Install Theme
[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

Romney calls for fewer cops, firefighters, and teachers - The Maddow Blog

I’ve never heard such a brain-dead quote from a politician, and friends, I lived through the Bush Administration. I was there. This guy needs to be stopped.

[Rush] went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves. I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people “terrorist” and “un-American.” Sarah Barracuda. The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.
Hi! Here’s a quick primer. This debate is mostly about the pill, not condoms. It’s not that every time a woman has sex she has to take a pill (though something like that also exists for emergency situations, and I’m aware that this enrages you). Rather, women get a prescription for these things called birth-control pills that are generally taken every day. So it’s a fixed prescription cost, and like many such costs, if insurance doesn’t cover it it can get out of hand really quickly because our medical system is an octopus riding a donkey riding a skateboard into a sadness quarry. But there is no proportional relationship between the amount of sex a woman has and the number of standard birth-control pills she consumes. Why, there are even women who aren’t sexually active who take the pill for medical reasons. Whoa! I know this is a lot to take in all at once, guys.
Romney suffers from the same problem afflicting the likes of Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon: He’s been living for so long with the delusion that the way he makes his money is fair and honest, he’s started to believe not only that he deserves his wealth, but the converse – that the poor deserve to be poor. He’s incapable of sympathizing with people who can’t pay their bills, because their condition is tied too closely in his mind with the question of how he made his enormous fortune: If you ask Romney to imagine what life is like for someone who’s broke, what he hears is you accusing him of making that happen. (In Romneyspeak, you’ve “attacked capitalism.”) In short, he’s a narcissist. They’re all narcissists, these colossal Wall Street types – they have to be, because the way they make their money makes moral sense only if you’re viewing things from the top of the heap. Asking them to step outside that comfort zone, into the world where the rest of us live, is an unthinkable outrage.

–Matt Taibbi, a national fucking treasure, in Rolling Stone

The Odd Couple: Romney Vs. Gingrich | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Romney Calls Obama a 'Crony Capitalist' - NYTimes.com →

So really, the guy who made a fortune by buying companies, laying off workers and then reselling them without adding any value at all to our nation’s economy, is calling somebody else a ‘crony capitalist’? The same guy who wants to repeal financial regulations on Wall Street? Who wants to cut capital gains taxes that almost solely affect the wealthiest in the country? And all because Obama is finally calling Congressional Republicans on their crap and filling positions that have been empty for months? IS IT NOVEMBER YET?

Alan Grayson on Occupy Wall Street (by adelphiaboy)

It’s so beautiful. So much win.

I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately? You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It’s true. You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have healthcare. And booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay. That’s not reflective of who we are.

— Barack Obama, Sunday at a Democratic fundraiser. (h/t Joe.My.God.)

(Source: motherjones)

pantslessprogressive:

If I can give you only one reason why public transportation is awesome, it’s that you could converse for half an hour with a stranger about the soothing comedy of political memes (because talking about the weather gets boring after a while).

During our conversation this evening, we decided the only good way to understand memes is in the context of understanding how this circus functions.

(Source: pantslessprogressive, via peejaymc)

An opportunity we can’t afford to miss - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post →

Right now the interest on 3-7yr Treasury bonds is negative, meaning that for all of those things we spend money on like roads and bridges and levies and school buildings, it would literally be cheaper for us to borrow as much money as possible and spend it now on those things, rather than wait a few years and pay cash out of pocket when those things will be more expensive. But the GOP won’t let us. This is why we can have nice things.

See also: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/only-idiot-turns-down-free-money & http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/28/306221/negative-real-interest-rates/

atomicsocialist:

marketorder:

Who is the Real Reactionary?: Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you’ll quickly be informed that yeah, Ron Paul’s good on the war stuff — yawn — but otherwise he’s a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who’d kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds. By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He’s more cosmopolitan, after all; less Texas-y. He’s a Democrat. And gosh, even if he’s made a few mistakes, he means well.

Sure he’s a murderer, in other words, but at least he’s not a Republican!

Put another, even less charitable way: Democratic partisans – liberals – are willing to trade the lives of a couple thousand poor Pakistani tribesman in exchange for a few liberal catnip-filled speeches and NPR tote bags for the underprivileged. The number of party-line progressives who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama wouldn’t be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton, with even harshest left-leaning critics of the president, like Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, saying they’d prefer the mass-murdering sociopath to that kooky Constitution fetishist.

OKAY FUCK THIS

The war is important. But am I gonna sacrifice the livlihoods of 20 million poor americans and countless other minority groups (Blacks, immigrants, queers) just to end them? Fuck no, I am not giving in to the bullshit claim that because Barack Obama continued the wars he is George Bush III. 

You know, Barack Obama was anti-war in the Senate and campaigned on a peace platform. Yeah he lied we all get that but what makes you think Ron Paul is telling the truth? You trash liberals and leftists for believing Barack Obama during the campaign but you do not even acknowledge the possibility that Ron Paul is lying as well!!! The ideological blinded Ron Paul supporters need to learn a thing or two about the political process and the fact that Ron Paul is just as prone to lying as Barack Obama was in his campaign. 

Also, this is glossing over the fact that as president, neither Paul nor Obama can just act unilaterally in military matters as we might like to think they can. Do you have any idea just how embedded the military is into our political system? The armed forces are still the most trusted part of American society and that means that generals and admirals (of which there are many who live in Washington) have their run of the place in terms of guiding and shaping foreign and military policy. Obama can run on a platform of ending the wars, but you better be sure there are LOTS of people in DC who want that war to continue and they can make life hell for a brand-new president. Not to mention the CIA, FBI, NSA and the rest of the national security apparatus; they have a lot of power and influence and they want to use it. Not to mention that Congress may let the executive run the wars, but they won’t let the executive cut down on military sizes or funding for contractors without raising royal hell. I’m not saying this to excuse Obama’s choices on Afghanistan and the drone attacks, I’m saying this to help explain it; people spend so much time focusing on the individuals that they never stop and think about the structures of power that constrain individual choices. So even if, heavens to betsy, Ron Paul was elected president, would he end the various conflicts? Would he stop the drone attacks? Would he pull all of our troops out of Germany and Korea? And all of that in his first year of office or his first term? If you believe that, then you probably also still think he’s a libertarian.

(via huberthumphreydeathrally-deacti)

The “pro-life” position amounts to a conjunction of the proposition that a fetus is a moral person and that a pregnant woman has a strong legally enforceable rescue duty. But Paul doesn’t believe the state should tax people to feed the poor, or impose rescue duties in any other context. Rather, he simply seems to feel that pregnant women aren’t really people. Paul himself, I note, is a good deal clearer about his ideological positioning than are many of his friends on the Internet. He’s a social conservative who sees his political views as an extension of his personal relationship with Jesus Christ running for president on a promise to “Restore America Now” to some past edenic state.