Results 1 to 10 of 275

Thread: Puke Watch

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Atypical is offline

    Puke Watch

    This will be the inaugural edition of an on-going series devoted to the vicious and stupid behavior of all conservatives and their fellow-travelers. (Atypical)

    Right-wingers Trying to Oust Speaker of Texas State House Because He's Jewish.

    Ordinarily, who gets elected Speaker of the Texas state House would only be of interest to those in Texas. But the current dispute in Austin has a larger significance.

    The current state House Speaker is Joe Straus, a conservative Republican leading a conservative Republican majority. He's currently facing a challenge from state Rep. Ken Paxton, who appears to agree with Straus on nearly everything.

    So what makes this noteworthy? Straus is Jewish, and some far-right activists in Texas have a problem with that.

    A few weeks ago, a coalition of Tea Party and right-wing Republican groups began lobbying for Paxton to replace Straus, with coalition activists circulating anti-Semitic emails. The message from conservatives was that the GOP state House needed a "Christian conservative" leader.

    This week, the Texas Observer reported on an email exchange between two members of the State Republican Executive Committee, which governs state GOP affairs. One of the two party leaders, John Cook, insisted in a message, "We elected a house with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it."

    The Observer's Abby Rapoport connected with Cook to ask about his efforts to replace the current state House Speaker.
    "When I got involved in politics, I told people I wanted to put Christian conservatives in leadership positions," he told me, explaining that he only supports Christian conservative candidates in Republican primary races.
    "I want to make sure that a person I'm supporting is going to have my values. It's not anything about Jews and whether I think their religion is right or Muslims and whether I think their religion is right. ... I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. They're the people that do the best jobs over all."

    Ah, I see. It's not "about Jews," it's just that Cook doesn't think Jews can do the job well because they're Jews.

    He added that he prefers Christian candidates, but isn't anti-Semitic. "They're some of my best friends," he said of Jews, naming two friends of his.

    Someday, folks will have to understand that "some of my best friends are [fill in the blank with a minority group]" is a cliche repeated by bigots. I would have hoped that was obvious by now.

    As for the bigger picture, I'm inclined to consider this yet another setback in the Republican Party's minority outreach efforts.

    By Steve Benen | Sourced from Washington Monthly
    __________________________________________________ ____

    Church-State Watchdog Group Urges President To Ignore Missive Whining About National Motto

    Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus have criticized President Barack Obama for telling an audience in Indonesia last month that the phrase “E Pluribus Unum” is a good summary of the American experience.

    The Prayer Caucus, led by U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), wrote to Obama today complaining that he called “E Pluribus Unum” the national motto during a Nov. 10 speech at a university in Jakarta. The national motto, the caucus insists, is actually “In God We Trust.”

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State says members of the Prayer Caucus need to get a life if they think this is an important issue.
    “Given the state of the economy, the unemployment rate and the precarious state of world affairs, the president has a lot to do,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, by contrast, appear to have a lot of time on their hands.”

    __________________________________________________ ____________

    Appalling: Lesbian Coach Pressured to Resign After Revealing Sexual Orientation

    The women's soccer coach at Belmont University has resigned under pressure from school officials after revealing that her partner was pregnant -- a life event that would presumably not only be accepted, but celebrated, if she was heterosexual.
    Reports The Advocate:

    A senior on the team said [coach Lisa] Howe had asked the athletics department whether she could disclose to her players that her partner was due to give birth to their child in May 2011. Instead, Howe was met with an ultimatum: Resign or be fired from the Nashville school.

    According to team captain Sari Lin, Athletics Director Mike Strickland said Howe violated an unspoken "don't ask, don't tell" policy about sexuality when she disclosed her partner's pregnancy. "She was telling us what her sexual preference is," Lin said to The Tennessean. "He said you can hide your sexuality, but you can't hide a baby. He pretty much told me that once the baby was born, she was going to get fired anyway, so it's better to do it sooner than later."

    Tea Party leader Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told radio host Sean Hannity yesterday that Republicans may "scuttle" the tax deal if the Bush tax cuts extension is tied to unemployment aid. Calling jobless aid "massive spending," Bachmann said "tying" the tax cuts "to massive spending is something that would be very difficult for members to swallow."

    Rep. Steve King Wants to Bring Back McCarthyism (Alternet)

    The Red Menace still looms large in Rep. Steve King's fevered imagination.

    In an interview with Right Side News, King was asked if he supported a recent conspiracy-laced speech by conservative media mogul Cliff Kincaid, in which he argued that the next Republican Congress should bring back the House Internal Security Committee in order to combat "the ugly spread of Marxism in America." King responded, "I would. I think that is a good process and I would support it."

    The House Internal Security Committee was the followup to the highly controversial HUAC, a congressional body meant to serve as a counterpart to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in which McCarthy was heavily involved. The HUAC was notoriously involved in a Hollywood investigation of actors, directors and writers that were allegedly communist sympathizers. More than 300 motion pictures professionals were put on a Hollywood blacklist as a result of hearings by the committee.

    Long live the witchhunt. Between King and Michele Bachmann, Darrel Issa is going to have a run for his money on the investigation front.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-29-2011 at 09:24 PM.

  2. #2
    Atypical is offline

    Christians Good? Understanding? Tolerant? NO!

    Righties Dance on Elizabeth Edwards' Grave -- And Use My Reporting to Do It
    Adele Stan/AlterNet

    In certain corners of the right-wing world, an odd definition of Christian charity prevails: if you don't believe as its denizens do, your death is an occasion for their judgmental disdain. Apparently, they don't trust their own justice-meting God to do the job.

    Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday, has not yet been buried, but that hasn't stopped some from attacking her for being true to her personal theology even to the very end: a theology that does not include the concept of Christian salvation. They're using a column I wrote three years ago to make their case in a most uncharitable manner.

    Essentially the argument made by Donald Douglas of the right-wing blog American Power ("Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to") is that Edwards was a bitter nihlist. Why? Because she failed to mention Douglas's big, bad God in her farewell Facebook message. Douglas's post might have disappeared into the abyss of mean, stupid things said by internet cranks -- until the august Christianity Today, representing the respectable, serious side of the religious right -- picked it up. And that's just nasty. Or bitter. Or nihlistic.

    Complicated people are always fascinating and sometimes maddening, and Elizabeth Edwards was surely both. But there's no denying that she was a woman of singular courage, not simply for how she faced her illness, but for violating Thomas Jefferson's advice to public figures: keep your most heartfelt religious views to yourself.

    Like Edwards, Jefferson was a Deist -- someone who believes in a supreme being, but not in a God who intervenes in the affairs of humans. So, while I was no fan of her husband, when Elizabeth Edwards spelled out her beliefs for a roomful of bloggers, my respect for her soared. In fact, I was stunned by the courage she displayed at the annual BlogHer conference. Here's what I wrote for The American Prospect Online:

    Asked by Beth Corbin of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to explain how her faith beliefs inform her politics, Elizabeth Edwards gave an extraordinarily radical answer: She doesn't believe in salvation, at least not in the standard Christian understanding of it, and she said as much:

    I have, I think, somewhat of an odd version of God. I do not have an intervening God. I don't think I can pray to him -- or her -- to cure me of cancer.

    After the words "or her," Mrs. Edwards gave a little laugh, indicating she knew she had waded into water perhaps a bit deeper than the audience had anticipated. Then she continued:
    I appreciate other people's prayers for that [a cure for her cancer], but I believe that we are given a set of guidelines, and that we are obligated to live our lives with a view to those guidelines. And I don't that believe we should live our lives that way for some promise of eternal life, but because that's what's right. We should do those things because that's what's right.
    Wow, I thought. That sounds awfully like, "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try..."

    Elizabeth Edwards will be remembered for many things, but probably not for what may prove to be the most important one: opening the door for political figures whose spiritual beliefs do not conform to the dictates of traditional Christianity or Judaism. It will be a while before an actual candidate, which Elizabeth Edwards was not, can take that risk, but by setting the standard for spiritual authenticity, she did her country a great service.

    FYI, here's Elizabeth Edwards's final Facebook post, via National Journal:

    You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces -- my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren't able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn't possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.

    With love,


  3. #3
    Atypical is offline

    Palin Is The Essence Of Puke; Eau de Puke

    Adam Sorkin, Playwright, screenwriter and television writer.

    In Her Defense I'm Sure The Moose Had It Coming

    "Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."

    You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go **** ourselves now.

    The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.

    I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.

    Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.

    I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.

    So I don't think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I'm in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God's country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)

    And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.

    (Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin's Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)

    I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-29-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  4. #4
    Atypical is offline

    Fair And Balanced? Only If You Are An Ideologue.

    Fox News Boss Willfully Slanted Healthcare Reports

    A high-up Fox News editor told his employees to substitute the phrase “public option” with “government option” in order to skew the public's notion of the health care debate to the right. And while Fox's ultra-conservative slant is nothing new, this revelation pokes truth-sized holes in their persistent argument that they are “fair and balanced.” The evidence: a leaked email from Fox managing editor Bill Sammon:

    From: Sammon, Bill

    Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM

    To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers

    Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"

    1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.

    2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."

    3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."

    4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

    And lest this sort of truth-skewing seems arbitrary, here is how it affected Fox hosts––and, by proxy, millions of Americans who were willfully uninformed:

    On the September 3, 2009, Special Report -- three weeks after Luntz told Hannity to call it the "government option" -- Baier discussed the potential inclusion of a public option during the show's nightly commentary segment.

    During the segment -- after Baier himself had referred to a "public option" -- NPR's Mara Liasson also referred several times to the "public option," prompting Baier to interrupt her to clarify that it is the "government-run option of health insurance."

    As the conversation continued, The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer and The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes both used "public option." When Liasson mentioned a "triggered public option," Baier again interrupted, asking, "Should we say 'government option,' by the way?"

    "Government option, OK," replied Liasson.

    "Everybody gets it," Baier explained

  5. #5
    Atypical is offline

    Incoming GOP Financial Services Chairman: Washington's Role Is "To Serve The Banks"

    During the financial reform debate, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) — who will become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in the 112th Congress — continually criticized the reform effort. He falsely characterized the legislation that ultimately became the Dodd-Frank financial reform law as creating “permanent bailout authority,” and he staunchly opposed the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Now that he’ll be taking the Financial Services committee gavel, Bachus has telegraphed his intention to weaken some of the bill’s most important sections, including derivatives reform and rules meant to prevent banks from making risky trades with federally insured dollars.

    In an interview with The Birmingham News, Bachus made it clear why he opposed stricter regulations for banks in the wake of a huge financial crisis largely caused by Wall Street excess and a lack of prudent regulation. In Bachus’ estimation, the government’s role is not to protect consumers and the wider economy through regulating financial activity, but to simply “serve the banks”:

    Bachus, in an interview Wednesday night, said he brings a “main street” perspective to the committee, as opposed to Wall Street. “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,” he said.

    According to the article, Bachus later tried to clarify that what he meant was “regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them.”

    As The Wonk Room explained, Bachus is far from the only Republican on the Financial Services Committee who feels that consumers and regulators should be subservient to the banks. But rarely has a Republican lawmaker laid out so starkly just whose interests he believes Washington is supposed to be protecting.

    Back in October, Bachus told a crowd of 100 financial services industry lobbyists that banks should really be making campaign contributions to Republicans, because Democrats “hammered” the banks by enacting the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law. The banks responded by giving more heavily to Republicans than Democrats in the home stretch to November’s election. And it seems that Bachus is now fully prepared to give them what they paid for.

    By Pat Garofalo | Sourced from ThinkProgress

    Yep, it's what they do! That's why they are repukes.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-29-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  6. #6
    Atypical is offline

    Wall Street Journal Wrong Again on State Migration‏

    The editorial pages have always been pukes; there are developing stories that since Murdoch purchased the paper the overall quality is changing - and not for the better. I'm shocked!

    The Wall Street Journal published an editorial yesterday suggesting that a state income tax increase caused up to 10,000 wealthy taxpayers to flee the state of Oregon. A new report from ITEP explains why this claim is completely false, and highlights two other glaring factual errors in the Journal's editorial.

    Dear Wall Street Journal: No Need to File a Missing Persons Report
    Oregon’s High-Income Taxpayers Have Not “Vanished”

    The Wall Street Journal recently published an editorial suggesting that a 2 percentage point
    increase in Oregon’s top income tax rate caused up to 10,000 wealthy Oregonians to flee the
    state. In support of its claim, the Journal points to new data showing that 10,000 fewer
    Oregonians were affected by this tax increase than the state’s Legislative Revenue Office (LRO)
    had originally anticipated.

    But there is a much simpler explanation for this discrepancy, and it’s made clear both in the LRO
    data and in its analysis of that data. These 10,000 taxpayers earned less than the LRO expected
    in 2009 as a result of the economic recession, and therefore fell below the income threshold at
    which the new brackets took effect.

    The Oregon tax increase in question was adopted by the legislature in 2009 and approved by
    voters in early 2010 via Measure 66. It took effect at the beginning of tax year 2009. Measure 66
    raised the state’s top income tax rate from 9% to 11% for married couples with taxable income
    over $500,000 per year (and for single filers with over $250,000). It also created a new 10.8%
    bracket on taxable income between $250,000 and $500,000 for married couples (and between
    $125,000 and $250,000 for single filers). In 2012, these two brackets will merge to create a 9.9%
    tax bracket on taxable income over $250,000 ($125,000 for singles).
    Unfortunately, the economy was weaker than the LRO realized at the time this plan was enacted,
    causing them to
    overestimate its
    potential revenue
    yield by $50
    million. As the LRO
    explained to the
    Oregon House
    Committee, this
    was driven in part
    by overly optimistic
    estimates of how
    many Oregonians
    would earn enough to be affected by the new tax rates. Specifically, the LRO noted that many taxpayers have been
    “driven down the income distribution because [of lower than expected capital gains income], and
    they move from the affected category to the unaffected categories.”

    As indicated by the chart on the previous page, (see link) LRO originally estimated, for example, that
    almost 216,000 Oregonians would earn over $100,000 in 2009. It turns out they overshot by
    about 34,000 — only 182,000 Oregonians actually earned this much. As a result, LRO also
    overestimated by 10,000 the number of Oregonians that would be affected by the tax increase —
    a fact which the Journal has spun as “evidence” that 10,000 Oregonians have fled for states like
    Texas, which lacks an income tax.

    But the Journal ignores the fact that the number of Oregonians earning under $100,000 shot up by
    60,000 relative to the LRO’s initial projections — a jump more than large enough to explain a
    34,000 decline in returns earning over $100,000. Furthermore, over 26,000 more tax returns
    were filed overall than the LRO originally anticipated, which flies in the face of claims that taxes
    are driving people from the state. It’s unclear why the Journal would immediately begin looking
    for Oregonians as far away as Texas, when the LRO data (and the LRO’s explanation of that data)
    strongly suggest that they’ve simply moved to a lower tax bracket. It’s also unclear why the
    Journal would assume such a large exodus occurred in 2009, when final approval for the tax
    increase wasn’t given by voters until January 2010.

    In addition to ignoring the impact of the economic recession (or, to be more accurate, dismissing
    it without explanation), the Journal’s recent editorial includes two other glaring factual errors:
    In claiming that Oregon’s situation is an “instant replay” of recent developments in
    Maryland, the Journal asserts that one-third of Maryland’s millionaires “vanished from the
    tax rolls after rates went up” on millionaires in 2008. This is completely false. The Journal
    originally made this claim in May 2009, and ITEP debunked it shortly thereafter. By
    March 2010, even the Journal had abandoned this talking point when it confessed that
    most of these people had simply become less rich.5 At that point, the Journal then claimed
    that only one-eighth of Maryland’s millionaires were actually “missing.” ITEP pointed out
    in a letter to the editor that the real number of millionaires who filed a tax return in 2007
    but not in 2008 was 6.8% (not much different than the average 5.6% decline seen in
    previous years due to normal migration patterns and deaths), but the Journal chose not to
    publish that letter. Nonetheless, the Journal itself has already demonstrated that it
    understands the “one-third” claim is bogus.

    The Journal also argues that a 2 percentage point increase in Oregon’s top income tax rate
    will prevent wealthy Oregonians from selling their stocks: “Successful entrepreneurs like
    Nike owner Phil Knight don’t get rich by being fools with their money. They don’t sell
    tens of millions of dollars of assets when capital gains taxes go up.” Amusingly, however,
    Knight did exactly that. The Portland Business Journal reported that in October 2009 (four
    months after the tax increases were approved by the legislature and were then pending
    before the voters) Knight sold $185 million in Nike stock.7 Apparently Oregon’s
    “successful entrepreneurs” think about factors other than the state’s top tax rate when
    deciding how to conduct business.

    The Journal’s recent editorial is both misleading and factually inaccurate. It takes the same
    boilerplate language it used in arguing against Maryland’s “millionaires’ tax” and attempts to
    apply it to the situation in Oregon. But even a cursory examination of the evidence reveals that
    the Journal has been extremely sloppy in doing so. Even one of the Journal’s own employees —
    blogger Robert Frank — has begun to criticize the Journal’s brand of spin, describing claims of
    “tax-driven wealth flight” as “exaggerated,” and noting: “That demographics and economics
    matter more than taxes in increasing and retaining wealth may seem like an obvious point. Still,
    it is one that seems to get lost in the increasingly emotional debate over taxing the wealthy.”


    If you read the WSJ, as I used to, you know that the editorial page has been HYSTERICALLY conservative forever. Robert Bartley was the editor for a long time and responsible for the tone. Since his death nothing has changed except the ownership, now Murdoch.

    This piece tells a story that typifies the lies that the WSJ editorial page has trafficked in forever.
    If you read the paper, never trust the opinion pages without checking less ideological sources.

    Strong conservatives, those without respect for objective truth, the ones that compose the current congress are ALL PUKES.

    Sources and a graph are here.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-29-2011 at 09:27 PM.

  7. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

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