Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 249

Thread: Puke Watch

  1. #31
    Atypical is offline

    If You Knew What This Guy Said During His Campaign - He Is Nuts!

    Anti-stimulus Republican Allen West endorses stimulus-funded projects
    WASHINGTON Freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL), who won his House seat partly by bashing the stimulus and government spending, this week hailed stimulus-funded projects for creating jobs and boosting economic growth. "It's time for incumbent Ron Klein to admit his ideas just don't work. The stimulus failed to produce jobs," West said in a [...]

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawst...3/9WKf-AIh8kg/

  2. #32
    Atypical is offline

    Another' family values' repuke goes down

    GOP Rep. Chris Lee (NY) "abruptly resigned" yesterday after a Gawker report revealed he "sent a shirtless photo to a woman he encountered through Craigslist." The married, 46-year-old father apologized on the House floor for the "profound mistakes" and "the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents.

    http://app.mx3.americanprogressactio...dd1fd75fa0ee5f

  3. #33
    Atypical is offline

    Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalias Tea Party Gathering

    Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:

    Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. … Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.

    Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.

    _________________________________________________
    This is what is called 'conservative ethics.' Hey, right-wingers, like this?

    And Bruce Fein is a hard conservative, too. Even he thinks this is disgusting

    Scalia, Alito And Thomas should be impeached.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/11/fein-scalia/
    Last edited by Atypical; 02-15-2011 at 01:45 PM.

  4. #34
    Atypical is offline

    This is what repukes, conservatives, tea pukes and most libertarians want!

    The South Dakota House is considering a bill that could "make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions." The GOP-backed bill, which passed out of committee, would alter that state's definition of justifiable homicide to allow killing if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of a person's spouse, partner, parent, or child.

    http://app.mx3.americanprogressactio...a9e092967fe752
    _________________________________________

    Has any liberal, progressive or Democrat EVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS? ABOUT ANY SUBJECT?

    I have used the word vicious to describe these cretins but it doesn't come close. Psychotic, sociopathic and insane are more accurate.
    Last edited by Atypical; 02-15-2011 at 06:33 PM.

  5. #35
    Atypical is offline

    This Is What Being An Ideologue Does To You

    Tuscon Minuteman Found Guilty of Murdering 9-Year-Old Mexican-American Girl

    Shawnda Forde was found guilty of shooting nine-year-old Brisenia Flores twice in the head at close range, murdering her and her father in a 2009 attempted robbery. Today, a Tuscon jury will decide Forde's punishment, which could range from life in prison to the death penalty, reports the Arizona Star.

    The tale of the Flores murder is one of the most terrifying examples of Arizona immigration paranoia and border-control hysteria gone awry. Late in the hours of May 30, 2009, Forde and three fellow Minutemen rang the doorbell of the Flores household, posing as law enforcement, and told Raul Junior Flores they were looking for fugitives. When Flores began to question their identity, Forde shot him and his wife, Gina Gonzalez. As Gonzalez lay on the floor, faking death, Forde then fired two bullets into their little daughter's head as she begged for her life. Gonzalez's other young daughter was spared, as she slept at her grandmother's house that night.

    Forde had planed the robbery in order to fund Minutmen America Defense, her armed border militia group that she meant to 'round up' immigrants. She was also found guilty of attempted murder, two counts of assault, two counts of robbery and one count of burglary.

    http://act.alternet.org/go/4425?akid...018.hiZ7_t&t=3
    __________________________________________________

    You don't have to be a liberal to be disgusted with the information in this thread or what you hear conservatives are doing daily. You just have to be decent, caring, empathetic, fair-minded and hate powerful people doing insane things in the name of religion, 'family values' or phony concern for you. Or stupid people who let others do their thinking for them.

    Of course, if you don't mind this shit, or agree with it then you are an ideologue and should not be able to look at yourself in the mirror without retching.
    Last edited by Atypical; 02-15-2011 at 02:59 PM.

  6. #36
    Atypical is offline

    Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...-news-will-not be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html

    As America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades -- against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News -- fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/statutes-lois.htm

    The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make
    Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy
    high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."

    Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush
    like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general.

    He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

    Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public.

    In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News's notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.

    ___________________________________________
    Faux "News" not allowed in Canada. Hah! I always knew the Canucks were nicer, and gol-durn it, smarter than us. This proves it!

  7. #37
    Havakasha is offline
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:

    Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. … Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.

    Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.

    _________________________________________________
    This is what is called 'conservative ethics.' Hey, right-wingers, like this?

    And Bruce Fein is a hard conservative, too. Even he thinks this is disgusting

    Scalia, Alito And Thomas should be impeached.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/11/fein-scalia/

    They absolutely should be impeached. They seem to be all to willing to ignore any possiblity of conflict of interest.

  8. #38
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs

    You two really need to get real. "Liberalism" isn't "American". Liberalism is like Denmark and Norway. Really, instead of trying to change the majority of Americans to embrace your vision, why not join liberals in another nation? Why try to take the majority of Americans to "your level"?

    This is what the arguements really boil down to.

  9. #39
    Havakasha is offline
    American politics
    Democracy in America
    Non-social conservatism
    Universal health insurance is un-American?
    Aug 23rd 2010, 15:11 by M.S.

    LAST Friday Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith published a piece in Politico entitled "The New Battle: What it means to be American." The gist of the piece is that conservatives and the Republican Party are moving away from culture-war issues and towards a struggle over the appropriate size and role of government. "Much of the right—including the noisy and influential tea party movement—sees greater and more immediate danger from this administration and Congress on issues related to the role of government and the very meaning of America than from the old 'social issues,'" they write.

    I was going to move on and cite several of the conservative figures Messrs Martin and Smith interview, but actually, I think I'd better stop right there for a moment. Let's take a look at the elision in that sentence: the part where we move from "the role of government" to "the very meaning of America". What is the relationship of "the role of government" to "the very meaning of America"? There are certainly some functions that government assumes in other countries which are clearly un-American. For example, in some countries, the government enforces an official religion. In other countries, the government imprisons people and tortures them without trial. (Ahem. Let's not get into that for now.) But the left is at least as adamantly opposed to government playing these sorts of roles as anyone on the right is. So how does today's right see "the role of government" as a dividing line between the right and left, in a sense that affects "the very meaning of America"? Here's former Bush administration official Peter Wehner:

    "What we're having here are debates about first principles," Wehner said. "A lot of people think [Obama is] trying to transform the country in a liberal direction in the way that Ronald Reagan did in a conservative direction. This is not the normal push and pull of politics. It gets down to the purpose and meaning of America."In the view of National Review editor Rich Lowry, that sense on the right of a fundamental shift has helped turn the role of government into a cultural issue, filling some of the emotional space formerly occupied by the traditional hot-button issues.Questions about the role of government "have a cultural charge because people feel the definition of the country is changing," Lowry said.Just as Christian conservatism in the 1970s and '80s grew as part of a backlash against what were seen as the cultural excesses of the ‘60s, the new right of today amounts to a rebellion against the perceived threat of this era—a slippage toward European-style social democracy.
    Oh, okay. The phrase "European-style social democracy" isn't actually entirely clear; the United States is, in every meaningful sense, a European-style social democracy, albeit one with relatively low taxes, relatively parsimonious government entitlements, and relatively spectacular national parks. But you get the drift. The right, in Messrs Martin and Smith's telling, is arguing that the "purpose and meaning of America" are not compatible with the economic elements of Barack Obama's legislative agenda. That agenda, last time I looked, chiefly comprised universal health insurance, regulation of the financial sector, a carbon tax or carbon emissions limits, and an approach to shrinking future budget deficits that will fall more heavily on the rich and involve fewer cuts to existing social services and entitlements. Mr Wehner and Mr Lowry, like many tea-party demonstrators, think that this economic agenda is un-American.

    Messrs Martin and Smith don't explicitly say this, but one gets the feeling, reading their article, that they think the transition to this battle over "what it means to be an American", in an economic sense, will calm some of the irrational frenzy of the old right-left culture wars over sexual identity, evolution, and so forth. If so, I would like to firmly disabuse them of that notion. Let's put it this way: I support the Affordable Care Act, known to the right as ObamaCare. I do not react well to being told that my position on this issue does not comport with "the purpose and meaning of America". I see not a shred of evidence for such a claim. In fact, I believe that my support for universal health insurance, like my support for universal education, is rooted in the greatest traditions of American history and political thought. No doubt Messrs Wehner and Lowry feel the same about their positions on universal health insurance. The difference is that I'm not going to accuse them of betraying "the purpose and meaning of America." I am not trying to turn a dispute over what government should do to improve America's social and economic fairness and well-being into a shouting match over who is or isn't a real American.

    But that's what Messrs Martin and Smith say the right is trying to do. If so, then phooey to the right. That's not less acrimonious than the culture wars. It's worse. Here's a culture-war argument: you say America is a Christian nation; I say America is a nation where Muslims and anybody else has the right to worship two blocks from ground zero. Here's another culture-war argument: you say America's freedom is under attack and we can't afford to give terrorists constitutional protections against torture; I say those constitutional protections against torture are exactly the freedom we're trying to defend. Both of these are real arguments about the meaning of America, with roots in the country's founding documents and originating political events. If you want to accuse me of being un-American in an argument like that, I'll argue you're wrong, but I can see why the accusation is germane, and I may call you un-American in your turn. But to call someone un-American because of their position on relative levels of taxation or the government's role in regulating and guaranteeing health insurance is an attempt to enlist nativist fear and vindictive nationalism in the service of one's own economic agenda. It's an outrageous tactic, and it ought to be completely out of bounds.

  10. #40
    Havakasha is offline
    American politics
    Democracy in America
    Non-social conservatism
    Universal health insurance is un-American?
    Aug 23rd 2010, 15:11 by M.S.

    LAST Friday Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith published a piece in Politico entitled "The New Battle: What it means to be American." The gist of the piece is that conservatives and the Republican Party are moving away from culture-war issues and towards a struggle over the appropriate size and role of government. "Much of the rightincluding the noisy and influential tea party movementsees greater and more immediate danger from this administration and Congress on issues related to the role of government and the very meaning of America than from the old 'social issues,'" they write.

    I was going to move on and cite several of the conservative figures Messrs Martin and Smith interview, but actually, I think I'd better stop right there for a moment. Let's take a look at the elision in that sentence: the part where we move from "the role of government" to "the very meaning of America". What is the relationship of "the role of government" to "the very meaning of America"? There are certainly some functions that government assumes in other countries which are clearly un-American. For example, in some countries, the government enforces an official religion. In other countries, the government imprisons people and tortures them without trial. (Ahem. Let's not get into that for now.) But the left is at least as adamantly opposed to government playing these sorts of roles as anyone on the right is. So how does today's right see "the role of government" as a dividing line between the right and left, in a sense that affects "the very meaning of America"? Here's former Bush administration official Peter Wehner:

    "What we're having here are debates about first principles," Wehner said. "A lot of people think [Obama is] trying to transform the country in a liberal direction in the way that Ronald Reagan did in a conservative direction. This is not the normal push and pull of politics. It gets down to the purpose and meaning of America."In the view of National Review editor Rich Lowry, that sense on the right of a fundamental shift has helped turn the role of government into a cultural issue, filling some of the emotional space formerly occupied by the traditional hot-button issues.Questions about the role of government "have a cultural charge because people feel the definition of the country is changing," Lowry said.Just as Christian conservatism in the 1970s and '80s grew as part of a backlash against what were seen as the cultural excesses of the 60s, the new right of today amounts to a rebellion against the perceived threat of this eraa slippage toward European-style social democracy.
    Oh, okay. The phrase "European-style social democracy" isn't actually entirely clear; the United States is, in every meaningful sense, a European-style social democracy, albeit one with relatively low taxes, relatively parsimonious government entitlements, and relatively spectacular national parks. But you get the drift. The right, in Messrs Martin and Smith's telling, is arguing that the "purpose and meaning of America" are not compatible with the economic elements of Barack Obama's legislative agenda. That agenda, last time I looked, chiefly comprised universal health insurance, regulation of the financial sector, a carbon tax or carbon emissions limits, and an approach to shrinking future budget deficits that will fall more heavily on the rich and involve fewer cuts to existing social services and entitlements. Mr Wehner and Mr Lowry, like many tea-party demonstrators, think that this economic agenda is un-American.

    Messrs Martin and Smith don't explicitly say this, but one gets the feeling, reading their article, that they think the transition to this battle over "what it means to be an American", in an economic sense, will calm some of the irrational frenzy of the old right-left culture wars over sexual identity, evolution, and so forth. If so, I would like to firmly disabuse them of that notion. Let's put it this way: I support the Affordable Care Act, known to the right as ObamaCare. I do not react well to being told that my position on this issue does not comport with "the purpose and meaning of America". I see not a shred of evidence for such a claim. In fact, I believe that my support for universal health insurance, like my support for universal education, is rooted in the greatest traditions of American history and political thought. No doubt Messrs Wehner and Lowry feel the same about their positions on universal health insurance. The difference is that I'm not going to accuse them of betraying "the purpose and meaning of America." I am not trying to turn a dispute over what government should do to improve America's social and economic fairness and well-being into a shouting match over who is or isn't a real American.

    But that's what Messrs Martin and Smith say the right is trying to do. If so, then phooey to the right. That's not less acrimonious than the culture wars. It's worse. Here's a culture-war argument: you say America is a Christian nation; I say America is a nation where Muslims and anybody else has the right to worship two blocks from ground zero. Here's another culture-war argument: you say America's freedom is under attack and we can't afford to give terrorists constitutional protections against torture; I say those constitutional protections against torture are exactly the freedom we're trying to defend. Both of these are real arguments about the meaning of America, with roots in the country's founding documents and originating political events. If you want to accuse me of being un-American in an argument like that, I'll argue you're wrong, but I can see why the accusation is germane, and I may call you un-American in your turn. But to call someone un-American because of their position on relative levels of taxation or the government's role in regulating and guaranteeing health insurance is an attempt to enlist nativist fear and vindictive nationalism in the service of one's own economic agenda. It's an outrageous tactic, and it ought to be completely out of bounds.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •