Thomas Sowell is Still a Fucking Liar

For some reason, I've suddenly been getting a lot of hits on a post I, um, posted, back in August of 2009 titled "Thomas Sowell is a Fucking Liar."

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Thomas Sowell is a Fucking Liar

 

Apparently, someone referenced this posting on Craig's List Seattle because apparently people use Craig's List to have arguments about issues now. And four years after posting that Thomas Sowell is a fucking liar, which he clearly is, I suddenly get this comment from some "anon" as the kids say:

Anonymous said...

Yes because you lefttards have more education, experience and know-how than Dr. Sowell. According to liberal logic, since you're calling a black man a liar, that would make you racists now wouldn't it?

October 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM

 

 

So, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Thomas Sowell is an honest broker of ideas. Maybe I should double-check.

Let's just see what Mr. Sowell has written lately:

 

Who Shut Down the Government?

Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013

 

I think you see where this is headed. . .

 

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

 

Okay, that's a lie already. The Continuing Resolution on which the Congress voted did not have anything to do with the funding of "obamacre" which should be obvious since, when the government was shut down, the implementation of "Obamacare" proceeded apace with only glitches in the website to slow it down.

 

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

 

They were laid off because even thought the Republicans ad denocrats had both agreed to budget numbers that approached Paul Ryan levels, Boehner reneged on the deal because his Tea Party faction demanded that they be given Obamacare's head on a platter as a reward for doing the most basic function of their jobs.

 

Now here comes a blatant lie:

 

 

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government."

 

Not the part about reading minds, that part is actually true, but we can certainly say who threatened to shut down the government, who bragged about shutting down the government. To pretend otherwise is pathetically dishonest.

Sowell's column was published October 4. On Sept. 28, Michele Bachmann had already been quoted saying this:

 

“We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”

 

about the shutdown.

 

 

 

 

That same Washington Post article also had this quote:

 

 

 

“It’s wonderful,” said Rep. John Abney Culberson (R-Tex.), clapping his hands to emphasize the point. “We’re 100 percent united!”

 

This is actually what John Culberson looks like.

And let's not forget:

 

"This is my idea of fun." –Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) on the government shutdown

 

 "I said, like 9/11, 'let's roll!'" –Rep. John Culberson, describing his reaction at a meeting of Republican lawmakers planning to shut down the government, invoking the famous phrase used to fight 9/11

 See? I told you!

 

 

 

And of course:

"We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." --Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) on the government shutdown, Oct. 1, 2013

 

So, yeah, we can say who "wants to shut down the government." Sowell is just lying.

 

Because Thomas Sowell is a fucking liar.

Louie Gohmert is a Fucking Liar

Louie Gohmert blasts Claire McCaskill ‘ignorance’

By LUCY MCCALMONT | 10/3/13 12:51 PM EDT

“My heart breaks for somebody with the ignorance of Claire McCaskill. Having served in the Army active duty ’78 to ’82, having been spit at in uniform, having been ordered not to wear my uniform off post because of the threats to people in uniform, I understand. I’ve stood with families when there was no camera anywhere in sight, anywhere with just a handful of people,” Gohmert (R-Texas) said on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom.”

Okay, let's just take a look at a couple of things Gohmert said there.

First:  "having been spit at in uniform"

That never happened. He's lying. That whole "soldiers getting spit at" thing is an urban legend. If it had happened, it certainly wouldn't have happened between 1978 and 1982. Vietnam was already over when Gohmert served. Do you know what would have happened if some hippy had spit on a soldier? A hippy getting his ass kicked by that soldier and every other soldier within shouting distance. Hippies may have been high a lot, but they weren't stupid.

Second: "having been ordered not to wear my uniform off base because of the threats to people in uniform"

That is also a lie. No Army officer is ever going to order his troops to act the coward. And pretending to be a civilian because of some sort of vague threats against "people in uniform" is the act of a coward. I can't imagine any Army office would allow that, much less order it.

 

 

He'd kick your ass for even considering it!

 

 

Of course, even if either of those things were true. what the hell do either of them have to do with Gohmert having "stood with families when there was no camera anywhere in sight, anywhere with just a handful of people?”
Who knows? Louie Gohmert is not only a fucking liar, he's a goddamm imbecile.

Mitt Romney is so full of shit!

How many lies can Romney pack into this one little 3-minute video clip? I think my favorite lie is that he's going to protect Social security and medicare by not raising taxes. That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you could say "I've figured out a way that we can protect SS and medicare without raising taxes," but you can't just say that not raising taxes is going to protect them. There's just no logic to it. It's like saying "I'm going to get all these home repairs done by not hiring any contractors."  You may well be able to get the repairs done without hiring anyone, maybe do them yourself, or con your friends into helping, but the act of not hiring contractors doesn't put a single shingle on the roof.

Also, there's the line about if you want someone who's going to raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama. Way to count on your audience being pig-ignorant enough to not know thatt Barack Obama has in fact NOT raised taxes. Pathetic.
,



Then there's this bit of classic douchebaggery:




Corporations are NOT people. They are made up of people. People own shares of the corporations, corporations are run by people, but corporations are not people. That's like saying that the NFL is a football team. And we know good and damn well whose pockets corporate profits end up in, and it ain't ours. Quit bullshitting us.

Know How I Know?

 1) Know how I know that Anthony Weiner is innocent?

Because Andrew Breitbart is involved.

In the same way that if Hugh Heffner is involved with something, it's going to involve naked women, if Andrew Breitbart is involved, it's a dishonest slander. Not that that's going to keep CNN from having him on and pretending he hasn't been shown over and over again to be a baldfaced liar. Damn liberal media!




Honest to God, how does the coversation in the newsroom not go something like:
"Hey, a congressman is involved in some sort of dong-related scandal!"

"Oh, that could be big news, who's the source?"

"Oh, it's Breitbart, never mind."

You might as well report stories form The Onion. At least there's an off-chance that they might accidentally be true.
But no, you bring this pile of sleaze onto your show to spout even more scurrilous allegations about Rep. Weiner supposedly having "relationships with young women?"

Also: This guy?


This guy is getting lots of young women? This guy? Really?

2) Know how I know that Gov. Rick Perry has ZERO chance of ever being president?

Because Bill Kristol thinks he would be "formidable."



Remember the last wingnut governor that Kristol thought would be a powerful national political force?



How'd that work out again?

 

Oy. Don't remind me!

Oh, and also this:

“If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. … Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.” —William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006

So, even if Gov. Perry hadn't flirted with the idea of secession, even if he hadn't done this:

Texas, which may balance its budget by firing thousands of teachers, plans to commit $25 million in state funds to Formula One auto racing each year for a decade.

Even if he didn't look like this:




He would still have no chance just because the laws of nature dictate that anything coming from the mouth of William Kristol is necessarily  going to be incorrect. If God Himself had planned on making Rick Perry president, he would have to change his plans after hearing William Kristol put his stink on Perry.

 

Kristol said "formidable?"

Augh, now I have to send Perry to a crushing, humiliating defeat!

Here's a Shock! Thomas Sowell Gets it Completely Wrong!

I don't know whether I've ever mentioned what a despicable turd of a human being Thomas Sowell is. But he is. And in their ongoing attempt to increase the velocity of their downward spiral from respectability, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution keeps reprinting this turd's columns. Here's the latest:a

Thomas Sowell

Deficit Reduction 

Another deficit reduction commission has now made its recommendations. My own recommendation for dealing with deficits would include stopping the appointment of deficit reduction commission

 Ooooh, good one!

Deficit commissions make it politically possible to spend money first and get somebody else to recommend raising taxes later. They are a virtual guarantee of never-ending increases in both spending and taxes.

Okay, good point. Except that the recommendations of the Debt  Comission include:

Tax Reform
Goals:
! Lower Rates
! Simplify the Code
! Broaden the Base
! Cut Spending in the Tax Code (Tax Expenditures)
! Improve Compliance (Tax Gap)
! Make America the Best Place in the World to Start
and Grow a Business
! Reduce the Deficit

And this:

 

Yeah, lowering the top rate from 35% to 23%, that sounds like "never-ending increases in both spending and taxes."

So, Thomas is engaging in one of two types of dishonesty. Either he hasn't bothered to read the commission's recommendations and is basing his argument on what he assumes they probably are, or he has read them and is just flat-out lying about them. 

But being honest or getting things right or using sound logic are not among the requirements for the recipients of wingnut welfare. As long as Sowell keeps churning out columns complaining about taxes and big government and how the darn liberals are just ruining everything his position at the Hoover Institution will not be in any jeopardy. And his bullshit column will continue to run as long as the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute, and the Cato Institute etc., etc., etc. are around to keep pressure on media outlets to move further and further rightward, lest they be accused of *gasp* LIBERAL BIAS!!!!!!

So why is it that these righties don't just argue their case honestly? Could it be that they know they can't win an honest debate? Um, yes. Yes, I think that's exactly why. That's why they turn to scumbags like Frank Luntz.

 

Luntz is the man who brought focus-group marketing techniques into politics. Which is like being responsible for introducing sewage into the drinking water supply. Luntz knew that if you refer, correctly, to the estate tax as a tax that heirs pay on money and/or property which they did nothing to earn; if you say, correctly, that the tax only applies to very large estates so most Americans will never be affected by it, it's a little tough to convince people that this tax ought to be abolished. It's not an easy sell to say "Paris Hilton should not have to pay any tax on the money handed to her by her late grandfather, but you should pay income tax on the money you earned by the sweat of your brow." You're just not gonna get a lot of takers on that.

But if you call it the "Death Tax," people suddenly look at it as something fundamentally unfair. Which it would be if it were really a tax on death. If an IRS agent showed up at your death-bed demanding payment from you before you were allowed to drift into the sweet hereafter, that really wouldn't be fair. So now every conservative refers to the estate tax as the Death Tax. And support for abolishing this perfectly reasonable tax is pretty high. 

So a proposal to allow more clear-cutting is named the "Healthy Forests Initiative," and allowing more air pollution is the "Clear Skies" something-or-other. And someone decided that the word "Democrat" used as an adjective, sounds worse than "Democratic." So now every conservative refers to the "Democrat Party" or says "My state has a Democrat governor." I don't know why, I guess it sounds sort of dismissive?

And it's not just the word games. it's BS like "Raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy." or "Social Security is insolvent." It's a crock of lies of course, but say it often enough and people start to believe it. Almost everyone now thinks that Social Security is going bankrupt. It isn't. And it won't. But most people think it is. Thanks to scumbags like Frank Luntz and Thomas Sowell.

Bush Lives in a Fantasy World

In the first interview of the publicity tour for his new book, Decision Points, Bush told Matt Lauer that he didn't want to use force.
"Not everybody thought you should go to war, though," Lauer said. "There were dissenting voices."
"I was a dissenting voice. I didn't want to use force," Bush said

But what could I do, he did not add, "I was only the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. If everyone else wanted to go to war, who was I to stop them?"

Seriously? Weren't you "the Decider?" If you didn't want to use force, you could have just not used force. It's really that simple!

I didn't want to use force," Bush said. "I mean force is the last option for a President. And I think it's clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work. 

I believe that the book which I had ghostwritten for me explains what a great guy I am. And I'm sure the ghostwriter would have no motivation to lie. So, you know, case closed!

"And I will also tell you the world's better off without Saddam in power.

And so are 25 million Iraqis." 

Well, you know, the ones who are still alive. And not maimed. Or widowed or orphaned. And aren't living in refugee camps. And aren't in constant fear of being blown up for being in the wrong Muslim sect. Basically, other than them the whole world is better off now that Sadam Hussein is not keeping Al Quaida out of Iraq and providing a counter-balance to the mullahs in Iran. 

Bush went on to say that he still feels like going to war was the right decision. And as he wrote in the book, "No one was more sickened or angry than I was when we didn't find weapons of mass destruction."

Oh, yeah. I remember how upset you were about that.



And of course no one in the "liberal Media" is going to call bullshit on any of his ridiculous claims. It's just simply not done. We need to move forward, not look backward, and put our petty differences aside, and blah, blah, blah, and meanwhile the war criminals of the previous administration face zero consequences for their crimes, not even public disapproval. Which pretty much ensures that there will be a next time. If this country had any balls, we'd send these guys to the Hague and let future administrations know that this will not be tolerated. But of course, that will never happen. You only get tried for war crimes when you lose a war.

Erick Erickson Could Not be Fuller of Shit

“All Catholics Are Pedophiles” — The Democrats’ Closing Argument

Posted by Erick Erickson

Okay, obviously no one has ever said this. Obviously this is something that Erickson just made up. Because no one has ever said "all Catholics Are Pedophiles." No one has ever even said "all Catholic priests are pedophiles." Nobody is saying this, much less making it the "closing argument" for an entire political party. So obviously, Erickson is so full of shit that some of it has leaked out into his silly little website.

But surely, he must be able to cite multiple instances of Democrats painting the entire Catholic Curch with the pedophilia brush to be able to make such an inflammatory claim, right? Well, no. No, not really. He does have this, though:

This is not the first time the Democrats have gone this route in this election season. This may, however, be the most desperate attempt.
And where Democrats are doing this in multiple places around the country, we can be sure they have hit on this as a theme within their world view. The theme, of course, being that all Catholics are pedophiles.

Okay, multiple places. Democrats have gone all anti-Catholic in "multiple places around the country," even though Catholics are generally seen a s a fairly reliable voting group for the Democrats( 55% to 44% for Obama), they went all Martin Luther on them in "multiple places," eh? Name one.

This time, in Missouri, Democrat Russ Carnahan has coordinated a smear against his rival Ed Martin. The attack alleges that Ed Martin was complicit in shuffling pedophile priests around St. Louis Catholic Churches while he served at the St. Louis Archdiocese.

That's it? You have exactly one example, and that example is of a single solitary Catholic man being accused of abetting pedophile priests, and you say that amounts to Democrats slandering ALL Catholics as pedophiles? So if I say that I think OJ Simpson was probably guilty of murder, am I calling all former NFL stars murderers? Or all naked Gun cast members?

I will say this, though. All people named Erick Erickson who blog on "Redstate" are full of shit.

Dear God, Why Is Ben Stein Still Around?

Like, I assume, most normal people, I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Ben Stein until I saw "Ferris Beuler's Day Off" back in 1980-something. And like most everyone, I found it amusing to hear him say "Anyone? Anyone? Beuuuuuhler?" in a flat, expressionless monotone. Then some ad exec saw that and said to himself "Hey, if it's funny once, it's bound to be funny ten thousand fucking times," and soon Stein was doing ads for Chips Ahoy, and Clear Eyes, and Comcast, and then some credit-score scam, and everyone just wanted to throw a shoe through the TV screen whenever they heard that dull, dreary sound of pure tedium. Then I didn't see him for a while, and I had hope again. Hope that finally, finally, Ben Stein had retired from "acting" or died or whatever, just so long as he was out of public life. Then today, I saw this:

Here in Atlanta, some ridiculous little jagoff organization called "Seize The Day" is throwing a circle-jerk rally at Philips Arena, home of the Hawks, Thrashers, and the smell of failure. And who's that, second from the right? Ben Fucking Stein!

He's everybody's favorite deadpan teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." But in real life, Ben Stein is a brilliant writer, lawyer, actor, social and political commentator and financial expert. With his distinctive voice and offbeat style, Ben dissects today's economy and helps audiences balance life's priorities, even as he offers an eye-opening tour of its greatest absurdities.

Absurdities? What know you of absurdities, Mr. Stein? Ben Stein having an acting career, now that's an absurdity! Ben Stein being referred to a "brilliant writer?" well, let's see:

Ben Stein: Raising My Taxes Is a Punishment

Asks: If Raising Taxes Won't Help Economy, Why Am I Being Punished?

Oh, so many reasons. So many reasons to punish you, Ben.
Let's begin with the dishonest sub-headline.
If raising taxes won't help the economy, then why. . .? You could apply that logic to anything.
If eating breakfast won't help the economy, then why should I bother to pour milk on my Lucky Charms?
Here's a thought - maybe it's not about helping the economy. Maybe it's about paying down some of the debt you conservatives are supposedly so concerned about.

I am a fairly upper income taxpayer. Not anything even remotely close to sports stars or movie stars or financial big boys. But I am above the level Mr. Obama says makes me rich. [also the level that EVERYONE ELSE says makes you rich] So, in the midst of a severe recession, I am to have my taxes raised dramatically.

Dramatically? Really? Are you really serious?

I am not quite sure what my sin is.

Um, here's a hint:

I worked for almost every dollar I have, except for a small percentage my parents left me by virtue of hard work and Spartan living, and most of that was taken by the federal estate tax.

Okay, that's a lie. According to Wikipedia, your father died in 1999. In 1999, the estate tax didn't kick in until after the first $650,000.00, and after that, the very tippy-top rate it could reach was 55%. A significant percentage, but hardly "most."
And your father was an economist, which is a perfectly legitimate profession, but let's not pretend that he was out digging ditches for a living. According to Wikipedia he was: a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was on the board of contributors of The Wall Street Journal, so not exactly back-breaking work, collecting wingnut welfare.

I have a hell of a lot less than I did before the stock market and real estate market crashes.

Oh, no! Your un-earned income is going down! Someone get this man a tax break, stat!
Thank God you still get paid by the syndicator to complain about how little income you have!

I didn't get a bailout or any part of a stimulus program, except for traffic jams as the roads in Beverly Hills got worked on for the 10th time in the last 10 years (or so it seems).

How did you not get a bailout? Clearly, you and your Beverly Hills neighbors are struggling as badly as GM! And it must be rough having your streets worked on all the time. I'll think a kind thought for you next time the West Atlanta potholes destroy my alignment.

I pay my income taxes, and after them and the commissions I pay my agent, I am left with about 35 cents for every dollar I earn.

If your agent is able to get YOU acting gigs, count yourself lucky that he=is commission isn't your immortal soul!

I own some real estate in California and Idaho and the District of Columbia. Naturally, I pay property tax, supposedly mostly to educate local children. Not far from me, the city of Los Angeles just spent about $600 million to build the most lavish school in America for about 4,000 children. That's my money. Naturally, I had no say in it.

Oh, yeah that's tough. I remember feeling the same way when I had no say in whether my tax dollars were going to fund an illegal, ill-advised, immoral pointless war that you neocons insisted on. But yeah, kids having nice schools to go to, that's a real bitch. that's way worse than seeing kids coming home in body bags and thinking that's my tax dollars at work.

I am not asking for any tears.

Then shut the fuck up! Not asking for any tears? Then what the hell is this whinefest all about? ooh, I'm being punished! Ooh, my inheritance got taken! Ooh, I have to pay for schools! You don't want any tears? Bitch, please!

I am not asking for any tears. I live a great life, have a fabulous wife, a great son and daughter-in-law, four wonderful, furry dogs and six cats, all adopted. I have more than enough to eat.

But what I don't get is this: There is no known economic theory under which raising my taxes in the midst of a severe recession will help the economy recover.

Goddammit, we already went over this!

It isn't part of any well known monetarist or Keynesian theory. So if it does no good to raise our taxes, I assume we are being punished.

You know, I'm pretty sure you're smarter than this. I think you're purposely using this specious argument because you know that your readers are easily fooled. It won't help the economy recover, therefore it does no good? You know what else doesn't help the economy recover? You writing your stupid dishonest column. Therefore your column does no good, so I can only assume that your readers are being punished.

But for what? I don't own slaves. I employ a lot of people full- and part-time and they are all happy with their pay. When charity calls, I almost always write out a check. I don't have a yacht or ponies or a plane. My wife doesn't wear a tiara. I don't gamble.

Hey, I don't own slaves either! Neither does anyone else I know. Maybe no one should have to pay taxes! It's not fair that even though I own zero slaves, my money is still taken to build roads, and have a police department, and have mail delivered to my doorstep. What did I do wrong that I should have to pay for hospitals and national parks and the Marine Corps?

What did I do wrong? I know I have often lost my temper with my wife and the cats, but that's not a crime, yet. I tried to be successful, which is what I thought I was supposed to do. When did it turn out that was a crime to be punished? Maybe when the economy recovers, raising my taxes makes sense, but for now, it's just punishment, and I can't figure out what for.

Really? You can't figure it out? Here's a hint:

How Much Lower Can This Little Prick Possibly Go?

How is it that James O'Keefe is allowed to walk our streets freely without being subject to multiple crotch-punchings everywhere he lays down his slimy trail?
I mean, it's not like you'd do any time.

"Your honor, the defendant is charged with assault and battery.
"Oh? What did he do?"
"He punched James O'Keefe in the weiner."
"Hmm, James O'Keefe, James O'Keefe. . . oh, the cum-stain on Satan's tighty-whities? That James O'Keefe? Case Dismissed! I'm recommending you for a commendation, son!"

Okay, I don't know how the judge turned into the defendant's commanding officer, but you get the idea.

Fake pimp from ACORN videos tries to 'punk' CNN correspondent

Lusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show. [sic]

I don't know what a "Planning document show" is, but apparently he was making it.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting,

Okay, stop. Stop it right there, CNN. That was not an undercover video "sting." That was a fraudulent, dishonest, libelous smear job. You'd think now that this little shit-smear has gone after one of your own reporters, you could drop the bullshit "objectivity" and call a spade a spade.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

What was the point? Who knows? I guess if he could get a video clip of a reporter near some "sexually explicit props," he could run to FOX, show some deceptively-edited clips and claim that CNN can not be trusted because one of their reporters enjoys sex? Or something? I don't know what the point was, but I'm sure it was some sort of deceitful bullshit.

Apparently, a large part of the plan involved having James O'Keefe


Seduce CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau.

Once again, the foolproof plan involved having this guy:


Seduce this CNN reporter:

How could this possibly not work?

CNN has gotten ahold of a 13-page ridiculous plan for what O'Keefe calls his "CNN Caper"


.cnnFBRecBtn { width: 336px; float: right; margin: 10px 0pt; clear: both; }.cnnFBRecBtnBot { width: 420px; margin: 30px 0pt 15px 186px; }.cnn_strycntntlft { clear: both; }

'Punking' CNN

The following highlights the relevant portions of a 13-page document obtained by CNN outlining a plan to 'punk' CNN. Click through the pages to see more.

And it just goes on like that. You can see the whole thing here: CNN

And if you see James O'Keefe, go ahead and punch him right in the crotch. No jury would convict you.

This Just In. . .

Erick Erickson is still a lying moron.

check it out:

Worlds Are Colliding

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

During a school trip to Washington a group of students. . .

OK, wait. Let me just stop you right there. Because this is sentence #1, and you've already lied.

Seriously, the FOX news story that YOU LINK TO, says that the students were: "attending a conservative leadership conference in Washington, D.C." So this was NOT a "school trip to Washington." I'm not saying it's a super-important distinction - maybe it is, maybe not, I don't know, but the point is that you lied about it. Why? Maybe to make the kids seem more sympathetic? Maybe so people wouldn't picture the kind of noxious little assholes that would attend a "conservative leadership conference" while in their teens?

I don't know. Maybe you're just lying out of force of habit. But do go on.

During a school trip to Washington a group of students were ordered by a park service security guard standing watch over the Lincoln Memorial to stop singing the national anthem.

And word came late last night that Republicans have a serious shot at something once thought impossible — taking back the United States Senate.

What do singing the national anthem and the GOP taking back Congress have to do with each other?

Oh, oh, I know! Um, not a goddamned thing?

What do singing the national anthem and the GOP taking back Congress have to do with each other?

Voters are so hacked off they are of a revolutionary frame of mind — throwing the bums out through violence at the polls. That is far better than the alternative.

Actually, since the alternative would be NOT having violence at the polls, I would have to say that it is in fact worse than the alternative.

And here's a little context to your idea about how upset the electorate is and how much they want to throw the bums out, courtesy of Conversation 101:

There have been 305 incumbent politicians on ballots so far this year. Six have lost.

Six.

So, is it that we have a hard time expressing anger? Or, do intellectually lazy “political journalists” like this do us a disservice by writing such shallow analyses?

And by the way, that's the entire text of Erickson's post. He never does explain what the kids singing in DC have to do with Republicans taking back Congress. I don't get it. Probably neither does he.

And since Erickson doesn't expand on the DC story, here is why the students were asked to stop singing:

[US Park Police Sgt] Schlosser explained that performances, regardless of content, are banned to “maintain a contemplative and reverent area for the Lincoln Memorial, for the other guests and visitors.”

“It’s not the content of their activity – that being the national anthem – it’s the location,” he said. “A couple steps and it would have been no problem whatsoever.”

Of course, as this story makes its way through the right-wing echo chamber, the version people are going to hear is "Since Obama took over, the Park Police have been ordered to arrest anyone caught singing the National Anthem, because Obama hates America, and blargh, blargh, blargh. . ." They already have this quote from one of the more disengenuous little weasels, Shawn Balcomb, of Richmond Hill, GA. “I didn’t realize there was something wrong with singing the national anthem.”

There isn't, you sniveling little prick. And you know that. The rule is that you're supposed to keep a respectful silence at the Lincoln Memorial. The problem isn't what you were singing, it is that you were singing at all. And I assume you meant no harm. I assume you were just moved to song by the monument to the last good Republican. And when the police told you to stop,

Instead of doing as they were instructed, Gassman said the students resumed the song – an impromptu form of civil disobedience.

So, you know classy move all around.

But anyway, the point was, um. . . what did I start out to. . . oh, yeah:

Erick Erickson is a goddamn lying moron.

Sweet Tap-Dancing Jeebus, How Is Bill Kristol Still Allowed to Talk on TV?

From Politicususa:

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol was on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight defending off shore drilling, when he made perhaps the stupidest statement of all time. He said offshore drilling is quite safe, “and very environmentally clean, except where there is a disaster like this.”


Kristol said, “Look the data’s pretty clear in general that the offshore drilling of oil has become incredibly quite safe, not perfectly safe, but compared to other ways of getting energy, quite safe compared to the mining of coal for example, and very environmentally clean, except when there is a disaster like this spill, but Exxon Valdez was much bigger.

Also safe: Russian Roulette. Until the gun goes off.

Juggling Chainsaws. Unless you count getting your hand cut off.

Driving Drunk. Until the inevitable crash.

Seriously, how the hell is this moron allowed on television.
Has he ever been right about anything?

Bill Kristol Continues to be a Goddamned Idiot.

Not only is Bill Kristol wrong about everything (really, seriously, wrong about everything), he continues to spout wrongness with that smug, self-satisfied smirk that makes me want to punch his lights out.



Where in holy hell does he come up with 5, or 8, or 13 times? The law not only allows, but requires Arizona cops to stop anyone who seems like they might be here illegally and demand proof of citizenship. That pretty much means anyone in Arizona who looks Mexican (including Native Americans) or has an accent, or likes soccer is going to be stopped and asked for ID repeatedly.
And then he asks "is that what you think the Arizona cops are like?" (paraphrase)
Um, yeah. Have you not ever heard of Joe Arpayo? And he's like a fucking hero down there.
Of course, there are probably many good, conscientious cops in Arizona. Of course they're not all like Arpayo. But even if you are a good cop in AZ, this new law requires you to stop Mexicans and demand to see their papers. Rather than argue honestly, and say "yes, I think it's a good idea to harass all the brown folks in Arizona," Kristol makes up this bullshit about how it will hardly ever happen, and it's not a big deal, and blargh, blargh, blargh. . . .

Honest to God, I'd rather listen to Billy Crystal opine on current events than Bill Kristol.

So here's Bill Kristol getting hit in the face with a pie:



Hmm, I do feel a teensy bit better.

Restoring Stephen Baldwin?

Apparently, Stephen Baldwin needs help.



I don't know what my favorite part of this is. Maybe it's the fact that they plan to show those doubters who think that God isn't helping Stephen Baldwin by helping him themselves. Wouldn't that just prove that they really don't believe that God is going to help Stephen? If you think that God is going to help Stephen Baldwin, why not save your money?

Maybe it's the fact that they think that Baldwin's faith has cost him acting jobs. Not his poor acting skills, his general douchebagginess, or the fact that he looks like this:





Hmm, he used to get plenty of roles when he looked like this:



What could have changed? Probably it's those damn heathens running Hollywood punishing him for his faith!

Or maybe it's at the end when they refer to giving your spare change to a Hollywood D-lister as a "movement."

Then they ask you to go to the website, so for some reason I did.
And here's what I saw.

How This Movement Works

TOKEN GIFTING IS THE MECHANISM

Long ago, when God restored Job he used Token Gifting as the mechanism for his restoration. The scripture says "everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house...each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring" Job 42:10-11

So, God took everything away from Job, including killing his children, (just to win a bet with the devil) and then HE didn't even give Job his stuff back? His friends and neighbors had to take him on as a charity case? I can't believe that anyone who takes that story literally would want to associate with that god!

What if 10% of the 159 million Christians in America gave a Token Gift? What if 10% of the worlds 2 billion Christians gave a token gift? What would the media have to say about such an event?

I think they might say that Stephen Baldwin has come up with the greatest scam of all time. Let's all show our faith in God by sending Stephen some money? And that will bring glory, not to Stephen's grifting ability, but to God? They should glorify God by showing that they have no confidence in God to help Stephen get back on his feet? You'd think they might at least trust God to get Stephen an acting gig. I mean, it apparently works for Kirk Cameron. I guess God liked "Growing Pains" better than whatever it is Stephen Baldwin is famous for.

Oh, and there's a Q & A section:

Q- Why doesn't his family help him?
A- His family does not perceive Stephen’s predicament as a matter of spiritual warfare. They see Stephen’s outspoken Christianity as poor choices therefore they will not help.

Really? They won't help him because they think he's too outspoken? Did anyone actually ask his family about this, or is this just an assumption? I think Billy and Daniel can't help him because all their money goes to the various rehab centers around LA. And maybe Alec just thinks Stephen should quit whining and begging strangers for money and get a damn job!

Q- What happened to his wealth?
A- When he became an outspoken Christian in 2002 his income went down by 70% when he refused roles with gratuitous sex and violence.

And got fat.
Also, if you know you're going to be turning down roles with sex and/or violence, wouldn't it behoove you to cut back on your lavish lifestyle, maybe live within your means? Because 30% of a movie actor's salary should still get you a decent middle-class lifestyle.

Q- If Stephen was not involved how did you get permission to do this?
A- Daniel Southern is Stephen’s spiritual advisor and the President of Stephen’s ministries. We contacted Daniel who gave us written permission to build the site .

God, that must have taken a lot of arm-twisting. "hey, broke guy, would it be all right if we collected a bunch of money for you and you could pass it off as some sort of religious work?"
"Oh, I guess so. If it will help God.'

Q- Why does Stephen need personal wealth?
A- Stephen’s influence is in Hollywood. Hollywood worships money and without it you are seen as a loser and cannot be an effective influence to this group.

And Goddammit, I am not -- I mean Stephen is not going to be a fucking no-money loser! Because he needs to be rich. To help God. And to throw it in that bastard Alec's face, oh he thinks he's soooo great, with his Oscar and Emmys and popularity. But mostly to help God!

Q- How much money does he need?
A- From what I read in public court documents Stephen needs several million dollars to pay all of his creditors but he deserves hundreds of millions for his Job like faithfulness in the face of relentless loss and persecution.

Oh, my God. That is just shameless! This asshat runs up millions of dollars in debt. On a movie actor's salary, and we're supposed to look at him as some hapless victim of godless Hollywood? And reward his idiocy with "Hundreds of millions?" Get a job, you bum! You seriously can't get work on the PAX Network? They built a show around Billy Ray Fucking Cyrus! Where he plays a doctor! A doctor! They have no standards, and no cussing or naughty business. You can't latch on with ABC Family or the Disney Channel? Are you even looking?

Q- What percentage of a gift actually reaches Stephen?
A- 100% goes directly into his bank account through online gifting. The bank account was arranged by Daniel Southern. Daniel was Billy Graham’s Crusade Director for almost 20 years.

Oh, that's reassuring! 100% goes directly into the accounts of Deadbeat McPanhandler? No one is even getting a paying job out of this scam?

Stephen Baldwin has just moved into first place in the voting for biggest turd in the universe.

Fuck You, CNN

What the hell is CNN doing putting lying libelist Erick Erickson on the air?

And then letting him toss out these patrhetic little explanations for his disgusting comments, like "I meant to call someone else Joseph Goebels," or I've grown up since I called David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester?"

And then you just sit there and accept his complete bullshit at face value and pretend like he isn't a complete asshole?



Erick Erickson adds nothing to the political discourse except vulgarity, name-calling and dishonesty. CNN used to have standards. Ted Turner must be rolling over in his what, ranch? farm? wherever it is he's living out in Montana or whatever. Come back, Ted. We need you.

Oh, and since I have yet to mature as a blogger, it is apparently Okay for me to state that Erick Erickson is a baby-murdering kitten rapist. Which he totally is. Raped a kitten yesterday, just to whet his appetite for infanticide. Erick Erickson. Kills babies. Can I be on CNN now?

The Most Horrible Person Ever

First nominee: Lisa Miller of Lynchburg, VA.

Lisa Miller wasn't always horrible. In 2000, Lisa Miller was happily living in a committed civil-union relationship with Janet Jenkins in Vermont. Through some sort of procedure, she became the biological mother of baby Isabella.

And they should have all lived happily ever after, but in 2003, the couple split up and Lisa Miller moved to Virginia with little Isabella to be near family. Okay, that sort of thing happens to a lot of couples. It's sad, but not villainous. But wait. there's more. So much more.


At some point, Lisa Miller got religion. And decided that she was going to just stop being a lesbian. (Also stop having brown eyes and being right-handed)

Okay, that's really sad, but if Ms. Miller wants to suppress her sexuality and live a life of lies and misery, that's her choice. But here's where it gets really horrible. In a fit of self-loathing, Ms. Miller decided

"I do not feel safe leaving my daughter with her, and I believe I have a God-given and constitutional right to raise my child as I see fit. There is a homosexual agenda at work here, and Isabella is a pawn in their game. It has nothing to do with the law."

(source)

So just because she is pretending to not be a lesbian anymore, suddenly lesbians are not safe to leave children with? Ms. Miller, when you were still being honest about who you are, how many times did you abuse little Isabella? Were you ever neglectful of your daughter during the gay part of your life? Was Janet Jenkins? Of course not. So where the hell do you get off saying that you don't feel safe leaving her with her other mommy?

So that's pretty horrible. But it gets worse. Much worse.

Miller has, since her conversion, tried to keep Jenkins from seeing their daughter. According to the Rutland, VT Herald:

[Her] biological mother has only brought her to two visits
with her nonbiological parent during the last two years.

Then Miller went so far as to file for sole custody of Isabella, stating that Ms. Jenkins had no parental rights since she was not a biological parent.

"It would be like handing my child over to the milkman," she says. (source)

The court refused her petition and granted visitation rights to Ms. Jenkins. Ms. Miller has repeatedly refused to comply with the court's order.
It got so bad, that back in November, a judge ordered that custody be given to Janet Jenkins.

In a 21-page order, Judge William Cohen granted sole custody of 7-year-old Isabella Miller to her nonbiological but court-recognized parent, Janet Jenkins. . . After finding Miller in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to Isabella, Cohen said he decided the only way to ensure the child equal access to both parents was to switch custody. [because Janet Jenkins, after all she's been through, still wants her daughter to have visitation with Lisa Miller]


"In the long term, the change in custody will be in (Isabella's) best interests as she will have the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents," he said, adding that both parents were equal in terms of stability, financial resources, emotional availability and other considerations required for child rearing.

Where they weren't equal, he said, was in their willingness to work together. While Miller has repeatedly and consistently blocked Jenkins' access to Isabella, the judge said Jenkins has agreed to allow Miller access and would allow Isabella to continue to attend church events with her other parent.

But Lisa Miller never met a court order she didn't want to violate, so she has taken young Isabella and disappeared. She was to have turned over the child on Jan. First. On Jan. 22, Judge Cohen gave Ms. Miller 30 days to appear in court with the child. Surprisingly, Ms. Miller has yet to comply.

"Every day I wonder where she is, and if she's OK," said Janet Jenkins, of Fair Haven, Vt. "Every time the phone rings, I hope it is someone calling to tell me they have found her."

Miller attorney Rena Lindevaldsen said she had no recent contact with Miller and asked to withdraw from the case, saying she couldn't represent her adequately without knowing what Miller wants. (source)

Rena Lindevaldsen is a member of something called the 'Liberty Council."

Adjust Font Size:

I think they have aome affiliation with Liberty University which was founded by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or one of those ass-hats.

Here is what Ms. Lindevaldsen has to say about the case:

I know you are busy, but trust me when I tell you that the few minutes it will take to read this letter will be well-spent and life-changing. I’d like to tell you about Lisa Miller — my client, my friend, my sister in Christ, and mother of six-year old Isabella.

My friend, my sister, but I have no idea where she is!

On October 27, 2008, a Vermont judge is holding a hearing to determine whether little Isabella will be stripped from her mother’s care and given to a woman, Janet Jenkins, who is openly living the homosexual lifestyle.

Oh my God! Stripped away from the repressed, self-loathing closeted homosexual and given to a woman who is comfortable with who she is? Say it ain't so!

You see, Lisa Miller is one of thousands across this nation who have left the homosexual life through the redeeming power of Jesus Christ.

Also known as the redeeming power of guilt, shame, and brainwashing.

Now, because Lisa has refused to comply with a court order giving Janet liberal unsupervised [I know what you're implying, and it's despicable] visitation with Isabella, Janet has asked the court to transfer custody of Isabella from her only biological parent (Lisa) to Janet, who is openly living a homosexual lifestyle.

Refusing to comply with a court order - also known as committing a crime.

Lisa could be thrown in jail for refusing to expose her child to Janet’s
harmful and destructive lifestyle

Since Lisa is the one who is a fugitive from justice, and using her daughter as a weapon to punish her ex, I'm not sure that it's Janet's lifestyle that's harmful and destructive.

Before I begin, I want you to know that I am not exaggerating when I say that Isabella will be harmed by visitation with Janet.

Um, you've already begun. This line is from the third paragraph of your message. And no, you're not exaggerating, you're just full of shit. An exaggeration is at least based on something true.

During one of the few court ordered visits that did take place, Isabella tells us that Janet: made then five year old Isabella bathe naked with Janet; had Isabella watch R-rated movies that depicted drug use and bloody murder scenes; and had Isabella watch Janet go to the bathroom.

Without having met you or Janet or Isabella, I feel pretty safe in saying that none of that is true. That is exactly the sort of nonsense that someone like you would coach a child to say. And it seems to be based on your bizarre ideas of what it is that gay people do when they're alone together. "Well, gosh, they couldn't possibly engage in healthy lovemaking activities, oh I bet they force little girls to watch them pee. That's the sort of perverse thing I bet the gay people do."

Others have testified in court documents that Janet lost Isabella at a county fair

My mother once lost me at K-Mart. Should she have lost custody? nless she lost her in a poker game, this is the sort of thing that happens to every parent.

After a very difficult childhood and a failed, abusive heterosexual marriage, Lisa, at near bottom, was told by a psychological professional that she must be a homosexual. As a result of that, Lisa plunged feet first into the homosexual community.

That's about the stupidest thing I ever heard. Someone told her she must be a homosexual, so she starts dating women, and even marries one? How easy do you think it is to talk someone into being gay? Believe me, I've had offers. But I've never taken anyone up on them. Why do you people think that it's somehow possible to just sort of accidentally become gay? If it were that easy, couldn't you just suggest to the gay people that they are probably breeders? Oh, yeah. That's what you did to Lisa Miller. Touche' homophobes!

As you can tell, Lisa and Isabella need your help. Lisa’s desire to raise her child according to the truths of Scripture are under attack: at one point during the Vermont litigation, Janet’s attorneys argued that Lisa shouldn’t be allowed to keep primary custody of Isabella because Lisa believed that God had a plan for Isabella’s life and that God would protect Isabella.

That never happened. Janet Jenkins did not argue that Lisa Miller should lose custody because she taught Isabella that God would protect her. Let's for a moment pretend that Janet really was nutty enough to make that argument. Her lawyer would never trot that shit into court. It's a guaranteed loser. If you were trying to lose your case, you couldn't come up with a worse argument.


Anyway, the Liberty people and the Family Research Council people and other assorted nuts are urging people to pray for Lisa Miller. Not pray that she come to her senses, but pray that she continue to be able to evade the law to impose her own twisted hateful views on the little girl. Just like Jesus would want! (sarcasm)

So, all that being said, hereby nominate Lisa Miller of Virginia for the Most Horrible Person Ever.

Orrin Hatch Is a Big Fat Liar

Orrin Hatch: Republicans Weren't Involved in the Process on Health Care Reform

I can't tell if this guy is serious, if he's lying, or if he even knows that he's lying.
Let's look at a few excerpts from the CNN transcript, shall we?

HATCH: I don't know one Republican who does not want health care reform.

Okay. That's just ridiculous. Unless by "health care reform" you mean killing Medicare or privatizing the VA, then yeah, probably a lot of Republicans are in favor of health care reform. But actual reform? How do you sit there with a straight face and pretend that you haven't done everything in your power to derail reform? Why can't you just be honest and say "we're against health care reform, and here are the reasons why. . ." and then there could be an honest debate?

I don't know one Republican who would not try to work together with the Democrats.

Sure, because to you, working with the Democrats means the Democrats rolling over and giving you everything you want. And it's easy to see where you would get that impression, given the Democrats' recent history of lining up to be George W's prison bitch. So that's probably not technically a lie, it's just using a definition of the term "work together" that no one else would use.

We weren't involved in this process. We weren't even asked.

Now that is the most baldfaced lie since Senator Craig's wedding vows. (zing!)
Saying that Republicans were not involved in the process is like saying that my father was not involved in the process of creating me. It's like saying that the Beatles were not involved in the whole British Invasion thing, or the Pope isn't involved with the Catholic Church. It's just such an obvious, ridiculous lie that even an American journalist should have called him on it. It's barely worth taking the time to refute it. Fortunately, I don't have to, Slate has already done it.

You can read the whole article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

But here are a few highlights:

Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

So, if we take Senate Republicans' word for it, the final bill ended up with 29 substantive Republican amendments. But, no, clearly the Republicans were not included in the process.
And what sort of amendments were they offering?

[An amendment] sponsored by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, would "establish an auto advisory council to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury regarding how best to represent the taxpayers of the United States as the majority owner of General Motors."

Seriously? That's what you have to add to the proceedings? An amendment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? And that amendment is included in the final bill, and still Hatch is claiming there was no Republican involvement? Really?

An amendment from Mike Enzi of Wyoming promises "to protect pro-patient plans and prevent rationing." Another of his would "prohibit the government run plan from limiting access to end of life care."

And Enzi gets his two cents in, adding protections from imaginary threats. Good work, Senator! But you forgot the "no fire-breathing dragons" clause!

You do understand, don't you Mr. Hatch, that as the minority party, you aren't actually entitled to anything? You remember how things were before 2008, when Republican leadership wouldn't even let Democrats hold hearings? (link) Remember when Sensenbrenner cut off the mics because he didn't like what Democrats were saying? (link)
You've gotten way more consideration than you deserve, but I guess that because you are no longer running the entire show, you feel like you're being steamrolled? Or something? Maybe you're not a big fat liar, maybe you're just a big fat baby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOeEXnPA898

Rush Limbaugh has No Integrity

Let's say you had a radio show.

And let's say you read something that was posted on a humor/satire website.

And let's just say that you were dumb enough to believe it and too lazy and perfidious to do any basic fact-checking.

Then let's say that after you reported the joke as fact, you were informed that the joke was, in fact, a joke.

There are a couple of legitimate responses from which you could choose.

You might say something like: "Sorry, folks, it looks like I've been had. That story was made up as a joke. I'll try to be more careful in the future."

Or you could get angry at the person who posted the joke and try to blame him for your mistake.

But what if you were Rush Limbaugh? (uggggh, shudder!)
If you're Rush Limbaugh, you go with the "it's false, but I stand by it" defense.

"So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up," he said. "I know Obama thinks it.

"You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it."

Oh, Rush! You're irrepressible!


Hey, remember when Dan Rather quoted a document which may have been fake (still hasn't been proven) in support of a story whose basic facts were 100% true?

And remember how the right howled for his head? And they got it?!!

Shouldn't they be holding Rush to a similar standard?

Isn't reporting on an obvious fake as if it were fact in service of a story which is total bullshit (and really, the fake article IS the story) like 10 times worse than Rather's mistake? What are the odds that the righties will be calling for Limbaugh to be fired now?

And, yes I know, they'll say that Limbaugh isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer or an editorialist, or whatever, but when he reported this phony story on the air, he was absolutely acting as a reporter. Shouldn't he have to have some standard of integrity?

It's beyond me how anyone thinks this assclown has any credibility.

Where is Joe Wilson When You Need Him?