go home and lick your wounds in private.

The leftist cynics say stuff as wild as Glenn Beck, why doen't the left distance themselves from those guys?

2009-10-02T12:45:00.000-07:00

Rugh, which leftist cynics would you suggest that Democrats distance themselves from?

Honestly, I can't think of any that are in the same galaxy as Beck. Can you?

They might be there, but I've never heard of them. Do any leftists cynics have a national cable show? Do they have national radio shows? The left not only is not as nutty as the right, it has no national forum even if it were. That is why the left does not present the danger to our democracy that the right wing nuts do.

And if they are there someplace on a lonely blog, does anyone associate them with the Democratic party the way most people associate Beck et al with Republicans?

That's why Graham felt the need to distance himself from Beck, you know.

Because to the world, Beck is a Republican.

Claiming that the left and right are identical in extremism is ridiculous and you know it.

Tell me who on the left is as widely heard or as wildly cynical as Beck?

Make a list of the uber-popular extremists of the right (Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Levin, Beck, etc etc) and then of the left (? KeithO, Maddow?) and try to say with honesty that these are similar and equal lists.

You know, and I know, that it's nonsense.

As I said, the point is not Beck et al, it's all the people that make Beck et all what they are. I'm sure there are nutjob leftist cynics out there, but you know what? No one's ever heard of them because they have no nutjob leftist cynical audience. That's the problem.

SO who are the equivalent cynics that people think of as Democratic media-leaders?

Go Beckerheads, Go, no really, go.

2009-10-02T12:43:00.000-07:00

I watch Glen Beck as a source of entertainment.

I watch in short spurts and rely on his inanity to keep me in stitches.

That thing on his chalk board with the Copenhagen was priceless.

Working in the word "snuff" was pure genius and the cancer sticker next to Michelle Obama's picture was racism in its purest form.

Go Beckerheads!! No really, go.

Bush kept us safe from Al Queda after Clinton dropped the ball

2009-10-02T12:35:00.001-07:00

Clinton kept us safe from Bin Laden.

Using police techniques instead of invading the wrong country, he tracked down, caught, arrested, tried, convicted and jailed those responsible for the first WTC bombing that occurred just a few weeks (not months) into his administration.

Then, by focusing on Bin Laden, the Clinton administration let those to whom they delegated those responsibilities actually do their jobs instead of micromanaging (at best) and ignoring or obstructing (at worst), and were able to intercept and prevent the planned LAX and Millenium attacks and KEEP US SAFE.

Bin Laden had to wait until Baby Bush took over, ignored (and fired) terrorism experts like Richard Clarke (who had been there since Reagan), gave $43 MILLION to Bin Laden’s hosts, the Taliban (May 2001), ignored the files prepared by Clinton’s terrorism experts, and ignored the 8-6-2001 PDB.

Bush let 911 happen.

Bush (and his accomplices) LIED about the specific details about specific knowledge regarding imminent danger from Iraq’s WMD, as the basis for justifying opening a second war when we hadn’t finished the first.

Clinton did say that Hussein was dangerous and that we should promote regime change.

Clinton did NOT say that the way to do it was by invading with a hot war.

Clinton did NOT, as Bush, Rumsfeld and, sadly, Colin Powell did, say that he had detailed specific knowledge of specific sites, showing maps and pictures and saying we had confirmed intelligence.

Clinton did keep Saddam contained in No-Fly Zones and with tough international sanctions, leaving him impotent and NO THREAT TO THE U.S.

Clinton kept us safe.

Bush kept us safe from Al Queda after Clinton dropped the ball

2009-10-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

The Cult of the Con--it's a religion, LATimes editorial agrees

2009-10-01T17:44:00.000-07:00

I have posted several times about the Cult of the Con. Seems I am not alone in noticing our fact free cons act more like religious zealots than rationals having a civilized discussion of facts. At least one other person agrees with me. See "Politics as Religion" by Neal Gabler at the following URL:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler2-2009oct02,0,7817347.story

Here is a sample of what he says in his editorial:

"Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.

Unfortunately, they are right. Having opted out of political discourse, they are not susceptible to any suasion. Rationality won't work because their arguments are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Better message control won't work. Improved strategies won't work. Grass-roots organizing won't work. Nothing will work because you cannot convince religious fanatics of anything other than what they already believe, even if their religion is political dogma.

And therein lies the problem, not only for liberals but for mainstream conservatives who think of conservatism as an ideology, not an orthodoxy. You cannot beat religion with politics, which is why the extreme right "wins" so many battles. The fundamentalist political fanatics will always be more zealous than mainstream conservatives or liberals. They will always be louder, more adamant, more aggrieved, more threatening, more willing to do anything to win. Losing is inconceivable. For them, every battle is a crusade -- or a jihad -- a matter of good and evil."

I could not agree more with his point about the new Limbaugh conservatism being a religion, but I highly disagree that the current cons cannot be beat. They have been beaten over and over again recently in every election everywhere. There movement of lies fueling raw emotion and hate has 'no there, there' at its center (as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland). When their center collapses from hate and lies, this whole phony Limbaugh dominated 'conservative movement' will fold and fall. Perhaps then we can get back to a real conservative movement that offers ideas that can be discussed instead of lies whose purpose is solely to inflame.

Why do Republicans hate the sick?

2009-09-27T11:53:00.000-07:00

Why do elected Republicans and con bloggers hate sick people?

Health care reform and affordable, dependable medical care are a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. In this country no group is more discriminated against then the ill. We are bankrupted, denied life saving health care and left to die.

The radio con men provide political cover for Republicans to discriminate against and destroy the lives of those who get catastrophically sick or injured. Why do you hate us so much.

I am sitting here today owing TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR to my son's doctor according to our health insurance company. They will pay no more on the bill, deductibles, out of pocket, usual and customary charges, patient's responsibility and other crapola are slung at my wife and I by the insurance company to explain why they won't pay this bill. Ordinarily they spend their time trying to find a way to drop coverage on him completely.

Without treatment, he suffocates to death in a matter of weeks which seems like what Rush, Glenn Beck, the other talking heads on FOX and their fellow Republicans desire.

I am disabled and unable to work. I have some of my son's same genetic time bombs that have left me 'dead' once, nearly dead many times, and unable to be in the workplace any longer but at least I can still walk and use my hands unlike my son who got a far more vicious version of the immune dysfunction.

Neither my son or I ever did drugs, smoked, drank alcohol etc. No vices. We were great students in school. We worked and earned money for as long as our bodies allowed.

So again I ask, why do Republicans hate us? What did we do to deserve your hate? Why do you guys hate my son and I? Why do you hate all the other sick people in this country as well?

And if it is not hate for the sick that motivates elected Republicans and their followers, what explains their immoral almost criminal indifference to the sick and injured around them?

And since when is noting the criminal neglect of the ill and injured in America, 'whining'? And why is America a 'nanny state' if it does what all human societies have done since time immemorial--take care of the sick and injured? My son and I may be physically sick, but you cons defending the status quo in health care, are mentally and morally sick. I would rather be us than you.

Are cons rich or are they stupid?

2009-09-27T11:49:00.001-07:00

It is not an either/or choice.

It's both.

There is a very small, very elite cabal of very wealthy, very powerful, VERY SMART elites that benefits from having poor and middle class working people work harder to get paid less and make them richer.

This is a very hard sell in a democracy where “majority [supposedly] rules” - to convince the majority of hard working people to work harder for less, so they can have more wealth.

THEY KNOW THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
The only way they can convince poor and working people to make them richer is to LIE.
Hence, the “misinformation.”

They do not need to convince everyone.
Just enough.
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPIDITY.

Again, I refer to my example on the current new season of Survivor.
If you are not a Survivor fan, I suggest you go back and watch the first two episodes (you can watch the entire segments on the CBS website).
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/?season=19
It is a study in conservative strategy.

Russell Hantz is a multi-millionnaire TEXAS OIL COMPANY OWNER.
Most of the contestants are young, struggling wannabees.
He is smart in dealing LIES AND MISINFORMATION; they are gullible and STUPID.

Russell has been open and candid in his sidebar interviews that he knows poor, struggling young people will never vote to give a rich oil company owner a million bucks, so his entire strategy is based 100% on LIES and cheating and he is open about it (to us, via sidebar interviews).

Sad part?
It works!

A couple of people, including a police officer, easily saw thru his lies.
These are like liberals, the smart people.
He simply arranged to have them voted out.

It is not a question of MISINFORMATION or STUPIDITY.
It is the combination of intentional MISINFORMATION from a few smart by evil liars, targeting the STUPIDITY of enough gullibe suckers for them to take advantage of.

The cons will take back the country in 2010

2009-09-27T11:46:00.001-07:00

you won't get an answer about the elections from the cons because they don't have one. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!

Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections

Bill Clinton predicted on Sunday that Democrats in Congress would avoid the political bloodbath during the 2010 elections that they witnessed during the first mid-term elections under his presidency.....

...."There's no way they can make it that bad," Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years.

"Number one," Clinton explained, "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."

All of which was not to suggest that Clinton was dismissing the GOP's capacity for exacting political blood. At another point in his interview, the former president - whose legacy was, in part, defined by the loss of Congress in '94 - smarted that the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" still exists and has its eyes set on the current White House.

"Oh, you bet," said Clinton. "Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was. I mean, they're saying things about him. You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. ... But ... it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail." ...

That last sentence sums it all up! It will be many elections before the cons get even close to "taking back THEIR country". They haven't even started working in that direction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301140.html

Prop 13 saved California homeowners

2009-09-27T11:44:00.000-07:00

From a Time magazine analysis (June 27,2009) QUOTE ...at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13, the anti-tax measure that ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era.

In Washington, the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative legacy lives on.

Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south.

When Ronald Reagan was governor, he actually raised taxes.

Then Proposition 13 shot the tires out of Pat Brown's liberal state.

Liberal legislative leaders such as Willie Brown and John Burton jerry-rigged repairs and kept the damaged vehicle running for 30 years. Now Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger says there is no choice but to complete the demolition by slashing essential services.

ENDQUOTE We look for the enemy, and the enemy is us (or at least the conservatives amongst us).

Limbaugh and Glenn Beck listeners know they are good Americans

2009-09-27T11:42:00.000-07:00

Ditto. Ditto. Megadittoes.”
“Please do our thinking for us.”

THAT is your idea of people who CAN “think for themselves”?
Yeah, yeah. I know. That’s Druggie Limbaugh’s callers.
Same "mentality."

Guess what, I have listened to and watched Glenn Beck.

He is a sniveling, crying snake oil salesman and the only people who give him the slightest credibility are (as I described at 9:09 a.m.):
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPID.

Oh yeah, he calls for no violence.
Just TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (with no violence, of course).

Guess what: when there is a free and fair election and you want to TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY from the lopsided majority, that is violence.

When you call women’s doctors murderers and baby killers and then are shocked, SHOCKED! that someone goes and kills them, sorry, if you fall for that “who me?” look, then you are not one of the elite liars, you are their poor, pathetic victim.

California's Prop 13 lead to needed property tax reform

2009-09-27T11:38:00.001-07:00

You are half right, Rush - there was a real need for property tax reform that caused Prop 13 to be so popular.

Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease.

A better reform would have been two fold:

1. Split property tax rolls (and tax rates) between commercial and owner-occupied primary residences, with a huge primary exemption for the latter so no one would ever be taxed out of their home.

2. Make all property taxes progressive. Make the primary exemption level high enough that modest owner-occupied primary residences would pay NO property taxes, but that income property or exorbitant mansions would pay higher taxes on the PORTION of value in the higher brackets.

But of course Howard Jarvis was a multi millionaire COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER.

Prop 13 was sold as, but not really written for, property tax relief for small family homes.

Again, the big lie, the rich elite MANIPULATIVE MISINFORMATION fooling the gullible victims of STUPIDITY as they vote to give the million dollar prize to the guy who is already a millionaire.

You might be a conservative if...

2009-09-27T11:30:00.000-07:00

You might be a conservative if “you accuse a those who disagree with you of being a gutless traitor” or “if you have an unhealthy obsession with Keith Olberman”.

You might be a conservative “if you’re a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty and your knee jerk reaction to every international problem is “nuke em”.

You might be a conservative “if you think attempts to conserve energy or water are the work of Satan”.

You might be a conservative “if your arguments pivot on word play (e.g. czar, climate change, Obamayomama)”

You might be a conservative “if you confuse weather for climate or science for religion”.

You might be a conservative “if you pretend you’re a constitutional lawyer because you took a business law class back in 1962”.

You might be a conservative “if you think the best diplomacy is invading a country and worrying about the implications afterwards”.

You might be a conservative “if you quote the bible in over 50% of your conversations”

You might be a conservative “if you think Obama is a Muslim terrorist who plans to return to his planet after destroying the United States”

You might be a conservative “if you attack socialism while submitting your medical bills to Medicare”

You might be a conservative “if you support Prop 8 while boasting all men are created equal” or

You might be a conservative “if you think talking about health care problems is more honorable than actually trying to solve health care problems” or

You might be a conservative“if you blame all the problems in your life on people of color” or

You might be a conservative“if you call yourself a Christian while spewing speech filled with hate, intolerance and lies” or

You might be a conservative “if you say you love America yet you hate over half the Americans” or

You are DEFINITELY a conservative “if you have complaints but no solutions.”

YOU LIE, there were a million marchers

2009-09-26T15:27:00.000-07:00

A addled brained Rush Limbaugh limp brain accused me with the following "You lie." when I said there were no where near a million marchers.

Well mister limp brain, I just happened to be visiting my in laws in Fall Church near Washington DC and was in DC to witness the whole shebang. Trust me, there were no million protesters at the Capital area that day. A liberal estimation would be 125,000 to 150,000 tops. A conservative estimate of the gathering would be 75,000.

BTW, no problem flying out of Ronnie Regan airport on 091409 so I guess the million crowd did not affect flights.

Teabaggers, whatcha got?

2009-09-26T15:23:00.000-07:00

Um, Rush, I hate to interrupt your infantile rant (I know it's fun to jump up and down screaming...I loved it as a child), but we get that you want "No" part of the government option.

Shall I take from your rant that you are putting forth yourself as your choice for the Presidency? If not, then who?

C'mon you Rush. You are swearing that your numbers are in the many millions.

OK! We take you seriously as a movement.

So, when you win and Obama and the others are given the boot, who will replace them?

I have to vote for SOMEONE, right? So do you? Whatcha got?

The Tea Bag protests are real. Really, really, I mean it

2009-09-26T15:20:00.000-07:00

One more then I'm outa here to have a great and active morning.

The teabaggers are always comparing themselves to the 60s protesters. Fair enough.

And Rush reminds us all that the 60s protesters were also screaming "Hell No". They were burning their draft cards, remember? Now THAT was a "Hell No" with cojones! They were prepared to go to prison for their principles, and many did go.

So, teabaggers, the gauntlet is thrown. Do you really mean "Hell No"?

The path of action is clear: refuse to pay your taxes, plain and simple.

Show Obama's government that you will not be pushed around any longer and are willing to go to jail to prove it.

This kind of peaceful resistance, it's called. Civil Disobedience. It worked for MLK and Ghandi and the peace movement, it could work for you! They can't arrest EVERYONE, can they? The police can't turn against good citizens, can they?

I'll wait and see if you mean it, or if your "protests" are just tailgating parties.

El Rushbo, could you clarify?

2009-09-26T15:05:00.000-07:00

Clould you clarify Rush?

According to you, "Reid and Pelosi demonize the Republicans/Right/Conservatives any chance they get...."Now is this like what Kenneth Star did?

You assert that "White House appears to ignore the voices of dissent".....Is this like Bush's "stay the course 'cause I'm the Commander In Chief and you cannot criticize the CIC in a time of war" after Bush invaded a country based on lies?

You charge that "Reid threatens nuclear option to force Healthcare reform bill through".....Is this the same that was done twice to push the tax cuts for the rich in the early 2000's and the medicare bill?

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page!

Tom DiRoma--Obama wants a socialist government

2009-09-26T15:00:00.000-07:00

To Tom DiRoma:

I agree. What’s up with the socialist government?

They make me pay for water and sewage from their socialist infrastructure. They make me purchase liability insurance when I drive. They make me pay for Medicare (before I can use it for free). They tax me for parks and roads that I don’t use 24 hours a day. They make me pay for the army and navy even when enemy army is on our border.

Now the socialists have the nerve to suggest I purchase health insurance so I’m forced to help pay for my own medical costs. What an outrage!

I say people without health insurances (whether they can afford it or not) are socialist scum and they should just keep going to emergency rooms so the costs continue to be passed onto tax payers in the most invisible and expensive way possible.

Actually without health coverage maybe they’ll pass a little sooner, so us privileged Republicans don’t have to see their scroungy dirty little faces.

Praise the Lord.

The secret Tom is to vote Republican so us freedom loving patriots don’t get forced to pay for the social services we enjoy nor for our social responsibilities.

So organize a tea party in your neighborhood Tom and keep dumbing it down.

And oh yes, Obama is a Nazi.

(For the mentally challenged in the Kool-aid crowd, the above post was an example of SARCASM--look up the word and learn something)

Joint session of Congress is too a good place to heckle a president

2009-09-26T14:51:00.000-07:00

To a Glenn Beck mobster:

I do believe you have acknowledged in this forum that you spent a part of your life in one of the U.S. military services. May I draw an scenario for you in response of your justification of Joe Wilson's breach of decorum.

Let us presume that your commanding officer, whatever his rank, is formally addressing all troops, NCOs, and officers in your regiment. Let us further presume that as your commanding officer is speaking, he misstates a fact, and you know that he is wrong.

Do you shout from the audience, "sir, you just misspoke!"

Or do you let your commanding officer continue his address uninterrupted, and then bring attention of his mistake at an appropriate time and in a proper venue?

Ithink that it's fine for Joe Wilson to claim that Barack Obama lies. He just needs to know when and where he can assert that opinion. At a joint session of congress, in those halls as the president speaks, is not a suitable time or place.

Or do you think that it is?

95% of liberals hate cops

2009-09-26T14:49:00.000-07:00

A Limbaugh loon stated that 95% of liberals hate cops.

What have I EVER said that would make you think I was a cop hating loon?"

May I offer the fact that you exploit police officers in your attempt to degrade liberals (as in "95% of liberal posters hate cops").

You obviously pulled the 95% from the same place you extract all your other information from, and I’m sure police appreciate your carelessness with facts that are related to their public reputation.

Personally, my brother is a cop and I actually love my brother and what he and his fellow officers do.

I suspect he'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use him and other officers as a vehicle to peddle your ignorance.

Why don’t you leave the police alone and use Beck, Rush and Hannity to attack liberals, because these guys probably are hated by 95% of liberals.

Show me a poll where Americans favor public option

2009-09-26T14:44:00.000-07:00

One of Limbaugh's limp brained listeners asks
.....Please show me one poll showing that Americans want a public option? PUBLIC being the key word......

Does this work for you:

Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html?

Here is another:

"The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found solid support for a government-run insurance plan, or so-called public option, that would compete with private insurers. Other surveys have found similar results.

But what members of the public seem to prefer and what Congress plans to give them may not be the same thing.

For example, the Times/CBS poll asked: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private insurance plans? The poll question was phrased generally so that it could be asked in repeated surveys over time regardless of any specific legislative proposal."

With the question asked that way, most respondents supported the idea, with 65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no position.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/a-primer-the-public-may-have-more-appetite-for-a-public-option-than-congress/

A "GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALH CARE PLAN" IS THE PUBLIC OPTION.

Death caused by our NON-Health Care System

2009-09-26T14:43:00.000-07:00

Read this and weep.

R.I.P. Kimi Young, 22, Another Casualty of Our For-Profit Deathcare System.
By Susie Madrak Sa#####ay Sep 26, 2009 1:00pm

OXFORD — Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance.

News of Kimberly Young’s death Wednesday, Sept. 23, came as a shock to those who knew the vibrant 22-year-old who was working at least two jobs in Oxford after graduating with a double major in December 2008.

Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate.

Mowery said Young eventually went to an urgent care facility in Hamilton where she was given pain medication and then sent home.

On Tuesday, Sept. 22, Young’s condition suddenly worsened and her roommate drove her to McCullough Hyde Memorial Hospital in Oxford, where she was flown in critical condition to University Hospital in Cincinnati.

“That’s the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor,” Mowery said.

Family members indicated that Young died from complications from the H1N1 virus, but the Ohio Department of Health, the Hamilton County Health District and the Butler County Health Department were unable to confirm she had been infected with the virus.
www.crooksandliars.com

White roofs to save the planet, ha ha. Holden wants to kill babies to save the earth.

2009-09-25T18:06:00.000-07:00

Rush, Each time you promise to educate someone you immediately stick your foot in your mouth. You're little more than a science illiterate trying to play a scientist on a blog.

First, white roofs do actually reflect more solar radiation than black roofs. I think Eisenhower and everyone else (except Ron) would agree. Or do you think Eisenhower would be opposed to such hard core technology as white roof tiles.

Eisenhower would probably be impressed by Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, recent president of the most prestigious science organization (AAAS president) and a highly respected, knowledgeable and experienced scientist.

Who would be your science adviser Ron, Glenn Beck, the president of the Creationist’s Club?

I suspect Eisenhower would think you’re slimy for taking Holdren’s work from 30 years ago and selling it as eugenics. Way back then Holdren addressed population problems (which I’m sure you believe are not a problem because God would never allow an exhaustion of resources) and Holdren suggested a variety of measures to help prevent overpopulation, for silly reason like preventing excessive poverty, starvation, extreme environmental degradation, etc.

He denies the wacko conservative claim that he supported forced sterilization if mothers had too many kids.

Regardless, only a science illiterate like you would mistake limiting the number of children for each mother with eugenics.

A little tip Ron, next time you want to educate someone try educating yourself first.

I have a sincere question for you Rush. Do you think it’s wise for a president to have science advisers, yes or no? If yes, why would you call the adviser a czar?

And thanks Rush for telling me I’m hung up on the“military industrial complex.” I had no idea I had such an obsession.

Obama is an amateur in handling of Honduras problem

2009-09-25T14:59:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, the ever amiable and genteel, Michael Savage, accused the the Obama administration of diplomatic amateurism regarding its handling of the power crisis in Honduras. I asked Michael Savage several times to explain his indictment of amateurism. Finally he responded with all the warmth that he can muster in his heart, by referring to an article of the Honduran Constitution. little did I realize that this master of vulgarity had knowledge in Honduran Constitutional law.

Today I encountered a most interesting editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST. it's entitled "Honduras Gets Messier But There is a Clear Strategy: Elections." I found the following excerpt enlightening:

"...Mr. Zelaya [the ousted president] was reduced to making hysterical accusations about being bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by 'Israeli mercenaries.'

"Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States--starting with Brazil [in whose embassy in Tegucigalpa Manuel Zelaya found sanctuary]--from supporting more than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office.

The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we) so as to void Mr. Zelaya's illegal removal from the country in June and thus uphold the larger principle of respect for democratic order in the region."

I think that Michael Savage's obsessive dislike for Obama prevents him from considering larger principles. Savage can come up with snide short insults against president Obama, but he seems perfectly incapable of any profound criticism that might substantively help the president and the republic as well. I consider Savage's negative observations about the affairs of the republic marginal at best.

Liberals don't want necessary cost effective public/provate contracts

2009-09-25T14:54:00.000-07:00

No Rush - you’re not following here.
Of course I support public/private partnerships and see a role for private sector contracts with the government.

It is the hypocrisy that I hold up to appropriate ridicule.

1. Your mouthpiece and sycophant, Ron claims to be a defense contractor and hold oil stocks. He supported a phony invasion based purely on lies, which benefits those who support military activity, and which also just happened to conquer an oil-rich nation to boost those alleged oil stocks.

I don’t know what his business is.

Let’s say it is making armor for our vehicles.
HE SUPPORTED A WAR FOR OIL.
Yes, now that we are there, maybe his product reduces deaths.
If we had not gone at all, if we didn’t have ANY soldiers on those oil fields - ooopsie, I mean battle fields - there would be no deaths of heroes to reduce.

2. Again, it is the hypocrisy - over and over and over he ridicules “gummint” spending, but much of that “gummint” spending that he whines about goes to CONTRACTORS LIKE HIM.

If he had either not supported the war, or at least not always ridiculed those who - LIKE HIM - benefit from public spending, the target of ridicule wouldn’t have been quite so juicy.

As for his “character,” Ron joins other conservatives who have been repeatedly, repeatedly caught red-handed misrepresenting their own sources, misrepresenting what liberals’ own blogs said, or just made up “facts” with no sources at all that others quickly debunked with valid sources.

That is not an honest engagement on the issues.
That does not reflect well on his “character.”
No matter who he is, respected, wealthy, successful defense contractor or wannabee pimply-faced teenaged geek, lying about sources is not “character.”

Liberals did not like Bush's appointments,cons not silly to argue about czars

2009-09-25T14:51:00.000-07:00

No, Rush. - you’re missing the point about what is being compared.
None of the liberals and, more important, NONE OF THE CONSERVATIVES, every complained about Bush’s number of “czars.”

THE POINT is not about the “czars” at all.
The NUMBER was IRRELEVANT.

THE POINT is the utter hypocrisy of the conservative DOUBLE STANDARD.

If they are going to suddenly get all worked up about “czars,” they need to be reminded of their own - THEY HAD A LOT AND NO ONE - liberal or conservative - PLAYED THAT SILLY GAME WITH THEM.

Disagree?

Find the prominent liberal who ever went loco about “czars” during the Reagan or Bush years.

No way anyone could have done anything about stopping 9/11

2009-09-24T19:38:00.000-07:00

The Bush team did not take terror threats seriously as an issue, and for this history dealt them and us disaster.

My comment was about the specific August report.

Certainly, Bush should've at least banged his fist on the desk and told people to make this a high priority. He clearly did not, nor had an interest in it.

I do think that Bush and Cheney entered the White House on a mission to do things Cheney had always wanted to do, and the real world of things like terrorism were not part of the agenda at the time. What was on the agenda?

As I recall, task number one was getting the Reagan presidential files out of the public domain. No, that was number two.

Number one was spreading lies about how the Clinton team had vandalized the White House, remember?

Little did we know that these actions told us everything we'd need to know about Bush.

Bush's PDB did not say anything about flying planes into buildings

2009-09-24T19:33:00.000-07:00

Sorry, Rush, it is YOU who is caught in your LIES and your repeated DISTORTION.

Again, pardon me for being able to CONNECT THE DOTS that YOU and your FAILED PREZ failed to connect.
What is that, just a conservative thingy?

Pardon me for seeing the words “HIJACK” “New York” “surveillance of buildings” and thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Sheesh!
Are conservatives really THAT STUPID?

I STAND BY MY INTERPRETATION that this raised the POSSIBILITY (not the prediction, but the POSSIBILITY) of flying planes into buildings in New York.

But here is where YOU LIED, Rush:
Look at how you distort what I said!
You claimed I said that “the PDB said that airplanes were going to fly into bldgs.”
The exact words you put in my keyboard: “AIRPLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO BLDGS.”

BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!

I did not say they “WILL” or “were going to” fly into buildings, YOU changed “could” happen into “WERE GOING TO” happen. YOU CHANGED WHAT I SAID!

You took my ACCURATE statement that they “COULD” (meaning possibility) and changed it to “WERE GOING TO.”

You know, it is kind of annoying to be scolded for an inaccurate statement by someone who ignored what I actually said, WHICH WAS ACCURATE, and changed it into something not accurate, and then scolded me for being inaccurate based on the false statement HE FABRICATED and then attributed to me.

Bush was really was interested in stopping terrorism after 2000 election

2009-09-24T18:37:00.000-07:00

Bush's priorities upon being elected according to InfoPlease:

"In his first months in office Bush moved quickly to win congressional approval of his tax-cut program, as well as to halt or modify the institution of various regulations proposed in the last weeks of the Clinton administration. Many of his proposed measures were generally conservative and probusiness, as in legislation to modify bankruptcy laws, proposals to fund church-run social welfare programs, and the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and of the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty (see disarmament, nuclear; Strategic Defense Initiative).

In other areas, however, his administration pursued a less traditionally conservative course, for example, securing the establishment of federally mandated nationwide standardized testing for public school students.

President Bush was also unusual in assigning greater policy-making and governing responsibilities to the vice president and members of the cabinet than earlier administrations had."

Bush also eliminated Clinton's counterterrorism office because this was a low priority compared to the above.

Apart from any specifics in the Daily Bulletin in August, it's pretty clear from the record that Bush had other items on his agenda and thus turned out to be lax in homeland security.

In effect, he gambled on this not being a hot problem and lost (we all lost).

He got his tax cuts and NCLB and deregulation, which were his goals.

Liberals blame Bush for 9/11

2009-09-24T18:35:00.000-07:00

I have said here repeatedly that I do not blame Bush for 911 the way some do (and the way others blame Clinton for all kinds of things).

I did say that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush team, and there is a ton of evidence for this.

If it had been a high priority, perhaps it might've been averted, but we'll never know.

Certainly when the intel about Iraq was before Bush's team, also loaded with ambiguity and partial leads and non-leads, they had no problem taking action based on these.

And I would say that in this case it was a holy disaster that they did so.

That's why I'm not crazy about retrospectively blaming Bush for not having taken more action before 911.

Yet, for all that, the fact remains that it was NOT a priority for him, for better or worse. Comprende?

Bush had no SPECIFIC warning about 9/11

2009-09-24T18:33:00.000-07:00

Iceman at 3:43 p.m. continues to live in his own little alternate reality.

Hey Rush, what part of all those very specific warnings are you not understanding?

Bush dropped the ball on the numerous advance warnings about an Al Qaeda terror attack.
Bush ignored the files prepared by outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Bush ignored and fired terrorism expert Richard Clarke who had served since Reagan.
Bush GAVE $43 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE TALIBAN in May of 2001.
Bush ignored FBI agent Coleen Rowley’s specific warnings about terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush ignored FBI informant Elie Assad pointing to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist.
Bush ignored the 8-6-01 PDB that inconveniently interrupted yet another vacation.

What part of “HIJACK” “New York” and “surveillance of buildings” rules out the possibility of thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?

Wow!
I guess conservatives really are incapable of connecting dots!

They just can’t accept responsibility.
EVER.
Like Rush never being able to acknowledge his many, many mistakes.

Just imagine, if PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR had taken his rightful place after winning the 2000 election, we would be able to keep our shoes and belts on at airports.

2009-09-24T18:19:00.000-07:00

Rush, who has never, ever been able to document or source a single thing he has ever said (as any REAL JOURNALIST would do), has the nerve to accuse others of lying when they present FACTS backed up with the kind of SOURCES Rush can only dream about.

He responds to my specific point about FBI agent Coleen Rowley by saying that the “Example that a woman FBI agent reported her suspicions that Arabs were taking flying lessons and theat that was wrong”

Rush then says, “Liberals say that this report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”

In the manner of an Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (if they are even different people), Rush did not quote me and invents his own words to put into my keyboard.

Rush cannot even support his own statements, but has to INVENT and LIE and say I said things I did not say.

I never said that the “report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
I simply did not say it; Rush just made that up and, as usual, cannot cite any specific date and time where I did.

Obviously, just like Glenn Beck, Rush understands NOTHING of real leadership and delegation.
I never said that FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically made the report TO BUSH.
I said she made the report.
In fact, she made TWO reports, May
It is the failure of the delegatory chain of command of the Bush administration, who like Rush and Glenn Beck simply have no idea of how delegation or the chain of command work, that allowed the communication to break down between the sources of intelligence and the terrorism experts who were BEING IGNORED AND FIRED (such as Richard Clarke who had held that position since Ronald Reagan!)

UNLIKE RUSH I CAN PROVIDE SOURCES.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings - testimony of COLEEN ROWLEY:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=279&wit_id=628

From the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article10.html

Bush’s own Dept of Justice report (released in 2004):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter1.htm

As usual...
1. Rush has NO SOURCES (as any REAL JOURNALIST would)
2. Rush LIES about what others have said
3. Rush is WRONG on the facts, WRONG on the truth. WRONG on his [nonexistent] sources

Y’know what, Rush. - since you are so CLUELESS about how to find sources, and know NOTHING about REAL JOURNALISM, I’m gonna be a real nice li’l birdie and help ya out.

HOW TO FIND SOURCES
Step 1: it is easy to find sources IF YOUR FACTS ARE VALID TO START WITH.

It’s a real bi*ch to try to prove something that AIN’T TRUE.

Southerners are not too stupid to know Obama is an American, the poll was done by Daily Kos

2009-09-24T18:14:00.001-07:00

Rush ranted on: September 24, 2009,
"That poll was done by the Dailykos.

Wikipedia:
Daily Kos (pronounced /ˈkoʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view."

Kos didn't do the poll. Kos had RESEARCH 2000 do the poll. RESEARCH 2000 is a respected nonpartisan firm
"RESEARCH 2000 is a nonpartisan full service research firm that conducts surveys and focus groups for advocacy groups, trade associations, businesses and over 200 news media organizations"
http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Research_2000

"According to a new poll from Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos), a majority of Southerners either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners."

"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans. A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html

Bush never got the Crowley report that said terrorists were taking flying lessons

2009-09-24T18:10:00.000-07:00

Hey Glenn Beck - the 9/11 Commission Report is an excellent resource and thank you for providing the link.

It can be easily downloaded as a “.pdf” file and saved on your computer for later searching with any “.pdf” reading program.
So, appreciation to Beck for that.

However, it is only one of many excellent resources, and is the compilation of a POLITICAL body, and reflects certain compromises made to accommodate both Democratic and Republican members of the Committee.

Unfortunately, your big “correctamundo” to Rush misses the mark.
Yes, it is correct that Rowley (not Crowley) did not give the report directly to Bush.
Since I never said that, the point makes both you and Rush end up looking even stupider than usual.

The problem was that Bush was a lousy administrator and could not manage his chain of command, allowing these kinds of communication failures and failures to “connect the dots” (Michael Savage didn’t even understand what this meant), unlike Clinton and Obama who have been able to KEEP US SAFE by bringing out the best in their subordinates and letting them do what they are good at.

What about all the Dems that don't believe Obama was born here

2009-09-24T18:07:00.000-07:00

Poor Rush, our esteemed journalist (heh heh), read an op-ed piece in this morning's LATimes which overtaxed his journalistic research abilities and exhausted his brain.

There are six times as many Republican halfwits as Democrats.

"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans.

A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html

When the Democrats screw up, the Republicans will take over again

2009-09-24T18:03:00.000-07:00

Rush, years ago that could have been true. But today the repubs have at least three things going against them:

1. They screwed up BIG TIME. President Obama would have to be a complete failure - and that 'ain't gonna happen.

2. They have done nothing - and at the rate they are going will not have done zip for THEM to gain the trust of Americans. Americans are not buying the politics of destruction any longer.

3. The face of America has changed - the GOP does not reflect America - you can't win an election with 30%. This alone will make them an obsolete party if they continue to focus on their base and not include and embrace all Americans.

It's a good time for a strong third party candidate - but as I've said many times in the past - get the money out of politics. Until then - business as usual.

Obama certainly opposed the Vietnam War

2009-09-24T18:00:00.000-07:00

Rush you ranted today:

"...Vietnam, a war Obama certainly opposed."

Obama was born in 1961. the u.s. evacauted all government personnel in 1975. Can you indicate anywhere during this 14 year period of obama's life that he opposed the Vietnam war?

Has he ever as an adult expressed his opposition to what the united states did in Vietnam?

Are you nuts, drunk or on Oxycontin again?

Obama didn't get the Somali pirates, the navy got them

2009-09-24T17:57:00.000-07:00

Hey Rush - sorry you are still have so much trouble understanding the concept of hierarchy, chain of command, delegating, and stuff like that.
Perhaps conservatives just don’t understand this, which explains much of their incompetence.

When I say “Obama” got the pirates, I don’t mean he personally was pulling the trigger of a Navy Seal sharpshooter rifle.

When I say “Obama” started an investigation, I don’t mean he was personally giving attention to details that he could delegate to his Justice Department.

When I say “Bush” ignored the warnings, I mean the administrative machinery of his presidency that allowed communication to break down and dots to go unconnected.

Remember when Harry S Truman said, “The buck stops here.”
He meant that no matter what happens anywhere in HIS administration, it is HIS administration and HIS responsibility.
Truman got it.
Truman was a Democrat.

The Sudanese offered bin Laden to Clinton. He did nothing.

2009-09-22T18:44:00.000-07:00

Oopsie, Rush, you are just rehashing old, old stuff that you keep bringing up, I keep responding to, and a few months later you'll bring it up again.

1. This was 1996, before adequate intelligence had confirmed a basis for U.S. action against Bin Laden and 2 years BEFORE the kill order and the alleged myth about not shooting the "tall man" who "might have been" Bin Laden. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

2. As Clinton clearly states, and the "inconvenient truths" you keep ignoring, Clinton did not have a lawful basis at that time. The Sudanese were not credible contacts and we did not have diplomatic relations with the Sudanese (though they were trying to reestablish them).

CLINTON DID NOT IGNORE THIS. We did suspect that Bin Laden was a bad guy.

CLINTON TOOK ACTION. He contact the Saudi government, where Bin Laden was a citizen, and where they did have legal status to act, to take action.

THE SAUDIS, Bush's buddies, Bush's oil cronies, REFUSED TO ACT. At that point, there was no legal action appropriate for that time.

You are so desperate to obey those who pull your puppet strings.

The pre-9/11 intel was too vague for Bush to take action, but Clinton should have killed bin Laden

2009-09-22T11:36:00.000-07:00

I can imagine someone like Rush making the case that Bush can't be blamed for 911 because, jeeze, the info was vague and how much can a President do?

So Rush could criticize me for asking too much of Bush. But then Rush shows he is nothing but another irrational partisan: he insists that Clinton COULD and SHOULD have stopped the planners.

Rush wants it both ways. The info was too vague to blame Bush, but whatever info there was, it was what Clinton could gather.

Rush says that that vague info should've been enough for Clinton to prevent the attack, but the same info was too vague for Bush to have done a thing.

This is why it's hard to take the Rush seriously.

Bush did everything anyone could have to prevent 9/11

2009-09-22T11:08:00.001-07:00

Ooopsie, Rush. (echoed by the pathetic, childish name calling of Glenn Beck) is back to telling his pathetic half-truths.

Yeppers, Rush, the 8/6 PDB was never so meticulous at to state the date or time of airplanes flying into buildings.
It warned that Bin Laden was preparing to attack inside the U.S.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that prominent buildings in New York were being surveiled by terrorists.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that some had warned of possible hijackings.
Bush did nothing.

Condoleezza Rice later stated in May 2002 (recounted in a 9-25-02 PBS interview):
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec02/rice_9-25.html

FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically warned of terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush did nothing.

FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection and
BUSH DID NOTHING.

Sorry, Rushbo, but just because PDB didn’t predict the specific flight numbers, passenger manifests or other details, does not change the fact that everything points to Bush’s reckless disregard of warnings that ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN, unlike Clinton and Obama who intercepted and blocked terror attacks.

where is the waste in our healthcare, giving grandma an operation?

2009-09-22T11:06:00.000-07:00

Part of the "waste" I think you are referring to, relates to subsidies paid by the government to the insurance companies to supplement the premiums.

Once a public option or single payer system is in place, these subsidies or "waste" no longer exist.

The system run by the insurance companies needs 30-40% for overhead and profit. The single payer or public option will be run on less than 10%.

Rep Vitter got Holdren to admit to de-population views

2009-09-22T10:58:00.000-07:00

I’m sorry, Rushie boy, I missed the part in the questioning by PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER DAVID VITTER where John Holdren stated that he ever supported forced abortions or forced sterilizations, which is what you accused him of earlier.

He clearly supported the concept of population control through VOLUNTARY availability of abortion and reproductive CHOICE.

So please point out where Holdren supported the de-population views of others that he cited and rejected, and where he reiterated them in the responses to PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER VITTER.

Then tell us why you are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

::::::: waving wings wildly ::::::
Oh, I know, I know, I know the answer - call on me!

Rush kicks liberal butt!

2009-09-22T10:54:00.000-07:00

I hate to tell you, folks, but when it comes to factual support for claims here, I have Rush and robots beat to a pulp.

I know this drives Kool-aid crowd crazy, but when you just look at the claims and the facts behind them, I am kicking royal butt here, day after day.

Sorry. I wish you didn't resort to name-calling and hollering so much (not that I am completely innocent of these), but for truth, I am definitely winning here big time.

Wait till the election of 2010. Dems will be crying.

2009-09-22T10:52:00.000-07:00

Speaking of elections in 2010 and 2012.

Let's see, the stock market is booming, foreclosures down and homesales up, recession easing, America once again respected around the world, health care reform passed.

Americans are recognizing the GOP as the party of no, the party of destruction, and just aren't buying into their lies.

Oh, and let's not forget that the GOP has and will not have done zip and can't find anyone to run.

So as far as the upcoming election goes: "BRING EM ON"!

Obama is ramming change down our throats

2009-09-22T10:42:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck Welcome to the real world of "Change".

The conservatives have had 8 years of trickle down policies and 2 wars that have bankrupted the country. Well the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.

The Bush administration chose to kick the can down the road to the next administration and now we are getting the changes that are necessary for the country to recover from the lack of attention or response to so many problems President Obama faced upon entering office.

You seem to feel empowered enough by the tea party crowd to cast out veiled threats to the government that you will somehow rise up and retake that which is rightfully yours. Well good luck with your Coup D'Etat Rush.

I know conservatives do not like change. They prefer that things stay the same or that change happens verrry slowly.

Well we have a President who can actually multi-task and he is able to make the many corrections of failed policies that will get our Country back on the right track.

Hardly tyranny, just a black man in office who was elected by a majority of the people and given a mandate to fix all the things that were broken by his predecessor.

Get used to 8 years of President Obama and then 8 years of Hillary Clinton.

It will take that long to fix all the toys GWBush got his hands on.

President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, calls for depopulating the Earth

2009-09-22T07:01:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh continues to humiliate himself today as he did yesterday, trying to somehow link a low level science appointee (John Holdren) with the really dishonest claim that Holdren advocated or supported forced abortion or forced sterilization.

As we saw yesterday when Rush got caught red-handed quoting lengthy passages that all came from one chapter in a book about population, from THIRTY TWO (32) years ago, of which the scientist was the third-billed contributor, the passages were all from a chapter in which the authors discussed some of the approaches others were suggesting, before rejecting them in favor of merely supporting the availability of VOLUNTARY birth control and the right of women to make that choice.

Citing passages without noting the authors’ rejection of them is the same as if I were to note that Rush Limbaugh cited the pro-Chinese view and then claimed that proved they supported it, without noting their subsequent statements of opposition.
[But ooopsie, Rush did not even provide any statements of opposition!
Just quoted directly from the parts of the book he claimed represented the authors’ views]

So we see that Rush, in a further display of his dishonesty is drawing from other sources that he is nt citing.

All the way around, conservatives are, once again, forced to base their entire position on LIES proving that even they know that
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.

In any case, Limbaugh today goes on from this lying, dishonest premise, to claim that liberals (or “progressives,” - whatever they’re calling us these days) do not support personal liberty, only dictatorship.

No, it is those who OPPOSE CHOICE who OPPOSE FREEDOM.

Anyone who takes a position that the “gummint” should make personal choices for a woman essentially agrees with the Chinese dictators that the “gummint” should make those choices; their only beef is that, in China’s case, the “gummint” is making a different choice than they want.

But it is still about the nanny “gummint” making your personal, moral, medical, religious and relatinship choices.

Liberals are liars and ignorant, too.

2009-09-22T06:58:00.000-07:00

More of the usual combinationn of IGNORANCE and LIES from Michael Savage.

1. He is obviously ignorant of the meaning of COLA in Social Security. It stands for “Cost Of Living Adjustment.” In an inflationary cycle, it means values increase; in a deflationary recession cycle, it means that values do not go up - in fact, if benefits were truly indexed to inflation/deflation, they would actually be reduced and, if they are not, such benefits might actually be increased in real dollar values.

2. The details on Medicare, as with all details of health care reform, are still in flux. Perhaps Veritruthiness could be more specific and cite the specific proposal, with reference, he is referring to.

3. OUTRIGHT LIE. This has been asked repetitively, over and over, and has been ANSWERED.
There was no “six month” promise, ESPECIALLY on Afghanistan, since the President said during the campaign there should be an orderly withdrawal from IRAQ over 16-18 months (NOT SIX), and that they should be moved to where Al Qaeda is - in AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN.
Since this has been repeatedly brought to Savage's attention, with a request for a source to backup his claim which HE CANNOT PROVIDE, the repetition herewith is an INTENTIONAL LIE.

But then, as we have seen, every time a conservative has to LIE about liberals' views, they are just proving that they cannot respond to actual liberals' views and that even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND

Someone who uses a fake radio name being caught in direct LIES over and over and over is just like the used car salesman who calls himself “Honest Joe” and says, “trust me.”

Ignore the past and be condemned to relive it

2009-09-22T06:55:00.000-07:00

Rush is correct that “those who ignore history will have to relive it” (a mangling of the quote by George Santayana - born in Spain and lifelong Spanish citizen - perhaps Rush does not understand that merely speaking Spanish does not create a monolithic sameness - there is huge difference between Mexicans, Cubans, South Americans and European Spanish - you’re welcome, Rush, I’m here to educate on subjects about which you apparently know so little).

The correct statement is, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from “Reason in Common Sense,” which was Volume I of his 1905 series “The Life of Reason,” written in English.

But then, we already knew that Rush is not so good with sources, as any REAL journalist would be.

The real point, however, is this: Clinton and Obama learned from the past and KEPT US SAFE.
Frat boy Bush came to the White House, ignored the terror files, ignored his own terror advisors, ignored repeated warnings, and allowed 9/11 to happen.

Look at the record - the past - that Raoul wants to “ignore” or “cannot remember”:

Clinton:
1. The 1993 WTC attack happened FIVE WEEKS (not 8 months) into the Clinton presidency.
HE CAUGHT THEM ALL and those who are still alive are all still in Federal prison!

2. Clinton quickly mastered the intricacies of Al Qaeda terrorism and developed extensive intelligence. Clinton intercepted and prevented the planned LAX and Millennium attacks. He had a standing KILL order on Bin Laden (contrary to other conservative lies and myths).

3. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger turned over all the files and data to Bush’s incoming NSA Condoleezza Rice, who PROMPTLY IGNORED THEM and never touched them until after 9/11.

Obama:
1. Barack Obama got the Somali Pirates. Obama made the call. Obama delegated to those on the scene instead of micromanaging from an “undisclosed location.”

2. Barack Obama intercepted the planned Al Qaeda attacks by Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Wali Zazi and New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali.

Bush:
1. Rejected warnings from top terror advisors: Richard Clarke, the top counterinsurgency expert, who had been serving through Reagan, Daddy Bush and Clinton, asked to meet with Bush regarding urgent terror intelligence within a week of Bush’s taking office. Bush ignored him. Clarke repeatedly tried to meet with Bush and was rebuffed, the last time ONE WEEK before 9/11.

2. Bush gave $43 MILLION DOLLARS to the Taliban May 17 2001, even after we knew they had blown up the Buddhist shrines and were persecuting women.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

3. FBI agents have testified of warning of known Islamic terrorists (including several who were actually involved in 9/11) in flight schools and BUSH IGNORED THEM. Specifically, FBI agent Coleen Rowley submitted formal warnings that were IGNORED.

4. FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection.

5. Bush got a very specific Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6, 2001, which specified that Bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States that could possibly include flying aircraft into buildings. Bush was on vacation and IGNORED IT. (Condoleezza Rice would later ask how anyone could have expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings.)

6. After the attacks, Bush promised to get Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
Bush is gone.
OSAMA BIN LADEN is STILL ON THE LOOSE.

Catholic Online calls for RICO investigation of ACORN

2009-09-21T20:20:00.000-07:00

I correctly noted that the allegations have been responded to with allegations of fraud in editing.
At this point EVERYTHING is an allegation.

The point is that many are calling for the death penalty for ACORN without giving them a fair chance to present their evidence in response.
And especially as to official organizational policies as opposed to rogue “loose cannon” individuals.

Even CONSERVATIVE columnist Saunders - while (like me and many liberals) is saying, essentially, Hey, not so fast - let’s get the facts in first.

In contrast, there are concluded criminal and civil trials that have PROVED direct, OFFICIAL policies of the Catholic Church complicit in protecting and harboring CHILD MOLESTERS and coverups of serious felonies and obstruction of justice that is ongoing.

Do you join me in stating whatever standard is applied to ACORN should be applied to subsidiaries of the Catholic Church that receive any public funds?

Do you join me is saying that, if Catholic Online is going to call for a RICO investigation of ACORN, they should be even handed and call for a RICO investigation of the Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL POLICIES of harboring, protecting and obstructing?
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34434

Malpractice reform would cut our medical costs

2009-09-21T20:15:00.000-07:00

The malpractice punitive awards are individually large, but they are a VERY small part of our health care costs. The reactions do add up significantly; the malpractice insurance premiums AND the defensive medicine practices are costly.

Does it ever occur to anyone that these defensive medical practices are what makes us think our medical care is the best? It's not, but it can look like it because of the extensive tests and procedures we can throw at any problem. Or perceived possible future problem. The lack of a problem, the successful preventative care more common in better health care systems is harder to measure.

When reality hits, and we see that our country's health care system is 37th best, it's hard to see. Just because you can't (or won't) see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

A national single payer - Medicare for All - would almost eliminate the malpractice problem, as most gov paid would be about remediation, fixing, and accommodating any unfortunate happenstance. I can't believe that that's scary to anyone.

There is NO RACISM in America! Deal with it!

2009-09-21T20:10:00.000-07:00

Rush, let me say it one last time. Do you believe there are still any anti-Black racists in America? Let me assume you do. I agree.

Do you think that anti-Obama rallies and rhetoric appeal to these folks? Let me assume you do. I agree.

For whatever reasons many non-racist folks might be protesting or angry, they are joined by as many racists as have the energy to join up. The racists are lovin' it.

It doesn't mean much about the others, except that their numbers just have to include the most vile racists we've got.

That's just how it is. With a Black President, it could not be otherwise. Move on.

CO2 is a harmless NATURAL gas in the atmosphere

2009-09-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

There is somewhat of a balance between the CO2 taken up (during photosynthesis) and the CO2 expelled (during respiration, as occurs in the nearly 7 billion humans you describe).

Every sugar you eat required 6 CO2s from the atmosphere to produce it and it will release 6CO2s back to the atmosphere when you metabolize it.

The same holds true for your heat question, in that the energy humans release isn’t magically created by them, but instead came from the food molecules (stored solar energy) they metabolized.

The problem is not the normal flow of energy and CO2 on earth, instead it's the fossil fuels (e.g. the billions and billions of tons of sugars that have not been metabolized, and instead have been sequestered in the earth for over a hundred million years and have only VERY RECENTLY been combusted at high rates by human activities. This fossil source of CO2 would still be safely locked in the earth had humans not used them for fuels, thus releasing them into the atmosphere where they are contributing to an increasingly warming of the earth's surface where we live.

There has been a measured and very significant increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last two hundred years corresponding to increasingly warm earth surface temperatures.