http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2461-Six-GOP-Co-Sponsors-of-PIPA-Ask-Reid-to-Cancel-Vote

"Without suggesting an alternative bill focused on improving the plight of struggling American's, RIP-ublicans clearly have their heads up their @%%&%"

Let's put this particular peice of stupididty to rest, shall we?

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/11/10/updated-summary-of-22-jobs

The GOP has !!22!! alternative bills focused on improving the plight of struggling Americans. It is Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and the Democrats who are lovingly french-kissing their own duodenums.

I know it is really REALLY hard for people on the left to process facts that are rooted in fundamental truth and reality - but just for once give it a shot? This whole "do-nothing Congress" line is nothing but prog-lib propoganda that leftists are desperately repeating on thier blogs and on the news in order to get the inattentive and stupid to beleive the GOP is the problem. It is something the left is REALLY pushing hard right now because they've got nothing else to go on this election cycle - what with Obama being such a dismal failure.

Case in point - Obama has by himself using what can only be described as tyrannical executive fiat - has within the past 13 days PERSONALLY killed 600,000 jobs. The Canadian oil pipeline, and natural gas drilling in Ohio. Both projects would have immediately created hundreds of thousands of jobs. If Obama wanted to goose jobs, he'd allow both projects to proceed. But because he's a leftist moron, he blocks them. And it is the REPUBLICANS who are stopping job creation by not agreeing with Obummer's idiotic tax & union slush bill? Sometimes I wonder if the prog-lib left has any clue about real life.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Translation: Total Ownage of the left.

"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.
The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."
More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."
When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.
In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.
Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."
When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.
Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."
AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"



Not one of the people you mentioned commenting on Conservative Blacks is on the "Left" in anyway shape or form. Please apologize to us lefties immediately because we can't take this sort of abuse.

Translation: Total Ownage of the left.



"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.

The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."

More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.

In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.

Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)

Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."

When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.

Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."

AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"

With Republicans standing in 100% opposition to everything Democrats try to pass (even the Republican-lite stuff), what can Obama do about anything the protesters are upset about?

Obama's "plans" (when he has them) are so awful, so incompetent, and so ill-designed that even the Democrats won't vote for them. Obama's so-called 'Job Bill' (really a tax bill) went up for a vote in the Senate last week. The Democrats still control the Senate. So - there was nothing stopping Obama's tax bill from passing the Senate because there was no way the GOP could 'obstruct' it. Awwww - guess what happened? The DEMOCRATS voted against it and it went down in flames because it is just a bunch of stupid ideas he has had fried into his brain between crack hits in college.

And leave us not forget - the Democrats had control of the House for the first 3 years of Obama's presidence, as well as a super-majority of the Senate. GOP 'obstructionism' when they don't control any branch of government? Aside from piddling proceedural delays, the GOP couldn't do squat for almost 30 months. But their agenda was so lousy that even with that majority they were having difficulty not because of the GOP, but because even Democrats couldn't agree with the awful ideas being rammed out by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

And as far as the OWS dummies go... You think Obama sees them as anything except useful idiots he can exploit? Most of the things the OWS dislikes were done by Obama and his cronies. Bailouts? Obama. Crony capitalism? Obama. Shielding corporate interests? Obama. Pushing costs onto customer instead of companies? Obama.

Implying that Obama would be able to 'fix everything' if only you get wid of those wascally Wepubwicans is absolute balderdash. The entire political class is to blame - not the GOP as if it was the only party that was corrupt. The way to 'fix' this is to elect Tea Party candidates like Perry or Ron Paul who want to gut government like a sea bass. Cut government down and you remove the ability of companies to 'crony' up to anyone. We don't need a 3 trillion dollar government to fix this. We just need simple, common-sense rules that are ENFORCED and not filled with loopholes that get re-written every election depending on who is in office.

There is no GOP obstructionism. That is a prog-lib myth.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

But she's a glittering jewel compared to Joe Biden or Harry Reid.


You'd really prefer to listen to Nancy Pelosi or Janet Napolitano?


wow

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.
Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.
"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.
As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.


No, I just try to see the world for what it is. Cut through the bullshit, and find the truth. Regurgitating talking points from sources that over and over lie to me just seems like a fool's errand, but you find solace in being a dis-info/government apologist.

I guess that makes you an "I know, but" kind of person: I know Obama said he was going to end the wars, but we've got finish what Bush started. I know we've killed millions of people, but we're trying to spread democracy. I know we armed and supported Al-qaeda rebels in Libya (remnants of the same ones attacking US troops in Iraq), but "geopolitics is a messy thing". The list is endless.

And "you're either with us or against us" is the same motto used by "progressive" war-mongers like Obama, Hillary, and Reid, not just neocons. I think the real problem is you're just hostile toward the truth whenever it exposes your false reality, whenever it bursts your blissful ignorance of illusion.

And for Tarpley, of course it sounds like "denialism" to you. Narrow-minded government sycophants would equate the two as the same.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid' to 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid, Cenk Uygur' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Januari:

While he is completely correct in this video.... this is the same guy who said that health care as a right meant the police were going to show up in the middle of the night and kidnap him with the intention of forcing him to treat people.... it's all just such BS


Yes indeed. He is slave because healthcare is a right. It's nice to see him say something sane once in a while.

I often disagree with Bill O. Almost always actually. That being the case, there are a few examples of him conducting a top-rate, respectable interview, which he is apparently completely capable of. I found this one a while back of him speaking with Venus Flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati.

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-O-Reilly-and-Tim-Reid-Venus-Flytrap-from-WKRP

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

This is probably about as close as I will come to having anything resembling respect for Bill O'Reilly. I've never watched his show and all the videos I see of him make him seem like a complete idiot (even this one). But, watching him with Jon Stewart, there's a genuine camaraderie between them that, well, makes me not hate Bill so much. They disagree on the issue but, they can argue about it without it getting out of hand. I think it's mostly due to Jon Stewart. He seems to bring out the "best" in Bill O'Reilly, if there is such a thing.

>> ^rkone:

I wonder who's going to play Bunny?


I heard Jeff Bridges was auditioning for it, just to throw everyone off.

Your video, The Big Lebowski 2, Starring Tara Reid in every role., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 5 Badge!