political/personal observations

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Possibility of GOP taking over Senate has Republican immigration reform supporters scared

one good reason not to vote republican, these guys are so splintered and afraid of each other if they did get elected who would run what and answer to who, we can be sure it won't be who you voted for, remember last election and a guy named Grover Norquist and what he said abot Romney well it's a standard for their candidates, they are figure heads.

At the end of a Wall Street Journal report on how House Speaker John Boehner and other top House Republicans are privately telling campaign donors who support immigration reform that they still believe it can happen in 2014 comes this amazing passage explaining why some Republicans believe it's important to take action this year instead of waiting until 2015 or beyond:
GOP lobbyists and some congressional staff say the task might grow harder if the party waits.
If Republicans win control of the Senate, for example, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), who is widely seen as opposing an immigration overhaul, would be slated to lead the Judiciary Committee, which handles immigration.
Many in the business community have shifted their lobbying to emphasize this point, several lobbyists said.
In other words, Republicans who support immigration reform want to act now because they're afraid of what would happen if Republicans were to take full control of Congress. In a way, that makes sense, but it's also a damning indictment that the possibility of winning the next election is one of the biggest fears of the GOP's immigration reform supporters.

they really don't want to deal with immigration because those immigrants are morelikely to vote Progressives, some are either honestly seeking to get reform or there is some benefit by saying they support it or maybe just reality can't win without them, with that kind of leverage Hispanics really have them over a boiling couldron someone needs to let them know.

Republicans respond to good Obamacare news: 'Lalala, we can't hear you!'

9 year old boy with his mouth open in a scream, and his ears covered. Isolated on dark background.
attribution: Dreamstime/Martin Applegate
Obamcare enrollments exceeded all expectations, premiums are going to be lower than predicted, millions of Americans now have health coverage. So, as President Obama said Thursday, in announcing 8 million enrollments, "It's well past time to move on as a country." Right? Ha.
No, we can't. RT @ZekeJMiller: Obama:  "I think we can all agree that it's well past time to move on."
Oh, but that's not all:
From dropped coverage, to increased health care costs, to less access to preferred doctors, #ObamaCare is hurting millions of Americans.
— @Senate_GOPs
Tell Congress to stop spending $17 million of your tax dollars every month on #Obamacare ads!
— @FreedomWorks
Or in the words of a Republican in House leadership:
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy said Obama was “right” when he said the GOP refuses to accept the Affordable Care Act “as settled law.”
“Republicans cannot and will not accept this law,” McCarthy said in a statement.
if you are hearing a strange tapping it's the republican congress stomping their feet because they believed in their own lies and now that none of their predictions manifested they are now left to question their motives you know whether 55 more times will bring about the euphoria they know is there as soon as ObamaCares becomes those proverbial train wrecks, abominations, worse law ever or Michelle Bachmann's assertion it will kill everybody "please don't let it kill everybody", from wantonly despicable to the overboard off the hook absurdities, these are the plans of your republican party after 5 years, do you really need to give them anymore before they kill everybody?

Rand Paul wants to know when U.S. economy last created millions of jobs. Here's the answer.

and now your republican pin head of the day,
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks during a  news conference to announce legal action against government surveillance and the National Security Agency's overreach of power on Capitol Hill in Washington June 13, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas (UNITED STATES - Tags

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul asks a question:
When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs?
Unfortunately, he wasn't interested in the answer. Or, more specifically, he thought he knew the answer:
It was under Ronald Reagan.
One way you could look at it is total number of jobs created during each presidency since Reagan. If you did that, here's what you'd get:
  • Reagan: 16.1 million (8 years)
  • Bush 41: 2.6 million (4 years)
  • Clinton: 22.9 million (8 years)
  • Bush 43: 1.3 million (8 years)
  • Obama: 4.0 million (6 years, 2 months)
Or, to look at it a different way, since Reagan became president, a total of 20 million jobs have been created in the 20 years with Republicans in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, 26.9 million jobs have been created in the 14 years with Democrats in office. And here's the amazing thing: These numbers attribute 4.3 million jobs lost during Bush's Great Recession to Obama—if you factored those out, the total job tally would be 31 million jobs under Democrats to 16 million jobs under Republicans.
maybe Paul needs to go back to plagiarizing when he speaks his own words it's just one big ball of confusion, by him, maybe he knows that and was torn between to plagiarize or not to plagiarize that's a question, maybe for him?

As Bill Scher pointed out, the absurdity of Rand Paul's misstatement of facts really disproves the case Paul was trying to make—that the Republican economic philosophy is better for regular working people. Paul believes the GOP needs to shed its image of being the party of the rich, which is obviously true, but his solution for doing that is to fall back on the same old trickle-down economic policies that make the economy so much worse under Republican presidents. Republicans don't need new spin: They need new policies.

"TOUCHE',  they now have to admit their "PRINCIPLES" formerly known as "VALUES" are their problem they are reprehensible persons with despicable ideals until that changes and not just till election is over but over years will they begin toget looked at as legitimate.

Kentucky Dems royally screw over Rand Paul's 2016 plans
So Rand Paul wants to run for President in 2016. Rand also wants to run to keep his Senate seat at the same time in case his White House bid doesn't work out.
In order to do so Rand needs the Kentucky state legislature to pass a law that would allow him to appear twice on the same ballot, as Senator and for the Presidency, something that has happened several times since LBJ first did it. Of course, the Republican controlled Kentucky State Senate happily obliged, they passed a one paragraph bill to let Rand run for Senate and the White House. The Assembly in Kentucky is controlled by Democrats and they said, hmmmm, let me think, no.
Yeah, it must suck to have the Senate pass something and then have a lower legislative body kill it.
Kentucky Democrats in the State Assembly took their Senate GOP counterparts bill and let it die in the legislative docket at the end of this legislative session. They jokingly claimed they were still taking their time reading the one paragraph bill.
Which leads me to believe that what National Democrats need is a good sip of bourbon.
Rachel Maddow makes the case in her segment that Ron Paul was always a joke fringe candidate who kept his safe House seat and made a mini-career of running for President and saying no to every legislative idea presented to him. He dabbled at running for President, and when he lost, he would not lose his current House seat.
 Now that Rand Paul can't safely run in 2016 as a White House hopeful AND Senate candidate unless Kentucky Dems suddenly have a change of heart or lose the Kentucky Assembly, which seems unlikely, well, that throws a monkey wrench in Rand Paul's safe try to run for the WH and fall back on a Senate seat should he lose.
Rand Paul now has to choose. Does his family name fall out of Congressional office if he runs for the White House and loses, or maybe he just wants to be that blow hard Senator who never really passes legislation and hires charlatan's who claim to hate Abraham Lincoln for no apparent reason. Your know, just like his dad did for a living while he was running for President.
this is a taste of their own treatment of "we the people" in the House of reps.,senate passes laws for the benefit of the country and "we the people" then republican congress craps on it,  that has been a glaring reality every since they went on nat'l TV and declared they would do nothing to help Press. and make him a one termer, one out of two is the best they got they have done nothing.
i woud equate this to him not getting that Red Ryder BB gun when he was a little tyke, but grew up to be a racist and disrepectful woman hater remember this, don't trhink he ever appologized.

Media Expert Highlights Problematic Tea Party Ties In Right-Wing Talk Radio
Media consultant Holland Cooke highlighted the deceptive advocacy of right-wing talk radio hosts on behalf of sponsors such as tea party groups, arguing that listeners "might not understand that free speech had a price tag."
In a piece titled "The tea party radio network," Politico highlighted the relationship between conservative talk radio shows and tea party non-profit groups who often act as sponsors of the shows. The report "found that conservative groups spent nearly $22 million to broker and pay for involved advertising relationships known as sponsorships with a handful of influential talkers including Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh between the first talk radio deals in 2008 and the end of 2012." 

my thought is okay but these persons are Fox employees and contributors so if their rants are bought and payed for who at Fox authorizes the rhetoric on their time?  complicity comes to mind we all know Fox is the right wing place to go to support and publish your misleading information so maybe it's not so much a mystery.

On the April 17 segment on MSNBC's The Ed Show, Ed Schultz hosted talk radio consultant Holland Cooke and Ken Vogel, a co-author of the Politico piece. Vogel pointed out that the nature of right-wing radio's sponsorship "begs the question 'where does the line between the core ideological beliefs of the host end and where does the paid sponsorship start?'"
 Cooke pointed out that the conservative radio advertising landscape had shifted after Rush Limbaugh's notorious attacks on Sandra Fluke caused an advertiser boycott, due in large part to groups like Flush Rush, and explained that sponsors are often "treated like a news source," leaving many listeners not realizing that they are even listening to ads:
none the less we all eventually get there but wasn't the internet suppose to speed eventually up"?  we are not investigating we have the tools either at home, a friends, the library or various sources of news, there's really no excuse not to know what you are going to step in if you go one way or the other, use it it's your lifeline or wave as the rest of the world passes you by still wallowing in republican elephant dung. recognize

Rush Limbaugh Is In Ruins - Bad News Coming From Every Direction - Including The Right

there is a thing called going too far and racist Rush has over stayed his welcome.  Americans are opening their eyes to the skulduggery of the right wing propagandist and are tiring of the same thing day in day out, how many times can you repeat a lie and have it immediately rebuked in republican world the jury is still out on that one.

attribution: None Specified
It's been a very bad week for talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, and a very rewarding week for the millions of Americans who have protested his extreme hate speech for decades. Two years ago, newer groups like BoycottRush/FlushRush/StopRush began a massive national boycott movement that is exposing Limbaugh and crushing his career. Here are four new recent developments:
1. Politico published an article revealing that Tea Party organizations (some created by the Koch brothers) have contributed millions to Rush Limbaugh. What does this mean? For Rush, it means they helped sustain him while thousands of sponsors pulled their ads. It means this may lead to an investigation to see if the funding was done legally. According to the FCC, if you receive money from an organization that pays you to promote their propaganda, without telling your audience, it may be considered 'payola' - and it may be illegal.

"The Heritage Foundation at the end of January ended its five-year sponsorship of El Rushbo’s show, for which it had paid more than $2 million in some years and more than $9.5 million overall. In 2012, FreedomWorks paid at least $1.4 million to make him an endorser, though it’s not clear that the sponsorship is ongoing."
2. Forbes Senior Political Contributor and regular on Forbes On Fox, Rick Ungar, believes Rush Limbaugh has become a joke. He also shows, via data, that Limbaugh has outlived his audience. Ungar, also known as Forbes 'token lefty' implies Rush is now in the, toss out the old - bring in the new, demographic category. The median age of his dwindling audience (as well as the aforementioned sponsor boycott) no longer appeals to advertisers.
after awhile all shock jocks come to believe their ratings are validation of themselves so they embark on a tirade of personal  assumptions that no longer seem to be what the faithful audience is seeing in the rest of the world and then it begins the subtle downward spiral, subtle to those who are dependent and unseen till it becomes news by those of us who are not ditto heads.

how can you have any respect for yourself when you follow and cheer such insane rhetoric that comes from the likes of Glen Beck, racist Rush, and hollow Hannity and loud mouth wannabe O'Reilly that are not masters of the mislead because we who think for ourselves see right through them.  don't worry some right wing upstart media will pick him up and the ditto heads will all wet their pants trying to find the outlet.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Fox's Week-Long "War On Easter"

Fox News spent an entire week hyping a supposed "War on Easter," pointing to the decision made by a few school boards to hold "Spring egg hunt[s]" instead of Easter egg hunts. In seven days, Fox devoted 10 segments to what host Bill O'Reilly called the continued "war on Judeo-Christian tradition."

On March 21, O'Reilly lambasted President Obama and the White House for empowering "secular progressives" to pressure school districts around the country to eliminate terms like "Easter bunny" and "Easter egg." O'Reilly complained that "the war on Judeo-Christian tradition continues in some public school districts," citing districts in five states that he said "are having Spring egg events. Moderated by a Spring bunny":
O'REILLY: I know it's stupid. You know it's stupid. But it's happening, and there is a reason why it's happening. Secular progressives are running wild with President Obama in the White House. They feel unchained, liberated and they are trying to diminish any form of religion. The goal is to marginalize religious opposition to secular programs. 
 March 24: During a "P.C. Police" segment, Fox & Friends Sunday guest co-host Jesse Watters, echoing O'Reilly's March 21 remarks, discussed the deliberate attempt to "diminish religion" with his guest. He also claimed that people who want to remove the word Easter from certain school activities causes pain to more people:
WATTERS: Now, a lot of people say it offends people when you use the word Easter, a very small minority, but then by removing the word Easter ends up offending much more people to begin with. Don't they see that they're actually causing more pain? 
March 26The Five co-host Eric Bolling hyped a supposed new example of Easter coming under attack when the principal of an Alabama middle school directed her school to not call an egg hunt an "Easter egg" hunt in order to respect others' religion.
March 27: Fox's coverage of the "War on Easter" came to a head when it dedicated six segments to the so-called "War." Fox's early show, Fox & Friends First, covered the Alabama middle school's decision twice, asking the audience to weigh in on the supposed controversy.
On Fox & Friends, the co-hosts also commented on the Alabama middle school's decision to remove "Easter" from school activities. In the first segment, co-host Brian Kilmeade reacted to a clip of the principal explaining why she made the decision to drop the word "Easter," asking if she was nine years old because of how she spoke. Co-host Gretchen Carlson wondered why using the word "Easter" was concerning at all: 
CARLSON: I just always love to know who complains about this. Because if you're talking about Passover this week, and you're talking about Easter, I think those are the only two religious holidays this week. Correct me if I am wrong. So if you include both of them what's the big deal? I guess if you believe in nothing, then you would be one that might criticize, saying either of those two words. But then, can't you just leave the option out there for people if they believe in nothing to just - okay you believe in nothing. I just don't understand when people get their undies in a bundle.
note this is not something that is taking over the real news cycles i haven't heard anything except here.  and they are citing Alabama isn't that one of their states?  guess another oop's is in line, they are railing against their own the evangelicals are the only group saying and doing things like this, is this attack part of their internal civil war mioderates against Tea people?