Thursday, December 02, 2010

Nice: Matthews Corrects Perkins

You had to grit your teeth and cringe watching Hardball the other day, when the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins quoted "research" from the American College of Pediatricians, proving that gay people homosexuals have 86 percent worse cooties than God-fearing straight people.

Neither Chris Matthews nor the guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center knew enough to stop him and point out that the American College of Pediatricians is a totally bogus group, formed to promote hatred against gay and lesbian Americans. Instead they let him slander LGBT people in the living rooms of America with fake research statistics (we showed you Box Turtle Bulletin's demolition of the cited "study" HERE).

Matthews did the right thing, though, and issued a statement explaining. It's not very good quality video -- looks like somebody videotaped their TV screen -- but check this out:

57 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder why nobody watches Hardball.

I wonder why MSNBC keeps it on the air.

It's not because it's a wonderful show.

December 02, 2010 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
You don't watch Hardball...so what's it to you if millions of others do?

December 02, 2010 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, that was just rhetoric

I know millions of morons watch it

it's just "nobody" compared to the tens of millions who watch The O'Reilly Factor

ever compare the numbers?

December 02, 2010 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON(Dec. 2)- Senate Republicans, led by John McCain, today raised the specter of a mass exodus of offended troops if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military.

At a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, they told Pentagon leaders they did not take seriously enough resistance from Army and Marine Corps combat and special-operations units. They also questioned whether the Pentagon survey of 115,000 troops was large enough to be representative.

McCain urged against a "rush to repeal." Citing "alarming" statistics in the report, he predicted as many as 265,000 service members, or 12 percent of the military, would leave the service if the policy were changed. And he asked why the 103-question survey of troops did not ask directly whether the policy should be repealed.

Friday, skeptical service chiefs, who have publicly spoken out against changing the policy, appear before the panel.

A special operations force war fighter cited in the report said, "We have a gay guy in the unit. He's big, he's mean and he kills lots of guys. No one cared that he was gay."

Gates said implementation would not be problem-free. "We have to be honest and straightforward," he said. But the concerns of combat troops "do not present an insurmountable barrier" to repeal, he insisted.

McCain parried back angrily when Gates suggested a naivete on the part of many combat troops, most of whom are in their 20s or younger and have never served with women either.

"I couldn't disagree more," McCain growled. "We send these young people into combat, we think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."

Gates dismissed the prospect of tens of thousands of homophobic service members departing in the midst of two wars.

"It isn't like they can just say, 'I'm outta here.' They are going to have to complete their obligations" under the terms of their enlistment or contract for officers, he said.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said he was "really bothered" by Gates' response, suggesting a cavalier attitude.

"If I believed a quarter-million people would leave the military immediately I would certainly have second thoughts," Gates said.

While McCain and other Republicans repeatedly cited the findings in highlighting the unease in all-male ground combat units, they also downplayed the study's reliability. They noted that of 400,000 surveys sent out, "only" 115,000, or 28 percent, were returned.

December 02, 2010 7:55 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Re: Hardball:
“it's just "nobody" compared to the tens of millions who watch The O'Reilly Factor

ever compare the numbers?”


Irrelevant.

Argumentum ad numerum:

It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

December 02, 2010 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

imaginative technique to hide your lack of Latin skills, imp

whenever TTFers have numbers on their side, they use them

they rarely do anymore

the gay moment has ended

but the collective judgment of billions throughout history are irrelevant compared the noble hedonism of imp?

Air America thought it was irrelevant too, and they're history

sooner or later, that'll happen to Hardball too

existence is relevant

December 03, 2010 6:50 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“existence is relevant”

Well you hold tight to that existence of yours before the gay agenda comes to snatch it away.

Remember, the ultimate goal of the gay agenda is to destroy the entire solar system.

December 03, 2010 7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well you hold tight to that existence of yours before the gay agenda comes to snatch it away."

Oh, I'm not concerned about my existence or that of FOX News.

Hardball might have reason to be concerned about its existence, though. Someone has to pay for all that nonsense and without enough watchers, who will?

"Remember, the ultimate goal of the gay agenda is to destroy the entire solar system."

Quite an ambition you have there, imp.

First, let's see if you guys can ever convince just one state's population to vote to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual partners.

You have to start somewhere.

Remember the old Tom Petty song:

"even the losers get lucky sometimes"

December 03, 2010 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we're taking our country back

the end of an era of liberal Democrat sleaze:

"The fall of Charlie Rangel is bigger than the fate of one 80-year-old man. It is the tale of hubris, of arrogance drunk with power, meeting its match in an aroused citizenry.

His story is the story of the corrupt liberal Democrats who are having their last weeks in power.

Rangel was brought down by when he did his dirty deeds as much as what he actually did. The rules of the political game are changing before our eyes. Finally, and clearly, a new reform era is beginning in America.

Hallelujah.

A beleaguered nation isn't just mad as hell. It truly means to put the public back in public service.

Those were the stakes yesterday. Would the Democratically-controlled Congress circle the wagons to protect one of its own, as it has so many times over so many years?

Or would it understand the wheel of history has turned? Would it understand that the midterm elections were only the first shot in a war to take back government from the legions of self-dealers who see public power as a means to private ends?

The choice was clear, a corrupt culture trying to hang on against a cleansing force springing from our nation's deepest values. In a day of high drama and fitting results, the vote for censure was a huge step toward reaffirming those core values."



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/washington_long_last_the_tide_is_DaUQ7RMriSHhUEQJk0oXrK#ixzz173gJ4nUi

December 03, 2010 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your posts, DoDoAnon, become increasingly hysterical and pathetic! "that was just rhetoric...I know millions of morons watch it...it's just "nobody" compared to the tens of millions who watch The O'Reilly Factor"

Talk about morons!! O'Reilly...the Patron Saint of the Morons (although Beck aspires to that noble title, as do Hannaty and Limbaugh). The ill-educated classes always fall prey to charlatans.

"the gay moment has ended"... You wish! Dream on, deluded one.

Your rhetoric and snarky narcissism are symptomatic of your pathetic lack of intelligence.

December 03, 2010 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your posts, DoDoAnon, become increasingly hysterical and pathetic!"

Gee, I guess "pathetic" could be in the eye of the beholder. The way I behold it is that your side can't get votes in an election nor viewers to watch their propaganda on cable and, yet, my side can.

And I'm "pathetic"?

If you say so.

Hysterical? Don't see it. Why don't you provide us with an example.

Just don't all hysterical about it.

"Talk about morons!! O'Reilly...the Patron Saint of the Morons (although Beck aspires to that noble title, as do Hannaty and Limbaugh). The ill-educated classes always fall prey to charlatans."

Not a big fan of Beck or Limbaugh. Not against them, just not that familiar with them. I have watched O'Reilly and Hannity on occasion and found them to both be more bright than anything on MSNBC.

Speaking of MCNBC, Matthews and Olberman appear to be complete imbeciles. Maddow seems to have a little more intelligence but she acts like a fool.

""the gay moment has ended"... You wish! Dream on, deluded one."

Let me know when you convince just one state's voters to approve gay "marriage."

HAHAHAHAHA!

"Your rhetoric and snarky narcissism are symptomatic of your pathetic lack of intelligence."

Sure, they are.

Keep telling yourself that, Napoleon. The doctor will be in to see you soon.

December 03, 2010 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yowsa, wowza!

did you guys hear that unemployment was up in November from October?

apparently, Obama did a few tricks to temporarily lower it in October for help in the election

didn't work, and now we suffer the aftermath

meanwhile, the Dems in Congress are brazenly trying to raise taxes on "rich" people while the economy lags

news flash: the "rich" people will survive

but they'll do so by spending less which will hurt the little guy

the Hoover maneuver didn't work in 1930 and won't work now

don't raise taxes in a recession

btw, evidence of Obama's incompetence continues to acumulate

last night, he snuck out of the White House to visit Afghanistan

he was supposed to meet the Afghan president but the meeting had to be cancelled when they found out we didn't bring the right kind of aircraft to withstand the winds on the way to the presidential palace

then, they announced they would instead do a teleconference

a little while later they cancelled because they didn't have the right equipment

finally, Obama gave up and flew back home

this is a guy that just can't get his ducks in a row

when will he get it over with and resign?

December 03, 2010 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like the Dems are trying to get a head start on losing the next election.

I hear they're also trying to push the DADT repeal again.

Just think, if they get their way, half the Marine Corps will fail to re-enlist and we'll have to reinstate the draft to cover the wars in Afghanistan and North Korea.

All should come to a head, oh around...say, 2012.

Should be very popular.

Maybe Obama could pull an election surprise in October 2012 and write another children's book.

Good night, moon.

Good night, Oval office.

Good night, light and my advisor buffons.

December 03, 2010 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We hear a lot of talk about the “Bush Tax Cuts.” And why not? According to Newsweek, George W. Bush “earns” $4.2 million from paid speeches, public appearances and miscellaneous punditry each year. Hence the Bush Tax Cuts cut Bush’s own taxes by an amazing $187,552 each year. And that’s not even counting how much the Bush tax cuts engorge Bush’s investment income.

So Bush cut his own taxes. No wonder Bush is in favor of extending those tax cuts.

He’s not the only one. Here is how much the Bush tax cuts benefit – each year – some other folks you may have heard of:

Rush Limbaugh - $2,689,135.
Glenn Beck - $1,512,352
Sean Hannity - $1,006,352
Bill O’Reilly - $914,352
Sarah Palin - $638,352
Newt Gingrich - $247,352

Maybe we should call them the “Rush Limbaugh Tax Cuts.” Or the “Glenn Beck Tax Cuts.” Because the reason why these right-wing blowhards support tax cuts for the rich is that they support tax cuts for themselves, which will cost our country almost $100 billion a year. That's enough money to give $30,000-a-year jobs to 3 million Americans, which would cut unemployment by two percent immediately and to get our economy moving again.

December 03, 2010 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have news for the imbecile who wrote the last post.

If "rich" people, who earned their money by doing things like writing books that people want to read (Sarah Palin) or putting on talk shows that people want to watch (Bill O'Reilly) or radio shows that people really like to listen to (Rush Limbaugh) or making TV travel shows that people like a lot(Sarah Palin), were to spend the 100 billion instead of the government, more jobs would be created than if the government spent the 100 billion.

And let's be honest: the amount government spends has absolutely no relation to the amount they confiscate from hard-working, productive citizens.

So, if the government were to confiscate an extra 638K from Sarah Palin next year, she'd survive very well. The losers would be those who provide the goods and services she might acquire with the money.

Liberals may think those people will get a dreary job shuffling files in a government office if they steal Palin's money, but it's not likely.

The unemployed would probably prefer to build Palin a floatplane than pay for a study on how to bill Medicare more inefficiently.

December 03, 2010 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't spend any money more than I absolutely have to...

Years ago, I used to pay someone to rake and pay folks to babysit and pay folks to clean.

Now I am so frightened of what these idiots are going to do next that I hoarde every penny...

And I am not the only one..


If you let people keep their money AND you give them some assurance that the whole system is going to collapse as you throw ONE huge govt program after another at them, folks might have a little more confidence.

And then they might spend more.

December 03, 2010 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Long story short, Robert Reich:

In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand – the result of the nation’s almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top. The very rich don’t spend as much of their income as the middle. And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn’t had the buying power to keep the economy going. That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change – along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery.

Make the rich pay their fair share of the taxes!

December 03, 2010 8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the rich pay more than their share

a large segment of the population pays no taxes at all

"The very rich don’t spend as much of their income as the middle."

well, technically, they do something even better:

they invest

one of are biggest problems is that businesses can't financing to create new jobs-producing ventures

"And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn’t had the buying power to keep the economy going."

then, why don't the Democrats support cutting middle class taxes

they want to keep them the same

and they want to increase them on the most productive element of our society

they keep talking about extending the current state as "cutting" taxes

a bunch of lying hypocrites

too bad Senate seats only roll over every six years or we'd have a responsible Senate now to go with our new Tea Party House

well, considering what we did when Dems ruled, we'll make things work

count on it

December 03, 2010 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vice President Joe Biden says a weak November jobs report is "disappointing" and a sign that the economic recovery is fragile.

Biden says the uptick in the jobless rate to 9.8 percent means it is critical that the Senate follow the House in voting to continue the Bush tax cuts.

Biden spoke before being briefed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and budget director Jacob Lew on the negotiations surrounding those tax cuts. A deal to extend the tax cuts for all taxpayers is starting to take shape, although it is not clear how quickly it might come together.

The White House is seeking to expand the tax package to include other measures, including extending unemployment insurance and funding to cover the costs of allowing gays in the military.

December 03, 2010 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hope has been described as the weakest passion, and so it has been with Obama. It was barely strong enough to lift him to the presidency, but too weak, I am beginning to fear, to keep him there. It looks as if Republican hopes that Obama will be a one-term president are going to be fulfilled. And those of us for whom hope failed must now look about for something and someone else.

Considering the present mood of the country, Democrats will have a tough hill to climb. But we can still hope that two years is a lifetime in politics, and that the majority that was cobbled together for the midterm shift to the right will melt away by then.

But we can't depend on hope alone this time. In seeking a replacement for the terminal Obama, we must look for a candidate with more political savvy. And speaking of the tough hill that Democrats face climbing, who better than Hillary?

As far as realistic politics are concerned, she either learned them from or taught them to a master, her husband. She would have no problem in terms of name recognition. And her own health-care debacle taught her not to push politically sluggardly Americans too far. Her campaign would be able to portray her as a policy expert capable of recasting Obamacare, robbing the Republicans of a potent issue.

So let me be among the first to rally my fellow dystrophic Democrats around a winner from whom the presidency was snatched by an accidental, blind passion.

Hillary for president: It sounds pretty good.

December 03, 2010 11:33 PM  
Anonymous serendipity said...

bet it sounds good to Sarah Palin too!

December 03, 2010 11:33 PM  
Anonymous velvet elvis said...

(Dec. 3) -- The dissatisfying job numbers for November don't just represent one bad month of meager payroll expansion and snowballing unemployment.

They paint the picture of a sputtering economy so weak nearly a year and a half into a "recovery" that long-term high unemployment seems an increasingly likely prospect. It's also increasingly apparent that Barack Obama is clueless on how to manage an economic recovery.

The Labor Department's survey of American businesses found that nonfarm payrolls expanded by just 39,000 jobs last month. That's far slower than the job-creation rate needed to absorb graduates and other new entrants to the work force. And it doesn't come close to the pace of roughly 200,000 jobs many economists believe necessary to start reversing the loss of more than 8 million jobs from the recession.

The separate household survey produced an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, following three months of 9.6 percent, as the number of people without work for six months or more climbed to 6.3 million. And a record number of unemployed Americans are no longer looking for work because they don't believe jobs are available.

"The report is disappointing," said Vice President Joe Biden, who was at the White House to meet with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House Budget Director Jacob Lew to discuss economic negotiations with congressional Republicans.

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the National Economic Council that advises President Barack Obama -- who was absent from today's economic debate on a surprise trip to Afghanistan -- said "today's numbers might show the necessity of extending some tax cuts."

Rep. John Boehner, the incoming speaker of the House, said Democratic ideas are to blame for the persistently high unemployment, accusing his opponents of "doing everything in their power to kill more jobs." He called on the lame-duck Congress to "do the right thing and vote immediately to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes."

"Our economy will ultimately recover, but it will do so because of hard work and entrepreneurship, not more of the same job-killing policies and spending binges," Boehner said.

December 04, 2010 12:29 AM  
Anonymous buh-buh-blue christmas said...

And though Goolsbee described today's job numbers as "just one of those bumps in the road" typically experienced during an economic recovery, the labor market's sclerosis could be getting worse.

The construction industry continued to shed jobs, manufacturers -- a source of employment growth earlier this year -- cut their payrolls again, and retailers got rid of a net 28,000 workers despite the onset of the holiday shopping season.

As they have since the start of the recovery, temporary help services were a source of job growth, adding 40,000 new jobs. But the limited, long-term economic gains of such hiring could be seen in another statistic: The number of people who lost jobs and completed temporary jobs in November grew to nearly 9.5 million.

Some other statistics point to the brutal nature of the Obama job market.

While the number of people officially unemployed increased by 276,000 to just over 15 million, another 82,000 people joined the nearly 85 million people outside the labor force.

Among those, a record 1.3 million people in November were discouraged workers, defined by the government as individuals who wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job in the past 12 months but aren't looking any longer because they believe no jobs are available for them.

A year earlier, in November 2009, when the recovery was in its early months, there were only 861,000 discouraged workers.

"The economy remains far from full employment even though a year and a half has elapsed since the trough of the business cycle," Federal Reserve Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen said in a speech this week discussing the Fed's latest bid to jolt the economy. "Given the slow pace of economic growth, unemployment is likely to remain high for some time."

Obama should realize his limitations, do what's best for the country...and resign.

December 04, 2010 12:30 AM  
Anonymous Reality Check said...

"If "rich" people were to spend the 100 billion instead of the government, more jobs would be created than if the government spent the 100 billion."

Rich people have kept their money from the government. What are they spending it on and where are these "more jobs" you claim they'd create, "Anonymous"? Unemployment seems only to rise the longer theses millionaire tax breaks are in effect.

"The dissatisfying job numbers for November don't just represent one bad month of meager payroll expansion and snowballing unemployment.

They paint the picture of a sputtering economy so weak nearly a year and a half into a "recovery" that long-term high unemployment seems an increasingly likely prospect."

That's right "Velvet Elvis", and during that 18 month period and for several years before it too, those rich people you admire so much have been reaping their millionaire tax benefits that are supposed to generate more jobs than any government program could. So where in the hell are those jobs these rich people are supposedly creating with their UNPAID FOR, DEFICIT DEEPENING MILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS?

December 04, 2010 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

brilliant Velvet Elvis:

"If "rich" people were to spend the 100 billion instead of the government, more jobs would be created than if the government spent the 100 billion."

halluncinatory "reality check":

"Rich people have kept their money from the government. What are they spending it on and where are these "more jobs" you claim they'd create, "Anonymous"? Unemployment seems only to rise the longer theses millionaire tax breaks are in effect."

this must be an alternative reality check

rich people aren't keeping their money from the government

70% of income tax revenue comes from the wealthiest 10% of the population

less than 3% come from the lower 50% of earners

basically, what Obama wants is a raise from the class that is funding his inept operation

evidence shows he doesn't know what to do with it

you act as if the wealthy, who have earned their income by meeting the needs and desire of whoever has paid them, owe the rest of us an accounting for how they spend their money

there's a word for your attitude that property is theft

it's called communism and it's been tried and found to be an evil failure

btw, there's another way that cutting taxes for the wealthy helps society:

studies show that Republicans give more money to charity than Dems

they are also more responsible about who they give it to

private charities that help the needy are much more effective than governments which simply send out checks without any concern for how the recipient is doing

"That's right "Velvet Elvis", and during that 18 month period and for several years before it too, those rich people you admire so much have been reaping their millionaire tax benefits that are supposed to generate more jobs than any government program could. So where in the hell are those jobs these rich people are supposedly creating with their UNPAID FOR, DEFICIT DEEPENING MILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS?"

have you check the average unemployment rate during the Reagan era (1980-2006) vs. the Pelosi era (2006-2010)?

quite bizarre that you think that confiscating less than 40% of the income of our most productive citizens is "giving them a break"

if I were to break into your house and steal only 35% of your possessions instead of 40%, would I be giving you a break?

think about it

after the crystal meth has worn off

try a reality check then

December 04, 2010 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a comment from yesterday that wasn't adequately analyzed:

"George W. Bush “earns” $4.2 million each year. Hence the Bush Tax Cuts cut Bush’s own taxes by an amazing $187,552 each year. And that’s not even counting how much the Bush tax cuts engorge Bush’s investment income.

So Bush cut his own taxes. No wonder Bush is in favor of extending those tax cuts.

He’s not the only one. Here is how much the Bush tax cuts benefit – each year – some other folks you may have heard of:

Rush Limbaugh - $2,689,135.
Glenn Beck - $1,512,352
Sean Hannity - $1,006,352
Bill O’Reilly - $914,352
Sarah Palin - $638,352
Newt Gingrich - $247,352"

OK, let's think about the top earner here, the Democratically demonized Limbaugh

having a tax rate of 35% instead of 40% has "saved" him 2.7 million

that's at a rate of 40%, his tax would be about 22 million

but at 35%, it is "only" around 19 million

and that's just the Federal income tax, not mentioning the payroll tax or self-employment tax or sales tax or state taxes

and yet TTF says:

"Rich people have kept their money from the government"

giving 19 million is now called "keeping" on this Orwellian site

I think someone needs a reality check?

(roll your eyes and whistle, guys)

December 04, 2010 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And now Anon will explain how it is that rich people manage to accumulate obscene amounts of money and spend it, too ...

December 04, 2010 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

few put in a mattress, moron

they invest it, allowing the rest of us to borrow and businesses to expand and hire

they also spend quite a bit too

December 04, 2010 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't get rich giving your money away. Even when they invest it, they do so with the goal of accumulating more.

The wealthy aren't doing you and me any favors, jack, and you're a boot-licking loser if you think the way for you and me to do better is to make rich people richer.

December 04, 2010 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bullshit.
some of us give half of every dollar we make right now in taxes.

that's enough already.

December 04, 2010 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they raise them again, my husband and I have already decided we will simply get divorced on paper, and pay 15K less instead of 15K more until we both retire and get the kids through college, then get remarried.

Simple.

see you were right, the rich people will always find a way to get out of them.

ounsp

December 04, 2010 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Senate Votes Down Bush-Era Tax Cuts for Middle Class Only

thank goodness, I really didn't want to get divorced.

December 04, 2010 12:08 PM  
Anonymous to the communists out there said...

they actually don't owe you and me any favors

their money was earned honestly by producing soemthing that someone would pay for or lending to others to allow then to do the same

if they do so motivated by the goal of accumulating more, that's really irrelevant, which is the magic of capitalism

instead of wasting your time brewing in a noxious broth of resentment, why don't you aspire to produce something worthwhile yourself

that's how their wealth was produced

it's a free country still

go for it

December 04, 2010 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"their money was earned honestly..."

Anon, you go ahead and believe that. Those investment bankers really do work hard for you and me, woo hoo! You are a hoot.

December 04, 2010 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they do indeed

they research investments do determine which will be most productive, making our economy more effective and everyone better off

December 04, 2010 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bernie Sanders explains the situation perfectly well -- watch this speech: Sen Bernie Sanders Amazing Speech!

December 04, 2010 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for showing us where you're coming from:

"Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, and has praised European social democracy. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist. Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party."

December 04, 2010 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I figured that would be your response.

Please point out to us which facts he has wrong, and where his reasoning is faulty, if you can do that.

December 04, 2010 8:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not going to watch it

if you think he's made a good point, either summarize it or paste it and I'll be happy to respond

December 04, 2010 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those investment bankers really do work hard for you and me, woo hoo!"

they aren't obligated to "work hard for you and me"

they work hard for someone, of their own choosing, in our free country, which is why someone chooses to pay them

if you think investment bankers should "work hard for you and me," I assume you would agree that you should be working hard for the investment bankers and me

only fair, right?

December 04, 2010 8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want me to tell you what a Senator says on the Senate floor, rather than click the link and see for yourself? He explains how rich people are screwing the rest of us, anon, he gives the numbers and explains how it works.

December 04, 2010 8:57 PM  
Anonymous velvet elvis said...

"You want me to tell you what a Senator says on the Senate floor, rather than click the link and see for yourself?"

I couldn't care less what you do

but if you want me to address his thoughts, and you seem to, that's what you need to do

"He explains how rich people are screwing the rest of us, anon, he gives the numbers and explains how it works."

he really said that?

wow!!

could you explain how?

or you could just paste some excerpts from Das Kapital, if that's easier for you

December 04, 2010 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

uh, Jim, we have a socialist on the site

I was countering his nonsense but last comment has disappeared

December 04, 2010 11:05 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Part 1
--
“the Patron Saint of the Morons (although Beck aspires to that noble title”

Let’s face it, he’s already earned it.
--
The way I behold it is that your side can't get votes in an election nor viewers to watch their propaganda on cable and, yet, my side can.

“my side can”

You say that like it’s news. Any audience who needs others to tell them how to think and feel, will, of course, be completely receptive to the words of an authoritarian -- anyone who *sounds* like they know what they're talking about.

They are about 25% of the population. Bush’s poll numbers rarely dropped below this threshold. These are the sociopaths and those harboring deeply ingrained sociopathic tendencies.

‘Pathanon, you automatically have 25% of the electorate in your hands. You didn’t earn it legitimately, and you know it. So as far as I can see, the only thing you’re bragging about is how much closer you are to realizing your ethos; the ends justify the means.

If that’s how you feel, say so.
--
“Maybe Obama could pull an election surprise in October 2012 and write another children's book.”

Or maybe he could just read a children’s book in response to becoming aware that America is under attack.
--
“Because the reason why these right-wing blowhards support tax cuts for the rich is that they support tax cuts for themselves”

Interesting, and good point -- something that should definitely be explored in the political discourse.
--
“then, why don't the Democrats support cutting middle class taxes”

Do you even own a tv?
--
“we'll make things work … count on it”

Of course you will, you have an advantage. You have no sense of right and wrong.
--
“Hillary for president: It sounds pretty good.”

I’m with you. Plus, I had her pegged as a diplomat years ago. As Secretary of State, involved in the challenging task of tactfully negotiating with leaders of other nation-states, I think she’s in her element. She did an interview recently and she was just beaming. I’ve NEVER seen her beam before (I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen her smile before).

Point being, her diplomacy in foreign relations affairs is one more foundation she has under her belt.

“bet it sounds good to Sarah Palin too!”

Sarah Palin is a psychopath. She would sell her children if the price was right.

December 05, 2010 9:38 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2010 10:31 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2010 10:36 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Part 2
--
“studies show that Republicans give more money to charity than Dems … they are also more responsible about who they give it to … private charities that help the needy”

And who better to help the needy than the greedy?
--
“and yet TTF says:”

"Rich people have kept their money from the government"

Take it up with Bush, he’s the one responsible for not making the tax cuts permanent.
--
OK, let's think about the top earner here, the Democratically demonized Limbaugh … having a tax rate of 35% instead of 40% has "saved" him 2.7 million … that's at a rate of 40%, his tax would be about 22 million … but at 35%, it is "only" around 19 million

That poor, poor 50 million dollar a year man.

The Bible on the Poor

The Bible contains more than 300 verses on the poor, social justice, and God's deep concern for both. This page contains a wide sample of them, and some reflections. It's aimed at anyone who takes the Bible seriously.

“seriously” being the operative word.
--
“Obama should realize his limitations, do what's best for the country...and resign.”

Absolutely, that “boy” needs to learn his place.
--
“70% of income tax revenue comes from the wealthiest 10% of the population … less than 3% come from the lower 50% of earners”

Well as long as families are just statistics, and despite what Jesus says on the matter, we can definitely ignore their plight without a shred of guilt.
--
“my husband and I”

Isn’t your husband an atheist, doomed to burn alive in God’s loving lake of eternal fire?
--
“if they do so motivated by the goal of accumulating more, that's really irrelevant, which is the magic of capitalism”

That “magic” of capitalism is temporary, and quite relevant. Capitalism without regulation is unsustainable, and there is only one end, the obliteration of the middle class. The concentration of wealth is designed to accumulate more wealth. Why do you think the high rollers of society lobby congress with truckloads of money? We are fast on our way to becoming a country of the have’s and have not’s.

GREED

If they/you had your way, we’d all be working in sweat shops for pennies an hour. Thus eliminating the opportunity to enjoy the “magic of capitalism” for the rest of we 99%.

And as far as “their money was earned honestly” goes, ever heard of Bernie Madoff? How about Enron? Goldman Sachs? Bank of America? British Petroleum? The Vatican?

You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

Remember, the Google is your friend.

December 05, 2010 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GREED

If they/you had your way, we’d all be working in sweat shops for pennies an hour. Thus eliminating the opportunity to enjoy the “magic of capitalism” for the rest of we 99%.

====================

Emproph.

Go to college, work hard, make good grades, work your butt off for your employers, go beyond the call of duty and just do things that need to be done.

You will make yourself so invaluable to them that you won't be fired, you will be a key contributor, and you will make a lot of money.

Now, granted, you won't be able to party very much in college, you may have to pull a lot of all nighters, you might have to go talk the dean of the college about being the first person to get a double major CS/ME in the history of the college... you might have to work a lot of weekends...
But you will be rewarded usually with a great job.

I make more money than any of siblings, double in fact. That is not an accident.

My brother partied like crazy in college and in highschool and went to a half rate college. My sister never graduated... my mom gave up on funding her college... I tried for a while, she still flunked out not because she is stupid but because she didn't bother to do the work.. and I flushed 3 or 4K down the toilet paying for her college, after my mom gave up. She is currently unemployed.

My youngest sister did work hard, did graduate and does have a good job. She was out of work for a while, but made a focused effort to find a good job and managed to do so. Switched back out of sales into development engineering... where she started, and she is working.

My nanny (and when I had three small children and was working 50 hours a week you have to have a nanny.and IT's cheaper than daycare...) I sponsored for a green card, co-signed her student loan, and she now has a PA degree... and she owns her own home and is going back to school to become a physician.

She was going to school in the evening and doing a great job with my kids AND tutoring. She worked 24x7 for a few years there, but now she is reaping the rewards of this hard work.

I believe that there are some people who will always feel like they are not responsible for the results of their actions and the results of the impact of their actions on their lives. I call them Democrats. What do you call them ?

This is the land of opportunity. The govt will pretty much pay for your education ... if don't make any money and don't have your own resources. Scholarships abound for those who try hard, get good grades, and whose parent's dont make much money (Bea's daughter is an example)

Even for those who don't have scholarships, you can work your way through to a better life. My Josie is living proof of that, who arrived here with very little funds 13 years ago. I don't know if I told you this story, but we fired another white babysitter to hire black as coal Josie... because I caught the college summer student reading a book while the children played unattended outside. And fired her the next day.

December 05, 2010 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you work hard, you can generally make it here. I have seen the example in my own family.

I don't believe that is an isolated case, I really don't.

So complain all you want. And go get off your duff and start working. If you would like to have more assets, stop complaining to those of us who work two jobs ... raising a family while working full time. After watching my sister QUIT a 90K job to stay home with the kids and then tell me I should quit my job to stay home with the kids because my children would be better for it.. and lecture me about how she was a better mom because she did...I simply answered that my family financial security was the most important thing to me...

So if you want be a artist, fine have at it, but don't expect PELOSI style those of us who constantly made sacrifices to pay for your health insurance. That was YOUR DECISION and YOU reap the consequences. If you decide to go have anal sex and you catch AIDS, don't expect me to pay for your medical treatment. I might decide to DONATE to that treatment, but I should not be compelled. Your decision, your responsiblity, your consequences.


Because, with the Republicans back in charge of the House, there will be NO FREE LUNCH.

December 05, 2010 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

imp seems to have a need to embarass himself with foolish statements

not much worth responding to but here's a few things we can mention:


"Any audience who needs others to tell them how to think and feel, will, of course, be completely receptive to the words of an authoritarian -- anyone who *sounds* like they know what they're talking about."

yes, we saw how TTFers can't come up with a rational explanation for their resentment of those who succeed so they simply post a link to the only socialist in Congress because they need someone to tell them how to think

it seems like you are simply jealous of those who succeed and want to strike out at them

If that’s how you feel, say so.

"Or maybe he could just read a children’s book in response to becoming aware that America is under attack."

interesting how liberals wobble back and forth between saying Bush over-reacted to 9/11 and saying he under-reacted to it

you're left with the impression that he's just another fellow they hate because he has succeeded

If that’s how you feel, say so.

"Do you even own a tv?"

yes, I do but I don't use as my main source of information like TTFers

Democrats favor maintaining the taxes on the middle class at current confiscatory levels and raising taxes on the "rich", who make more than 250K

they don't favor cutting taxes for anyone

you apparently resent the middle class too and also want them to suffer

If that’s how you feel, say so.

"I’m with you."

yeah, well she's got people skills and while I wouldn't agree with everything she does, she's on America's side unlike the sad joker in the White House now

"Sarah Palin is a psychopath. She would sell her children if the price was right."

you have no idea how much the over-reaction of the lunatic fringe left helps her

she really doesn't have any views that are that far out- pretty standard common sense conservative with formidable political skills

and she was key to the result of the election we just had

you hate her because you fear her political skills

If that’s how you feel, say so.

"That poor, poor 50 million dollar a year man."

so you just basically feel that anyone who has met with success owes you an accounting of what they do with their money

If that’s how you feel, say so.

"The Bible contains more than 300 verses on the poor, social justice, and God's deep concern for both. This page contains a wide sample of them, and some reflections. It's aimed at anyone who takes the Bible seriously."

not one of those verses says you should help the poor by forcibly taking money from the rich

yet that seems to be the way liberals believe they should help the poor

the Bible says no one should give out of compulsion

here's 2 Corinthians 9:7:

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

and let's be honest

no one is suggesting raising taxes to help the poor

there's plenty of government pork that could be eliminated to cover that

this is simply a way to strike back at those you resent

If that’s how you feel, say so.

"Absolutely, that “boy” needs to learn his place."

hey, look

you know you're winning an argument when the liberal plays the racist card

as incompetent as Obama is, you have to give him credit that he doesn't do this

maybe that's why all the liberals have turned on him

"families are just statistics, and despite what Jesus says on the matter, we can definitely ignore their plight without a shred of guilt"

so attacking the rich is a way you try to overcome your guilt, imp?

try producing and giving yourself

if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

I'm sure many feel that way and say so

right?

December 05, 2010 5:49 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

‘Pathanon mocking me:

“If that’s how you feel, say so.
If that’s how you feel, say so.
If that’s how you feel, say so.
If that’s how you feel, say so.
If that’s how you feel, say so.
If that’s how you feel, say so.”


'Pathanon, if you feel that my persistent requests for answers bothers you, just say so.

December 10, 2010 6:19 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 10, 2010 8:17 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

First of all, whoever you are, I am aware of and am an advocate of the hard-work ethic.

Secondly, I think a 35% tax rate is hideous on its face. But when the income itself is based on taking opportunity away from others, then I have no sympathy.

Who ever you are: “Because, with the Republicans back in charge of the House, there will be NO FREE LUNCH.”

Well said. Those darn 9/11 responding moochers.
-
Washington (Washington (CNN)

Senate Democrats failed Thursday to win ... open debate on a bill that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

due to a Republican filibuster ... [needed votes] fell short."

Republicans complained that the $7.4 billion price tag was too high ... to help the first responders to the deadliest terrorism attack in U.S. history.
-
You tell 'em, non-moniker, no more republican "Free Lunches" for those 9/11 first responder mooches.
--
I'd love to expound, but I have a few questions of character first.

Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

In hindsight, would you still?

If not, why did you change your mind?
--
If necessary, humor me.

December 10, 2010 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

after five days, that's all imp could come up with?

imp seems to have a need to embarass himself with foolish statements

at least he introduced a new topic:

"Did you support the invasion of Iraq?"

which one?

I was actually opposed to the first one, when Hussein invaded Kuwait

my thought was that we have nothing in common with any Arab country

to me, sending American soldiers to die for a country that bans Bibles is not appropriate

the second one was unavoidable because of the ten years of persistent and flagrant violations of treaties and U.N. sanctions by Saddam Hussein

btw, both invasions were supported by most Democrats and, if you believe wikileaks, by Iraq's Arab neighbors

"In hindsight, would you still?"

yes, but it was mismanaged

we should have left institutions intact and brought the boys home as soon as Hussein was apprehended

"If not, why did you change your mind?"

had pretty much the same mind all along

December 12, 2010 12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Secondly, I think a 35% tax rate is hideous on its face. But when the income itself is based on taking opportunity away from others, then I have no sympathy."

Explain, please....
how is income based on taking opportunity away from others ? I am struggling to think of an example.


And I saw my babysitter the other night (she brought a bday present over for my daughter)...

She is a raging conservative. Very funny, she might be even further right than I am .

Has just had it with all the folks she is exposed to at her job and clinics that continue to feed off society and accept no responsiblity for their actions.

December 15, 2010 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She didn't mean the clinics themselves, she meant the folks she sees at the clinics...

ie, the single moms thinking about having another kid so the out of wedlock kid they have - that they can't provide for - won't grow up as an only child.

approve of this behavior Emproph - because they take more and more and more money from people like me to fund behavior like this.


Which makes me hoard my money, calculate EVERY penny in terms of post tax dollars, NOT hire anyone to do anything I can possibly do myself, and not create any jobs.

I used to freely pay folks to do the things I could not get to... because I was working full time already and maintaining a household as well....

when you take more than 1/2 of every dollar I make, AND THEN THREATEN TO TAKE MORE, I hold off on fixing ths stupid sink and turn it off until my husband can find time to fix it...

why, because I figure out his after tax wage (when they take 60%) and determine that after tax he (and I for that matter) make less than the plumber....

So we figure out how to fix it ourselves.

Whereas, if I were paying even just 25% of my wages in taxes, no brainer, call the plumber.

The govt already takess 1/2 of every dollar.

That's enough. And the folks that can figure out how to incorporate pay next to nothing. Did you know UPS was paying all their guys as independent contractors for a while ? Because they only pay on the profit, so it is crazy not to incorporate.

And you have folks renting to themselves, forming one corporation which rents a property from their private tax return, brings their taxes down to 10K from 75K a year ... Where mine are.

75K a year. 2.5 years of college, easy, for any of my kids.

Unreal. and that's not enough. they want more.

I am helping my brother with a budget and realize that at 3x his family income I pay 8x the taxes he does. Almost 3 times.

when is enough enough ?

If you punish performance enough, people simply stop working.

You do realize that, don't you ?

December 16, 2010 1:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am helping my brother with a budget and realize that at 3x his family income I pay 8x the taxes he does. Almost 3 times"

Percentage wise of course.

December 16, 2010 1:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home