ThinkFast: February 17, 2010
ThinkFast: February 17, 2010
Four Democratic Senators — Michael Bennet (CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), and Jeff Merkley (OR) — have signed onto a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asking him to use the reconciliation process to pass a public health insurance option. “Including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system,” they wrote.
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) suggested yesterday that “his fellow Republicans should question what the White House plans to do at its health care summit before deciding whether to attend.” In order to work with Republicans, Bond said President Obama should “start from scratch and not go back to tweaking” the health care bills that passed both chambers of Congress last year.
President Obama plans to sign an executive order this week that will create a bipartisan commission “to recommend ways to rein in the nation’s escalating federal debt.” The panel will be lead by University of North Carolina President Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Republican senator from Wyoming Alan Simpson.
After a four-hour long meeting with RNC Chairman Michael Steele last night, tea party leaders asked if they could use the Republican Party’s facilities for a news conference. The Republican leaders, “probably wary of TV footage showing a tea party takeover” of RNC headquarters, “wouldn’t allow it.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters at a press event Monday that the “White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial.” “If they are in fact considering preventive detention legislation today, I think it would be a mistake both substantively and politically,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch.
Historians and Kennedy loyalists are criticizing “a new mini-series about John F. Kennedy’s presidency that is being prepared by the History channel” and is being produced by 24 creator Joel Surnow. “Every single conversation with the president in the Oval Office or elsewhere in which I, according to the script, participated, never happened,” Kennedy adviser Ted Sorenson told filmmaker Robert Greenwald.
“The size of the US force in Iraq has dropped below 100,000 troops for the first time since the invasion of the country in 2003.” There are now “approximately” 98,000 soldiers in the country, down from a peak of 170,000 during the surge in 2007.
The Committee to Protect Journalists announced yesterday that at least 71 journalists were killed around the globe last year, “the largest annual toll in the 30 years the group has been keeping track.” China and Iran, countries that have the most journalists in jail, “were particularly harsh in taking aim at bloggers and others using the Internet.”
Yesterday, the White House appointed the U.S.’s first ambassador to Syria since 2005. “If confirmed by the Senate, Ambassador [Robert] Ford will engage the Syrian government on how we can enhance relations, while addressing areas of ongoing concern,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
And finally: At a town hall meeting in Saudi Arabia, a student asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the prospect of a President Sarah Palin terrifies her. “And if so, would you consider emigrating to Canada or possibly even Russia in the event of this happening?” the student asked. Cracking up, Clinton responded, “Well, the short answer is, no. I will not be emigrating.” But she added, “I will be visiting, as often as I can.”
Follow ThinkProgress on Twitter.
208 Responses to “ThinkFast: February 17, 2010”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) suggested yesterday that “his fellow Republicans should question what the White House plans to do at its health care summit before deciding whether to attend.”
Just stay home, Kit. (What kind of name is that, anyway?) You have nothing but hate & vitriol to offer, much like the rest of your dying herd.
The idea of planning something is so foreign to Republics they suspect a ‘trap’. Paranoid, or is everybody really out to get them?
Buypartisanship. Alive & well in the US Congress…
February 17th, 2010 at 9:09 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Four Democratic Senators — Michael Bennet (CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), and Jeff Merkley (OR) — have signed onto a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asking him to use the reconciliation process to pass a public health insurance option. “Including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system,” they wrote.
Just get it done. Forget about re-elections and optics and bi-partisanship; especially bi-partisanship.
The republicans are wrong about the public option. They are wrong!!! Including them in the process, therefore, is wrong!!!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:11 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Kit Bond can pound sand. the Repugs have no interest in reforming health care and the American people know it. They know the Repugs are will obstruct ANY reform whether it’s about healh reform or the finacial industry. Their lust to regain power means everything to them. They will watch this Country collapse just so they can reclaim the Government again.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:15 amHey Timmeh, go sit down with Kit, DeMint, Graham, Hatch, Inhofe, Hoekstra and all the other wastes of space. My country is moving forward without you.
100K Tea Baggers DON’T represent the ‘American People’, as you think.
Reconciliation with a robust public option; GET IT DONE. NOW. Stuff it right down these pigs’ throats. The Tea baggers and the like will forget about it in 5 years, anyway.
DO IT!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:15 amUse reconciliation,, and use it now!! Ignore the reich-wingers; they’re just spewing misinformation. The American people WANT the Public Option, and Rethugs are scared that if health reform includes a robust public option, they will be the permanent minority.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:15 amTeaturds banned from RNC!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:16 am-film@11:00
Four Democratic Senators — Michael Bennet (CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), and Jeff Merkley (OR) — have signed onto a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asking him to use the reconciliation process to pass a public health insurance option.
Yes, please do SOMETHING!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:16 amThe troll seems to forget that the Bush Administration used Reconciliation to shove all sorts of legislation down out throats.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:16 amWhat, like the filibuster? Why aren’t you sitting down with the rest of the obstructionists yet? The GOP is NEVER going to do anything about anything – fcuk off and let my country catch up to the rest of the world.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:17 amI can understand the frustration Americans feel regarding the dysfunction in Washington.
Instead of pointing out past and present accomplishments of a Democratic administration like Civil rights, voting and housing right legislation Medicare and social security for the masses, credit card regulation, closing Gitmo, tax breaks for 95% of Americans the Democrats act like selfish children.
They have turned a majority in both houses into a give-away to the Repugs.
In the long history, what has the Republican Party EVER done for the average American? All they do now is distort fact and say “NO” to everything and yet they are positioned to make gains in both houses in Washington.
They caused the problem and after one short year Americans are ready to forgive them?
The Repugs platform is tax breaks and smaller government…Tax breaks for the rich and deregulation of banks and insurance is what they mean!
The people who advise the President need to wake-up or be fired. I’m looking for some intestinal fortitude from this administration…enough of being Mr. nice guy.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:17 amJeff Merkley (OR)
a rookie doing a good job, happy I voted for him at this point.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:17 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
If they could use reconciliation to attempt to reduce the deficit through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Medicare/Medicaid and student loan rearrangement procedures), why not apply it to health-care reform?
I say go for it.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:17 amI applaud Bennet, Gillibrand, Brown, and Merkley for sticking up for their principles and trying to do what’s best for the nation. If the Tom Periello effect is any indication (Periello won a pretty conservative district in’08, has supported healthcare, cap and trade, the stimulus, etc. and is either tied or leading his major contenders…due in large part to not acting like a Blue Dog), Bennet will actually benefit from this.
Just retire now, Bond. You worthless drunk. You had your chance to negotiate and you stonewalled everything that could be considered useful reform. The Dems caved and added tort “reform”, stripped the public option, allowed insurance carriers to sell across state lines…and you still accuse the plan as being socialist and evil. You are completely irrelevant.
Alright, Mr. President. Way to finally USE executive power. And pretty shrewd picking Alan Simpson. He is what Western Republicans SHOULD be: fiscally conservative without declaring a jihad on the government, and a civil libertarian (Simpson was pro-choice, anti-DOMA, and anti-DADT). Maybe the commission will turn out some rational advice. Like slashing defense spending first and foremost.
We are slowly drawing down in Iraq. I don’t doubt we’ll be able to meet the January 2011 deadline to get eveyone out. Unless all hell breaks loose post-election…
We’re finally sending someone back to Syria. It’s about damn time. It made little sense to freeze Syria out the way we did, especially considering the maelstrom Iraq became. Assad is a brutal dictator, but he can still be reasoned with. It’s simple Balance of Power: if we perceive our main threat in the region to be Iran, we must enage Syria and Turkey. If we want a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace treaty, we must engage Syria and Israel and force them to the negotiating table. If we want to stabilize Lebanon and prevent Hezbollah from provoking Israel into another war, we have to engage Syria. From a political perspective, Syria WOULD be the kind of ally we need in the region: strong, stable, and secular. If they weren’t intent on sabre-rattling with Israel and didn’t have rule-by-hereditary strongman, they’d be immensely useful as a regional partner.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:18 amTim Vaculik says:
…or are just extremely partisan, consequences be damned!
“Extremely partisan” – you mean just like the republicans?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:18 amKitty Bond should S.T.F.U., as should all repigs. These JoAnn Woorley’s of the political world are an embarrassment to themselves and the rest of the universe. And not funny, either.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:18 am9 – not banned necessarily, but the GOP is extremely embarassed to be seen with them in public. Sorta like going into the woods with a girl from school who’s not necessarily attractive but she gives hand jobs.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:19 amwildweasel says:
Think Fast!!!
Which president has has given the most administration jobs to his top political fundraisers in the past 40 years? Here’s a hint: It rhymes with OBAMA.
Interesting. I never knew a word could rhyme with itself.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:20 amYeah, maybe in Tea/GOP land; BTW, when the fcuk are you turds gonna secede already. I heard Texas has a really good deal on all new claims made; but you have to act fast!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:21 amAfter a four-hour long meeting with RNC Chairman Michael Steele last night, tea party leaders asked if they could use the Republican Party’s facilities for a news conference. The Republican leaders, “probably wary of TV footage showing a tea party takeover” of RNC headquarters, “wouldn’t allow it.”
Teabaggers, are you going take that sitting down?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:21 amMy apologies to JoAnn Woorley, the groundbreaking comic, for any offense taken by the previous posting….
February 17th, 2010 at 9:21 amHey! *tap tap* Tim! You paying attention over there? You’re parties are splintering like dried timber. Lead, Follow or get the fcuk out of the way.
We all prefer you do the latter. We know you’re completely incapable of doing the former.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:22 am@15, Repeating the same carnard doesn’t make it true dick-weed. I guess it works for sheeple like you. But we here are for more intelligent and not suseptible to brain-washing techniques like you and your brainless friends.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:23 amChina and Iran, countries that have the most journalists in jail, “were particularly harsh in taking aim at bloggers and others using the Internet.”
you watch… the next excuse to end NET NEUTRALITY:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:23 amwe’re going it for your own protection.
…
“preventive detention” What a nice-sounding term for a violation of the rule of law. With “preventative detention” you’re guilty on the accusation, no trial is therefore necessary. Such laws eventually are used to stifle dissent.
While Republicans would love to implement indefinite incarceration without a trial, it could be used to arrest and detain the entire Teabag movement as well as a governor or two who float the idea of secession. And, according to earlier articles, Bush has already built the massive detention centers necessary to hold them.
It will be interesting to see if Obama does, in fact, go down this road.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:24 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
@29, Yawn.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:25 am@29, vacuous.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:26 am@29, not very bright.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:28 amSo, Micheal Steele and his fellow Repugs won’t allow the ‘Baggers’ to use their facilities? Could it be they are embarrassed of the ‘Baggers’? It’s really bad for a Party to court the very people that they won’t even be photographed with. But hey, if the ‘Baggers’ want to be treated like common whores, go for it. That’s what the GOP is doing. They are using them.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:28 amHaha…Just have to chuckle reading Timmeh’s posts which imply, but never demonstrate, facts.
He lives in universe of his own making. He’s a legend in his own mind. He thinks it and thinks it then becomes fact! Poof!
Hey, you can defy logic!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:28 amTroll Vaculik says: Hey, you can’t defy gravity!
You can if you’re full of hot air, & the Republics are so full of that they’ve become weightless. Spineless. Gutless, to name just a few.
Remember this. They’re on record as ‘creating their own reality’.
That’s not a reality show, it’s a phucking phantasy.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:28 amTim Vaculik says:
So what percentage would MOST be?
just wondering.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:30 am@29, projection.
(PD, Dave, and Fritz – you have the right approach and I shall follow suit.)
February 17th, 2010 at 9:31 amThat’s called Selective Memory, I believe.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:31 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The teabaggers and gNOpigs are ONE and the SAME?
Never in a million years I could have figured it out. Really.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:31 amIn the long history, what has the Republican Party EVER done for the average American?
Meat packing legislation creating federal inspection of slaughter houses.
National Park system.
Those come to mind. But that was under Teddy Roosevelt, the first and last Progressive Republican. With his presidency, the business base took over the Republican Party and drove progressives out. Republicans have been pro-business ever since. It didn’t take them too long to drive our country into the Great Depression.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:31 am38 – or “Willful Ignorance”.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:32 amTo our trolls de jour–
February 17th, 2010 at 9:32 amFat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
And you can’t defy your stupidity. Welcome back to more abuse and insults from me you dogshit popsicle.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:33 amRepublics shower with Trolls while Teaturds film it. (They’re not allowed in the shower, you see.)
Obama raised a $100 million dollars in a very short time.
McCain couldn’t raise his very short dick for a long time.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:34 amHas the idea of holding a lottery on election day been considered? Coincident with the voting.
It might motivate people to go to the polls and would provide a source of revenue for the government.
Obviously voluntary. Run pretty much like states run lotteries for education.
More people at the polls and a revenue source to either help balance corporate contributions in future elections (like the $1 that many people allocate when they file their taxes) or the money could be used to pay down debt.
I’m sure there’s problems with the suggestion, what are they?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:36 amSen. Kit Bond (R-MO) suggested yesterday that “his fellow Republicans should question what the White House plans to do at its health care summit before deciding whether to attend.”
_______________________________________________________________
The Republicans are shaking in their boots. I don’t think they dreamed that President Obama would call their bluff.
They demanded their “ideas” be heard (even though they don’t have any except “anything Obama wants, we don’t want”). They demanded transparency, and no dealmaking going on in back rooms.
So Obama says, “OK, let’s discuss your ideas at a summit and we’ll televise it.”
The Republicans, remembering how Obama made them look like fools the last time he talked with them on television, realize this is a no-win for them. What to do? What to do? Ah yes — claim the whole thing is a trap, and they’re being set up.
If Kit Bond is really serious about wanting to know what Obama’s plans are, here’s a rough idea of how this whole thing might go:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: So what do you want?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:36 amREPUBLICANS:
Promoting fundraisers?? How awful! I mean, really, these guys show the organizational, administrative, and persuasive ability necessary to promote Obama in the campaign and that means they have the organizational, administrative, and persuasive ability necessary to promote the US and the Obama agenda as part of the Obama administration? Shocker! Obama should have chosen a horse show judge or people of that caliber.
/snark off
February 17th, 2010 at 9:37 amWhat to do call people who enjoy abuse? Sadists? Masochists? The trolls seem to love to get spanked. I always knew Repugs were kinky and strange, but the trolls or far more depraved.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:37 ammissmolly, you are no doubt correct. And Obama should have the summit anyway, regardless of who does or doesn’t show up. The Republican silence or obstruction should be televised.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:41 amCorrupt, criminal bastard RePugniScums and trolls like you.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:41 am50 P.D.
Teabagged
February 17th, 2010 at 9:42 amQ: What do Trolls’ kids want to be when they grow up?
A: N/A. Trolls never grow up.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:43 amRepublicans have a 41-vote majority now. If Democrats want to pass anything it will have to be through the reconsiliation process.
Republicans see bipartisanship and compromise as signs of weakness, and they despise weakness.
Democrats are going to own health care reform, or own the failure to pass health care reform in spite of having, at one time, 60 votes in the Senate.
Democrats, I implore you, pass the best program out there. There’s plenty of models to choose from already implemented in other industrialized countries. It’s time to stand up to the school-yard bullies running the Senate. Sure, they will kick and hollar and scream, but they’re doing that anyway.
The majority of the people voted for change. We’re tired of seeing things run the Republican way. Reid, now’s your chance to step up and deliver a TKO to the Republican Party.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:43 ambackup: It might motivate people to go to the polls and would provide a source of revenue for the government.
Or do what other countries do and hold the election on a Sunday rather than a work day.
Or do what Oregon has done and go to 100% mail-in voting.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:45 amSooooooooo – I don’t get it? Where’s the problem with this?
From the article:
Vietor said Obama also made it clear early on that he would “nominate extremely qualified individuals who didn’t necessarily come up through the ranks of the State Department but want to serve their country.”
Again – Who the fcuk cares?
Wooooo – BFD!
Sorry – maybe I’m missing something; if so, I apologize and I’ll have to do some homework. Until then, why is this an issue, again?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:45 amAnd if they don’t show up, they should have nameplates in front of the empty seats that the Piggies would have occupied. Be sure to have the TV cameras give frequent wide views to show the swath of empty seats to match the GnOP empty suits and empty promises. Let the whole country see the blatant obstructionism and lack of ideas that make up the GnOP.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:45 amOops — here’s the rest of the conversation:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: So what do you want?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:45 amREPUBLICANS: We want tort reform on the table.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, if I put tort reform on the table, what will you concede in exchange?
REPUBLICANS: Nothing. Our demands are non-negotiable.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, what other demands do you have?
REPUBLICANS: We want you to scratch everything and start over.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We’ve already scratched the public option, Medicare extension, and practically gutted everything else.
REPUBLICANS: We want to start over and we want to write the bill.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What would such a bill look like?
REPUBLICANS: We want private insurers to be able to operate in every state and not be subject to any state’s insurance laws except the state they’re headquartered in. We want malpractice suits eliminated, because after all, doctors are only human. We want private insurance companies to be able to charge whatever they want, plus a mandate that people MUST buy insurance under these conditions. Plus we want a photo-op with you kissing Boehner’s behind.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think we’re done here.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
johnnny@52, I love how some of the Righties were angry and blamed Progressives and ‘Liberals’ for coining the term ‘Baggers’ when it was the ‘Baggers’ themselves who did it. It’s not our fault the old, racist farts didn’t know what the term was used for. What dumb-asses.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:46 amThis reminds be of back when Bush was in charge. He conditioned talks on the opposition conceeding to his every demand before coming to the table.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:48 amTim Vaculik says:
Right Wing Dystopia,
the American people are most definitely NOT in favor of ramming through a so-called “public option”, my friend.
Sorry!
BS!! In August of 2009, 70% of Americans were in favor of reform that included a public option. It was only after the public option was dropped that Americans lost interest in Obama’s attempts to reform the space.
If Americans had the chance, they would support a public option but republicans, in their seditious zeal to remain relevant, will not let that happen because it would be their end.
You conservatives are unashamed liars and enemies of the middle class.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:49 amHehehe; That’s probably one of the most accurate depictions of dialogue that we’ll ‘hear’ come out of that meeting.
ZING. Nice one, missmolly.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:50 amjwest says: I like the lottery idea.
Make the tickets $100 each and give a billion dollar prize to 6 winners.
We already had a ‘winner’; Diebold.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:51 amDead From the Neck Up aka today’s GOP:
Perry, other Texas leaders sue EPA over finding on greenhouse gases
BY DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
AUSTIN — Escalating an attack on the Obama administration’s environmental policies, Gov. Rick Perry and other state officials filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the EPA’s 2-month-old finding that greenhouse gases significantly endanger public health.
Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples announced the lawsuit at a joint news conference, contending that the declaration is based on bogus conclusions and could cause billions of dollars in economic damage to Texas.
“The EPA’s misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ,” Perry said.
But EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz defended the policy, which is expected to result in more vigorous enforcement of clean-air standards.
LINK
February 17th, 2010 at 9:52 amAnd there we have it from a stupid a$$ troll. Another great reason to toss this idea into the nearest landfill.
jerkwaste, you are too stupid to hang out here. STFU and go away you slavery promoting, racist POS.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:53 amAbsolutely. Kick them while they’re down, too. Everybody FINALLY knows about their con-artist moves regarding the Recovery Act money and the exponentially growing amount of hypocrisy spewing out of the GOP. Now, let the public see how selfish, useless and absolutely hollow these cretins are.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:53 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Sounds like Dr. Frankenstein doesn’t want to be seen on stage with his monster.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:54 amI’m sure there’s problems with the suggestion, what are they?
Buy a mirror and you’ll find your answer.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:55 amjdub = “blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…”
Cry me a river and I’ll let you build a boat.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:56 am47. Backup,
It’s not a bad idea, per se…
But lotteries strike me as much easier to fix than elections. And in America, we KNOW how to fix elections. Hell. We even had a corporation rig one for us in ‘04.
And, gummitch. I’m with ya. We need elections on Sundays. You don’t hear Italians, Irish, Ukrainians, Serbians, Russians, Poles (the list goes on. all “secular” but devoutly Christian countries which hold general elections on their “day of rest”) complaining about holding an election on the Sabbath; why should we?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:57 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Briseadh na Faire says:
Sounds like Dr. Frankenstein doesn’t want to be seen on stage with his monster.
That’s Fronk-en-steen
February 17th, 2010 at 9:58 amJohnson, get the horses!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:58 am@76 – what hump?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:58 am@69. I’ll take that brand over the Republican kind any day. I sum it up in one word why: FEMA.
More specifically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown
find me something in here that qualifies this man to hold any sort of office.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:00 am[sorry, don't know how to link properly.]
No. The right sucks doggydicks and molest little boys just like you.
Now, go back to blowing Mark Koldys and taking it in the back 40 from Eric Odom. It’s your “special” talent.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:00 amBecause they have absolutely nothing else with which to smear our President. No wars of choice. No blow jobs. Nothing. Nada.
So they have to grasp at these thin little straws, and struggle to make the everyday business of government seem ominous.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:00 amDuring the Bush mal-Administration the reconciliation process was used three times in order to grant tax cuts to the wealthy. The Republican majority also used it in 2005 to slash the budgets for Medicare, Medicaid and student loans. Reconciliation was also used once during the Bush years by the Democratic majority in 2007 to reform/restore student aid that was cut in 2005. The use of reconciliation for tax cuts goes against the original intention of the practice which was for budgetary use. Tax cuts had a major negative impact on our budget and was an eggregious abuse of the process. Tax INCREASES would be more suited for reconciliation (and IMO should be used to increase the tax rates for the wealthy and to institute a 90% tax on bonuses and retention packages above 1 million dollars).
It seems to me that using reconciliation in order to pass a public option and to re-instate the anti-trust laws regulating HC costs are directly in line with it’s originally intended purpose of use in budgetary legislation. There is NOTHING in either the Senate or the House’s HC Reform Bill that would control costs as quickly, offer coverage to those without, offer a real option to those of us who are tired of giving our raises to HMOs every year to pay for bloated and un-needed increases and ease our budgetary concerns. It’s a no-brainer really (so it’s no surprise that it is so far over our troll’s heads).
The trolls really are deluded aren’t they? They (a miniscule and socially retarded portion of our Nation’s demographic) have truly convinced themselves (with the help of FAUX News and hate radio) that they “surround us” and that they represent a majority in this Nation. The political movement that couldn’t even rally a thousand people to their circle jerk with the Grandmilf. The movement that FOX “reporters” had to flub the numbers for at rallies over the summer so they could feel relevant. You TeaBaggers are a funny bunch. Not so much “ha ha” funny but still….
February 17th, 2010 at 10:02 amMy apologies to cheeseflap, genius and master of the haiku but…
There once was a troll named jwest
February 17th, 2010 at 10:03 amwho was nothing more than a pest
He spewed lots of garbage
from his mommy’s garage
When he’s gone, I’ll truly feel blessed.
President Obama plans to sign an executive order this week that will create a bipartisan commission “to recommend ways to rein in the nation’s escalating federal debt.” The panel will be lead by University of North Carolina President Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Republican senator from Wyoming Alan Simpson.
–
Meanwhile the republicans will slander President Obama on Fox non-stop. How much do you wanna bet that the R’s will block any debt-reducing legislation out of spite?
btw Good morning everyone! :)
February 17th, 2010 at 10:03 amOf course, SPERM will not tell you that all of the victims were also politically liberal, thus eliminating any political motivation for the crime. It appears at this point to be purely one of frustration, an individual who proved incapable of dealing with failure to earn tenure.
And in the reddest of red states, I might add.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:04 am75 STUMP
I am pretty sure you have a rat or squirrel that everyday tells you how clever you are rewriting headlines.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:04 amBriseadh na Faire says:
@76 – what hump?
Damn your eyes!
February 17th, 2010 at 10:05 amJoeyramonesmom,
I hope you have an interpretive dance to go along with that haiku.
You could perform it in your fur trimmed sparkle outfit.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:07 amWhat are they waiting for?
Hurry up and pass a Public Option.
The Dems would be shocked at how much higher their approval ratings would go.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:08 amMark Koldys pays our trolls with candy bars for golden showers.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:09 amSTORM says
February 17th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Left-wing extremism. Thought this term didn’t exist.
________________________________________________________________
Oh, the term exists — as practically all terms do as soon as somebody uses them.
Whether the concept exists is another matter, and how it’s defined is another matter still.
I’m not sure what your point is here, since there is no evidence that the Alabama shooter started killing people to further a left-wing agenda. All reports suggest her primary issue was her tenure. Now, if she had screamed, “for the Glory of Obama!” as she started shooting, we might take the label of “left-wing extremism” a bit more seriously (or, at least, the idea of “Obama extremism”).
This is obviously a dangerous woman who shouldn’t be running around loose (and, thankfully, she’s not at the moment). But she would be a dangerous woman no matter what her personal political leanings were. As far as we know, her shooting rampage (as well as her shooting her brother years ago) had nothing to do with President Obama or politics. And you’ll not find anybody here defending her actions.
Your attempt to paint her as representative of some kind of left-wing extremist movement isn’t gonna fly.
Fail.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:14 amAnd this is political how? Her far-left-wing ideology had nothing to do with her going nutso after getting denied tenure; it’s tangential.
To make it easier for you, troll, I’ll put it this way – she finally went bonkers after being denied tenure, not because she was a left-wing-nut bent on making a political statement.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:14 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
missmolly: Your attempt to paint her as representative of some kind of left-wing extremist movement isn’t gonna fly.
That particular description of the woman is unattributed, which is a practice that Right Wingers always criticize, and it’s buried near the very end of the article. The bulk of the article is about her problems with the university and the likelihood of losing her job.
Fail, indeed.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:17 amDave N,
February 17th, 2010 at 10:17 amPlus she did kill her brother years before (accidentally) but that could have added to Bishop’s mental stress…being denied tenure was the final straw and she snapped.
All credibility is lost when trolls post links to a blog with this in the “About Us” section:
Fail.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:18 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
94
Michelle Maglalang has gone sht flinging Baboon?
If I had to choose, Glenda crying looks much prettier that catfish face Maglalang.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:20 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Shorter 98: “Squirrel!!”
February 17th, 2010 at 10:21 amSeems like Storm is getting dumber by the day. Same with jwest.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:21 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Jwest…
February 17th, 2010 at 10:24 amThat was a limmerick, not a haiku, genius.
@98. And fascism is derived from right-wing extremism. Care to look at the body count there sport?
February 17th, 2010 at 10:25 amUSNclerk says:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:27 am@98. And fascism is derived from right-wing extremism. Care to look at the body count there sport?
–
He won’t. He’s too busy slandering everyone on the left for the actions of a few individuals who lost their minds. Terrorists or assailants of any kind should go to prison…no need to play the politics card.
Looks like it cuts both ways DRIZZLE:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
February 17th, 2010 at 10:28 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
STORM says:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:30 amYou calling the department of energy dumb?
–
Nope. I’m calling you dumb and you just proved my point.
@106. True enough. but to depict progressives as violent people is just ridiculous. I personally have to respond to idiocy like that just once. Having done so I will now ignore the trolls, talking about them and not to them.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:32 amUSNclerk says:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:33 am@106. True enough. but to depict progressives as violent people is just ridiculous. I personally have to respond to idiocy like that just once. Having done so I will now ignore the trolls, talking about them and not to them.
–
Good point. I think I’ll ignore them as well…they’re pulling massive amounts of copy and paste BS out out of their asses this morning.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Well its pretty clear Storm doesn’t know who Rachel Carson was, and I’m sure he has never read Silent Scream either. But he posts some trash by some guy who calls himself Doctor Zero.
Fail…
February 17th, 2010 at 10:35 amangels81, did you mean Silent Spring?
February 17th, 2010 at 10:36 amjwest: The information on Amy Bishop simply highlights the typical profile of a left-wing extremist, their propensity for violence and the instability of their personality.
It does? Really. My goodness, but where are those thousands of left-wing extremist killers? Is this all just going unreported by the “liberal media”, or are you simply pulling this out of your ass?
You’re not very good at thinking, are you?
February 17th, 2010 at 10:37 amMan, this troll is stubborn and stupid. Sort of like a drooling boxer, only uglier…… and meaner
February 17th, 2010 at 10:38 amFacts? Is says right there on page 2 of the report you linked to in 103:
Riddle me this: how does an assumption equal fact?
February 17th, 2010 at 10:39 amMy mistake, I did mean Silent Spring. Need more coffee.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:41 amGummitch,
There is no denying Amy Bishop fits the profile of the average violence prone leftist.
Look at the crazy eyes, poor personal hygiene, radical support for Obama, inability to maintain composure in an IHOP restaurant – all immediate warning signs of liberalism.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:50 amShould I come fact to face with Kit Bond, I would have to restrain myself from the urge to tweak his nose. Loser!
SSDD from the obstructionists in congress: no, we won’t cooperate with Obama on anything – don’t care if it would benefit the nation — won’t support anything that comes of any meeting and in fact, will work hard to discredit it.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:54 amjwest says:
No one is claiming the recent shootings were politically motivated.
The information on Amy Bishop simply highlights the typical profile of a left-wing extremist, their propensity for violence and the instability of their personality.
Perhaps if we learn from this episode, we can identify others with the same mental flaws and take measures to protect innocent people.
Saying “no one is claiming” that is a disprovable statement. Didn’t Olby Sucks come here just the other day and call the shootings politically-motivated?
It’s like saying that no one believes the world is flat–it might appear to be a true statement, but until we ask everyone we’ll never know if that statement is correct.
Of course, then you go ahead and insinuate that Ms. Bishop fits the profile of left-wing violence. So while you say you don’t believe there is political slant to the shootings, you then try to tie the shootings into a political stereotype.
If there is “no one” “claiming the recent shootings were politically motivated”, don’t turn around and hint that it was a politically-motivated shooting.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:54 amEvery major economic research firm has now said that the stimulus package worked – providing 1.6 – 1.8 jobs in 2009 and on target to reach the goal of 2.5 by the end of 2010.
Obama plans to announce a bipartisan commission to study the deficit and make recommendations — this, despite no support from Congress – (they do have their sacred cows, you know) –
Repugs plan to boycott it — I think their gear is stuck in “short-sighted.”
Scarborough, in his usual left-handed way, praised Obama for his energy announcement yesterday, noting that much of what he announced was first suggested years ago by repugs. Obama’s announcement will dare them to show themselves as obstructionist hypocrites evern more if they object to these initiatives.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:01 amStorm has a point back at #75:
Here’s a TP post that connects a crazy, like Bishop, to a political party:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/10/brunn-holocaust-shooter/
There are plenty of crazy people and neither party has a monopoly.
But, is should be one way or the other. If we’re going to use the politics of a lunatic to paint a whole ideology, doesn’t the logic work if the lunatic is progressive?
My take: the political leanings of crazy people don’t bear on the rational of the ideology they support.
It’s a cheap trick either way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th370QmFtk8
February 17th, 2010 at 11:01 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I find it amusing that Kit Bond wants Obama to scrap the health care bill and start from scratch in order to obtain bipartisan support. Does Kit Bond mean the type of bipartisan support that just happened with the bipartisan deficit commmission? There were 7 Republicans who cosponsored the bill and then voted against it last week. The Republicans need to start from scratch because their obstruction tactics are failing. The health care bill is two steps away from becoming law. There is no reason for Obama to trust the Republicans.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:02 amTroops in Iraq are now at 98,000. Last year there were 170,000.
There is some success in Afghanistan/Pakistan but I stil think there is going to have to be some kind of “let’s declare victory and get out” plan in order to exit.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:04 amjwest: Look at the crazy eyes, poor personal hygiene, radical support for Obama, inability to maintain composure in an IHOP restaurant – all immediate warning signs of liberalism.
Oh, I get it. You’re trying to make a funny.
Sorry, you’re as bad at funny as you are at thinking.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:04 amWhile it is true that there is no direction to shootings (violence could breed from any ideology), we must not jump on every shooting as being politically-charged. It rests primarily on the stability of the individual first.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:06 amGummitch,
“Oh, I get it.”
And people say that liberals are “slow”.
I’m going to start sticking up for you.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:07 amjwest says:
Now it’s left to wonder if her murdered brother had revealed himself as a global-cooling denier (which was the “settled science” of the day).
I do hope your sarcasm doesn’t get you into a situation like this.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:11 amHistorians and Kennedy loyalists are criticizing “a new mini-series about John F. Kennedy’s presidency that is being prepared by the History channel” and is being produced by 24 creator Joel Surnow. “Every single conversation with the president in the Oval Office or elsewhere in which I, according to the script, participated, never happened,” Kennedy adviser Ted Sorenson told filmmaker Robert Greenwald.
Join the fight and sign the petition to tell “The History Channel” not to show this trash. The video included is 11:50 long. It is good and includes a Fox “News” connection.
http://www.stopkennedysmears.com/
February 17th, 2010 at 11:11 amNearly half of Bush’s appointments after Election Day were filled by donors who gave a total of nearly $1.9 million to Republicans since 2003, according to an analysis of the postings. At least 20 of the positions were filled by former Bush aides, plus others filled by old hands from the administrations of Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
… Nearly a year into his presidency, some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren’t getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and access to the White House…
February 17th, 2010 at 11:13 amWaPo
Purple State,
“……we must not jump on every shooting as being politically-charged. It rests primarily on the stability of the individual first.”
If you are going to break ranks with your party, prepare to be vilified.
For years, everyone and anyone who could possibly be linked to republican that was shot was automatically declared to be a victim of right-wing, gun-toting, violence-prone, Beck/Limbaugh-inspired, NRA-enabled, redneck radical politics.
You’re going to need to make a choice between standing by your reasoned statement or being a liberal – you can’t have them both.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:14 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
jwest lies.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:23 amA lot.
His argument flies.
Not.
All he tries.
Rot.
To the trolls –
I guess the squirrel of the day is “left-wing extremism”? And you are taking the “against” position, expecting that most of us would defend it?
You may recall the report the DHS released on right wing extremism, and how the right wing reacted to it. They actually DEFENDED the violent extremism warned about in the report, making no separation between people who merely hold right-wing views but would never commit an act of violence, and people who believe violence is a necessary way to further an agenda.
Unlike the wingnuts, most of us on the left CONDEMN violence, and don’t identify with extremists on either end of the scale who use violence as a political statement. Yes, this includes “left-wing” extremists.
That said, there are people in the world who commit acts of violence for reasons having nothing to do with politics — even though the perpetrators may have strong political views. Job-related violence (such as the case of the Alabama shooter) and domestic violence are but two examples.
I agree that we need to do more to identify people (such as Amy Bishop or Seung-hui Cho) likely to become unhinged in a violent way and intervene before tragedy occurs. People can snap no matter what their ideology.
Your attempts to pin this type of tragedy on “left-wing extremism” only shows us that your toolbox is empty.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:26 amjwest says
February 17th, 2010 at 11:14 am
For years, everyone and anyone who could possibly be linked to republican that was shot was automatically declared to be a victim of right-wing, gun-toting, violence-prone, Beck/Limbaugh-inspired, NRA-enabled, redneck radical politics.
________________________________________________________________
Interesting accusation. Prove it. Let’s see a list of examples to back up this claim.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:30 amjwest says:
Har5125,
“Join the fight and sign the petition to tell “The History Channel” not to show this trash.”
Ya, I’m with you. Then let’s get down to the library and burn those anti-liberal books too.
It’s certainly not like this movie will be the accurate depiction of events like the numerous films about Bush.
Liberal Facism. Alive and well.
Dude, watch the video. One of the individuals in it was there and he says there is dialogue in the mini-series never took place. This includes stuff they say he said which he did not.
Please STFU and go to RedState.com where idiots like you belong!
February 17th, 2010 at 11:31 amsigning a petition is fascism?
poor jwest is just piss ignorant.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:35 amLiberal Facism. Alive and well.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:36 am–
Hitler hated liberals too jwest.
jwest says:
For years, everyone and anyone who could possibly be linked to republican that was shot was automatically declared to be a victim of right-wing, gun-toting, violence-prone, Beck/Limbaugh-inspired, NRA-enabled, redneck radical politics.
You’re going to need to make a choice between standing by your reasoned statement or being a liberal – you can’t have them both.
I’m going to be reasonable here, jwest. I am a liberal and a progressive, but just by calling myself that, that doesn’t mean I have to get into lock-step with ranks and agree that every mass-murder rampage is politically tainted. I am someone who would rather look at the individual and analyze what his or her motivation was in the shooting.
I look at killers as being products of their motivations and their original state-of-mind. I see some killers that are instable in the first place and get pushed over the edge by mitigating factors such as religion, politics, and personal beliefs. I also see some killers who are driven to instability by these factors, then crack when the factors get too heavy. I also see killers who are mentally unbalanced in the first place, but the factor that causes them to snap is less related to circumstantial facts.
I can be a liberal, and I can stand behind my personal beliefs. I can be a member of a circle, yet have the freedom to walk outside of that circle, determine if that is the type of company I wish to associate with, then freely walk back into the circle. Being part of a circle or label ought to mean that people should have the freedom to step outside of that label any time they desire.
You conservatives should try it some time.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:39 amFred,
February 17th, 2010 at 11:40 amThese trolls aren’t even trying to be factually correct anymore. And yet they call that the truth. Idiots.
jwest: It’s certainly not like this movie will be the accurate depiction of events like the numerous films about Bush.
Numerous? And those would be . . .
February 17th, 2010 at 11:45 amjwest: It’s certainly not like this movie will be the accurate depiction of events like the numerous films about Bush.
Like The Path to 9/11?
Thanks, for a dose of humor.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:50 ammissmolly. Here’s an example of the media linking crazies to the right wing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018561.php
And here’s a few examples of left wing extremism that you may not have heard of:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjczMjEzNjUzMjI4MmYyOGFlZTI0NDI1MzZkZmNjOTQ=
February 17th, 2010 at 12:37 pmHere’s another example:
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april09/wanted042109.html
The idea is that the MSM has a propensity to try to link crazies to right wing extremism, but not left wing extremism when the perps are leftist.
Or highlight the right wing examples while they ignore examples from the left.
The suggestion is that happens due to a bias in the media.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:39 pmcappy, you give one example of right wing crazies when they are many and everywhere. Funny.
Another thing that is funny is that the few left wing extremists you link to come from the national review, funny shit honey.
Especially since not one of the whole 4 examples they dug up did anything more than plan.
So in summary, you seem to have nothing but you offer it anyway.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:42 pmTimmeh
You really are hilarious. The stupid never stops with you. You are like the perpetual motion of ignorance. I think you MAY be even as stupid as Hannity.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:45 pmA little history:
Yes, left wing extremists have existed.
When I was in college (back in the Second Age of Middle Earth) they were called Marxists.
They had a rote-memorized analysis for everything, and they had ties to the Soviet Union.
They tried to infiltrate our student organizations, and inject doctrinaire Marxism into everything. We knew who they were,and what they were about. They failed over and over again to convert most of us, and quickly slidover into the violent extreme.
The point is, the liberal/progressive movement dealt with its radical fringe, repudiated it and extirpated it. The conservative movement has not. You won’t find a single communist voice in the liberal/progressive camp–but you’ll find plenty of white supremacist/militia/dominionist voices on the Right.
I know plenty of conservative folks who don’t like socialism but who’ve been burned so badly by the health insurance industry they’re for single payer. I know conservatives who are more isolationist than interventionist, and conservatives with gay members of their families.
The Republicans are not interested in them, and they’ll be a minority Southern White party until they do what the liberal/progressives do and repudiate their loonies.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:50 pmFred. It’s a perception that a lot of people share.
For example. I don’t recall anyone in the main stream media trying to connect Major Hassan’s attack with the anti-war movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs0cwMhhnRw
I don’t recall anyone suggesting that the anti-war movement (or muslims in general) were fomenting hate or influencing people to violence.
If we don’t paint Muslims or anti-war forces with the actions of Major Hassan; why to we try to paint the conservatives or the right wing with the actions of it’s lunatics?
February 17th, 2010 at 12:51 pmI was one of those Communists. Maybe if you had listened to us more back then we wouldn’t be where we are now.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:53 pmThat’s because they weren’t and you can’t make the connection.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:53 pmI’m pretty sure that people here are not going to deny that craziness occurs in people who are affiliated with the left wing, backup.
However, to assume that being left-wing or right-wing drives murderers as the sole factor is incorrect. It requires evidence that is beyond circumstantial.
That’s the offense I take with people who try to tie politics to a mass murder when the evidence is not all there. If the evidence points at people who are unstable due to non-political reasons, people shouldn’t make the mistake of hunting down only political reasons.
It requires many factors to produce a criminal, so it should require deep analysis into that person’s psyche.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:56 pmmissmolly, brought to you by Diet Pepsi says:
If Kit Bond is really serious about wanting to know what Obama’s plans are, here’s a rough idea of how this whole thing might go:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: So what do you want?
REPUBLICANS:
I think you nailed it Miss Molly ;)
February 17th, 2010 at 12:56 pmFred
Not to mention that they were MOSTLY infiltrated by the FBI and it was the FBI that was fomenting a majority of the violence to discredit the movement. I dont remember any REAL connections to the USSR just a lot of CLAIMS they were puppets of the Soviets. People need to remember COINTELPRO.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:57 pmYou are right about the violence. It was manufactured.
However, we did have connections to Moscow, Cuba, etc.
Many of us went to Cuba during and shortly after the revolution to work with the people. Remember, the revolution was popular in the US when it happened.
Some of us even went to Moscow. The FBI definately knew who we were.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:06 pmBackup –
1. Regarding the examples of “the media linking crazies to the right wing” in the link you gave — there is far more evidence of political motivation for the actions of Poplawski, Von Brunn, Adkisson, and Roeder than there is for the actions of Amy Bishop. Bishop’s actions were more in line with the actions of other “disgruntled employee” shootings, such as Jason Rodriguez or Timothy Hedron, neither of whose political views we know anything about. However, if further investigation of Amy Bishop shows she belonged to political extremist groups, wrote articles advocating violence against conservatives, read books advocating left-wing violence, or had any other history that suggested her shootings might be politically motivated, then yes — the media should report that.
2. My only guess as to why the extremists listed in your FBI link haven’t been all over the media is because they haven’t actually killed anyone yet. If one of them goes out and commits an act of carnage that takes human lives, I imagine the media will be all over it. You may also have noticed that the extremists on the right seldom get any press until they actually kill people either, so there’s really no conspiracy here.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:08 pmExit Stage Left says
February 17th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I think you nailed it Miss Molly ;)
______________________________________________________________
What’s really funny is that I accidentally hit the “submit” button prematurely. I hadn’t intended my post to suggest the GOP would have no response (and I even related the hypothetical conversation in a later post).
But I think suggesting the Republicans have no response is more to the point. Either because they fail to show up, or because they really have nothing to say.
Now I wish I had really meant to post that…
February 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pmIf the repukes decide to boycott the health insurance summit, will there still be interest by those who make programming decisions to televise it? No television cameras sounds like a great way for the corporate masters to prevent the masses from noticing the obstructionist repigs didn’t show up, and have no interest in reform.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:14 pmFred. you can’t make the connection if you have a liberal bias.
Consider this from my link above:
From this logic: Scott Roeder opposes abortion and kills abortion doctor. He’s linked to right wing because the right wing also opposes abortion.
Now, Doctor Hasan. He opposes the war and kills soldiers. Is he linked to left wing because the left wing also opposes war?
What’s the difference?
If Roeder is motivated by right wing hate, what is Hasan motivated by?
Why does the MSM connect Roeder to the right wing; but not Hasan to the left wing?
Maybe because the intent (consciously or subconsciously) is to suggest those that have an ideology different than the observer (MSM) , have that ideology, because they are in some way mentally deficient.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:15 pmmissmolly, brought to you by Diet Pepsi says:
But I think suggesting the Republicans have no response is more to the point. Either because they fail to show up, or because they really have nothing to say.
Now I wish I had really meant to post that…
With all due respect, I think your post with the empty repuke response is closer to reality. Plus, it made me laugh. Thanks :)
February 17th, 2010 at 1:16 pmSo now the morons like little jimmywest are calling liberals fascists. Come on idiots, either we are commies, socialists or fascists but we can’t be all three, get with the program.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:18 pmThe war on Muslims that the right wing shouts at the top of their lungs.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:19 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Timmeh V, you are phucking hilarious. Before you spout off on reconciliation and how it will destroy Senate comity, you should be reminded that the republican majority have used reconciliation many times in the past. They used it to pass the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy you ignorant moron.
As for the functionality of the Senate being affected, that’s funny coming from a supporter of the obstructionist party of no.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pmTim, you are not well read, you are lobotomized.
The Ameican people favored the public option over all other options and popularity went down as the bill was watered down.
You said you could read, then try it for a change instead of repeating rushisms.
Click here for a test of tim’s reading ability.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:26 pmFrom the link Fred posted: ”
Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all.”
:)
February 17th, 2010 at 1:29 pmFred. You can see that if someone had a conservative bias, they might think Hasan was influenced by the efforts of anti-war forces that highlighted military abuses of Muslims.
That’s the point. The reason why right wing crazies cause the MSM to question right wing ideology, but no such association is made between left wing crazies and left wing ideology; is the liberal bias of the MSM.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:31 pmTim Vaculik says:
February 17th, 2010 at 1:31 pmwell, you may be ‘intelligent’, but are you well-read? Obviously not. If you were, you would know what I said is indeed true.
–
Timmy is almost using circular logic here…or: “what I said was true because I said it.” The bible does the same thing.
Fred and Eugene – oh, you’ve brought back many (some un-) pleasant memories.
J.E. Hoover was the most evil (until the ‘Dick’ Cheney). Dissent wasn’t to be tolerated and the FBI was going to ‘bring us down’.
Paul Wolf does a great job on COINTELPRO
[COINTELPRO - FBI Repression of Political Dissent (US) (1956-1971)]
February 17th, 2010 at 1:36 pmYou ignore reality in your quest for relevance backup.
Even gw bush’s homeland security listed right wing extremism as the number one threat to security in the US.
That has not changed. Now tell me why bush, a republican didn’t list any left wing extremists on his list?
I’ll wait.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:37 pmFred. I don’t know.
But, do you really believe that those on the right wing are capable of violence because of their ideology, while those on the left wing are not?
February 17th, 2010 at 1:50 pmIP @ #165,
I guess I should have assumed you needed a little more detail:
of course reconciliation has been used, but it can only be used for CERTAIN TYPES of legislation! Even Democrats have explained reconciliation is not appropriate in the case of the health care bills!
Try getting better informed will ya?
February 17th, 2010 at 1:52 pmNo, that’s not what I believe. There are probably a few on the left but you now have an entire generation of right wingers deciding whether to embrace or reject the violence that the right is sponsoring.
Deny that?
February 17th, 2010 at 1:57 pmBizzaro,
Sorry, but Just like every other person here you cite surveys of public opinion from LAST YEAR! Public opinion has shifted quite dramatically since then.
Also, you misquote the survey itself. It was only 53% that ’strongly supported’ the public option back then with 30% “somewhat supporting” so in actuality it NEVER enjoyed overwhelming support anyway!
February 17th, 2010 at 2:01 pmtimmy, scroll up and view the posts that exibit your lack of any abilty to be informed.
You need to find a 7 or 8 year old if you want to feel intellectually superior, it aint flying here.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:04 pmTim,
February 17th, 2010 at 2:04 pmDo you suck at math too? 53% “strongly supported” is still the majority even if it has shifted. Do you have a point or are you just here to lie through your teeth?
Bizzaro,
Further, support for the public option had eroded even as early As last december with only 40% in favor and 48% opposed. This from a Rasmussen Reports article dated December 24, 2009!
February 17th, 2010 at 2:08 pmBizzaro,
Since when is 53% considered “overwhelming”? Gimme a break!
February 17th, 2010 at 2:09 pmMost Who Oppose Health Reform, DADT Repeal Won’t Vote Democratic
February 17th, 2010 at 2:09 pmTim Vaculik says:
Bizzaro,
Further, support for the public option had eroded even as early As last december with only 40% in favor and 48% opposed. This from a Rasmussen Reports article dated December 24, 2009!
–
February 17th, 2010 at 2:09 pmLink please.
Uh, that’s when it was on the table, after that, there were no polls on it because republican obstruction had removed it from play.
get informed would ya.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pmFred. I don’t know what you’re asking me to deny, but I believe this:
There are extremists on the right and on the left.
If there are crazies like Hasan or Roeder, I don’t think their actions reflect on political affiliates they have.
They’re just crazy.
Additionally, if groups like anarchists that protest the World Bank, or Greenpeace that protests whaling, or militiamen or tea partiers that suggest violence to oppose tyranny; that doesn’t point to ideology as a cause of violence. It only suggests there are people (of any persuasion) that want to use violence to attain their goals.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pmHad fun… Gotta go
Keep reading kids!
February 17th, 2010 at 2:12 pmTim Vaculik says:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:14 pmBizzaro,
Since when is 53% considered “overwhelming”? Gimme a break!
–
Did I use the word “overwhelming?” No. Maybe you need to go back to school: 53% is bigger than 30%…that’s a majority even if it is a kinda small one.
Fred, Fred, Fred!
Check your facts, man! It wasn’t only Republicans that opposed the public option!
Geez!
February 17th, 2010 at 2:15 pmmaybe you can give me an example because they don’t suggest violence. They often encounter it.
If you can’t re read my post at 174 and address it then I want to know why. Is it because it makes your points look foolish?
February 17th, 2010 at 2:16 pmbut you fail to show that as anything more than you just sayin it’s so.
That’s pitiful and carries no weight. We showed you the truth and you rejected it. You are a typical teabagger.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:19 pmFred. I don’t know what you mean by this:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
backup,
February 17th, 2010 at 2:20 pmHe’s talking about the gun toting tea-baggers that yell about some stupid revolution.
So, you haven’t heard the race baiting and talks of secession and rebellion from the teabaggers and republican candidates for president, like palin, etc.?
If you can’t see that I can’t help you much. I refuse to argue with your obtuse rejection of fact.
It’s up to you.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:23 pmFred and bizarro. Thanks. How much of the tea party movement is ‘gun toting’ or race baiting?
If I tried to characterize all environmentalist by violent actions of a few Green peacers I don’t think that characterization would have merit.
There are tea partiers that suggest violence. There are also animal rights advocates, environmentalists, and anti-capitalists that espouse violence.
I guess what’s fundamental on this issue is ‘how much’. How much of the movement is prone to violence?
Partisan efforts from the left would like everyone to believe the violence (or racism) predominates. Partisans from the right would point to the fiscal conservatism promotion of the movement.
I guess the answer depends greatly on where you get your news.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:34 pmYou will have to show me some proof that this isn’t just a pipe dream of yours. greenpeacers are not violent.
Stop it and address the issue or kiss off
February 17th, 2010 at 2:37 pmYou’re attempts to paint the left as violent while ignoring the real violence exhibited by the right is dishonest cappy.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:40 pmhere’s the animal rights activist violence example:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/tersandiego_da.htm
Here’s some information on eco-terrorism, violence used to promote environmentalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
February 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pmI did some initial looking on Greenpeace, this is all I came up with.
http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/12/18/greenpeace-further-distances-itself-from-paul-watson-and-sea-shepherd/
February 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pmcap, you list people who destroyed or planned to destroy property. That’s just bullshit.
Again: You’re attempts to paint the left as violent while ignoring the real violence exhibited by the right is dishonest cappy.
It’s not a political perspective as I’ve pointed out that even the bush admin agrees so get real or get fu cked.
You’re starting to piss me off.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:54 pmVandalism and bombing/shooting people are not the same thing, backup.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:06 pmBishop’s killed four people. Hasan killed 13.
I don’t think I’ve ignored right wing violence here. Plenty of right wing examples of violence exist.
My point is that you can’t paint an ideology by singling out the crazies.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:14 pmteabaggers are not singling out, they represent the right today. Moderates are abandoning the right because of them.
Again, why didn’t bush single out the left cappy?
sheesh
February 17th, 2010 at 3:17 pmWhat examples of tea party violence are you talking about Fred?
February 17th, 2010 at 3:19 pmbackup says:
My point is that you can’t paint an ideology by singling out the crazies.
That is true. Anarchists come in many flavors. But you can paint them by which groups feed their sentiment.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:38 pmhttp://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/197250.php
for you cappy
February 17th, 2010 at 3:43 pmFred. Come on. There’s going to be a protest and the authorities are worried there might be violence?
Wouldn’t that be a concern for other kinds of protests where people are upset?
A more important question is this:
It’s been almost a year, have these concerns about tea party violence materialized?
February 17th, 2010 at 4:05 pmpag2. I see your point. If people that were gathering at tea party events and becoming violent, the movement would bear responsibility.
I haven’t seem much evidence that the events are violent or that people are acting violently because of the events or the movement in general.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:07 pmTimmeh you are still so stupid your every post makes me laugh. The public option was VERY popular. It polled at about 70% approval. My GOD you are a moron
February 17th, 2010 at 6:05 pmjwest
You pathetic punkass troll dont you ever get tired of proving to everyone how incredibly stupid you are?
February 17th, 2010 at 6:06 pmTell The History Channel how you feel:
thc.viewerrelations@aetv.com
—————
backup,
You are STILL the king of the false equivalency!
———————-
Last July, the public option was favored by OVER 70% in polls.
For decades, universal, government-run, single-payer polled about 65% approval.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:24 pm