Scott Brown Is The Newest Right-Wing Media Huckster

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/05/scott-brown-is-the-newest-right-wing-media-huck/197935

Fox News contributor Scott Brown is renting out his email list to an outlet that touts shady products like Alzheimer's disease cures and Social Security tricks.

Brown joins several of his Republican colleagues in attempting to cash in on their followers through dubious or shady practices. Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich have all been renting out their email lists to suspect sources. 

As Salon's Alex Pareene noted, "the conservative movement is an elaborate moneymaking venture. For professional movement conservatives, their audiences and followers are easy marks." 

looks like the right wing is prostituting your personal info, do you approve of this deception by republicans?

Brown sent an email this morning with the subject line "5 Signs You'll Get Alzheimer's Disease" to his ScottBrown.com email list. Brown wrote in the email: "Dear Patriot, I thought you might be interested in the offer below from our sponsor Newsmax Health. Thank you, Senator Scott Brown."  

Brown's email contains a pitch touting the "findings" of Dr. Russell Blaylock, and "Simple strategies and natural therapies to prevent, treat, and reverse memory loss, Alzheimer's, dementia, Parkinson's, and other neurodegenerative disorders."

Blaylock, a repeat guest on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' radio show, has made numerous dubious medical claims through Newsmax and other far-right media outlets:

• Blaylock has pushed the connection between vaccines and autism and claimed that the "greatest danger is the vaccines themselves."
• Blaylock's regular interviews on Alex Jones' radio program feature headlines like, "Dr. Russell Blaylock Exposes Obama's Nazi Healthcare System," "Obamacare is Mandated Social Engineering," and "How Vaccines Hurt You." 
• "The Blaylock Wellness Report" claims he is the "secret weapon" against cancer since "You won't get the whole story on cancer from the traditional media" and "You won't even get all the details from your own doctor (even from cancer specialists -- oncologists)."
• Blaylock's newsletter boasts that he doesn't "parrot what the New England Journal of Medicine" prescribes. During one interview, Blaylock advised viewers not to trust the Centers for Disease Control because they support practices such as fluoridation and vaccines.

preying on the in need and gullible of their party their vase the "FOLKS" they are looking out for, those faithfuls that believe the garbage they spew seems a short jump to further use them for profit.

On February 4 Brown sent an email sponsored by The Franklin Prosperity Report. The email, which included text of a FoxNews.com article about President Obama's Bill O'Reilly interview, has ads promising to show readers a "Weird Trick" that "adds $1,000 to Your Social Security Checks!" It also included a sponsor's note claiming: "Special: Seniors Scoop Up Unclaimed $20,500 Checks? (See If You Qualify)."

The Franklin Prosperity Report is a questionable newsletter operated by Newsmax that claims to be based on the "investment methods" of Benjamin Franklin. The link in Brown's email takes readers to a sign-up page claiming that seniors can "Grab up to $20,500 of the trillions in money,

services, and other goodies that Uncle Sam may have ALREADY allocated for your family for 2014 -- and find out about more than 40 unclaimed government grants, giveaways, and subsidized trips." The page includes a picture of an elderly couple enjoying themselves in front of the Eiffel Towe

they are smelling themselves they have gotten so cocky that anything goes, i think the most unforgivable thing is using their base not only as water carriers but as a whole new consumer base for their schemes and money raising not presented as a campaign but as undercover contributions to their agenda, this is why they want to keep them dumb they make excellent marks. no education bills for them, education Nazi's.

Mainstream Media Wrong On Obamacare: CBO Says It Will Let People Work Less And Raise Others' Wages

http://www.alternet.org/economy/mainstream-media-repeats-incorrect-gop-line-obamacare-and-jobs

Apparently a lot of media folks have made such a habit of repeating Republican talking points that they can't see what is right in front of their eyes. 

The Republicans are touting the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to reduce the number of people working.

Guess what? This was one of the motivations for the ACA. It is a feature, not a bug. There are a lot of people who would prefer not to work and would not work if they had some other way to get health care insurance. Imagine a 62 year-old with diabetes and other health conditions. No insurer will touch this person. 

If they can get insurance at all they are looking at bill that will certainly run well over $10k a year. If this person has a job that provides insurance they will keep it until they qualify for Medicare no matter how much of a struggle it is to go to work each day.

we have seen the right jump on this like a lion on a pork chop and just like every other such leaping to misleading you suffer from misinfo designed to do just that continue to confuse the real 411 on ACA,

this is doing you a disservice as well as depriving you of better health care.  bumps now are caused by their refusal to implement or even expand medicaid does this look like people who care about you and will look out for you hard to do when the two biggest things they obstruct are health care and jobs while claiming they are focusing on this for you, well they are focused alright with cross hairs and a AR-15.

Now with the ACA this person will be able to buy insurance at the same price as anyone else in the age 55-64 age group. If they can get by on their Social Security and prior savings then they may well decide to retire early. They may also qualify for a subsidy in the exchanges. Is this an awful story? You be the judge.

The other likely scenario is the case of a mother with a newly born child. She may want to spend some time at home with her kid, but may have no other way to pay for her health insurance if she leaves her job. The ACA will give her an opportunity to get lower cost insurance (possibly with a subsidy). Again, is a mother taking some off to be with a new born kid a horror story?

doesn't sound much like what republicans are spinning, they use the part they can twist and omit that which explains the real deal. they are duping us or trying to. how long are we going to let those who think we are too stupid to think twist truths and lie incessantly in order to steer you away from ACA and keep you subject to the same skulduggery ins. co.'s have put us through for decades. this is the reason ACA was given to Americans do we stare a gift horse in the mouth or do we continue to wade through the elephant dung?

George Zimmerman to fight rapper DMX in celebrity boxing bout

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/showbiz/zimmerman-dmx

As in, what now, George Zimmerman?

Seems like the former neighborhood watchman has found yet another way to remain in the public limelight. This time, he'll be stepping into a boxing ring to fight rapper DMX.

"A mutual friend put me in contact with Damon and provided me with an opportunity and motivation to get back in shape and continue with my weight loss goals and also be able to help a charity out."

Damon is Damon Feldman, owner of Celebrity Boxing and self-described opportunist, whose claim to fame is putting together bizarre matchups. Think Tonya Harding, Michael Lohan.

He said last week that he was accepting offers for someone to step into the ring for a three-round, pay-per-view fight with Zimmerman.

"The news has been out for an hour and my e-mail is overloaded with 8,000 people wanting to fight George," Feldman told CNN on Thursday.

Early Wednesday morning, he said he's picked the contender. Out of more than 15,000 e-mailed requests, he's going with DMX.

DMX, as we know is a rapper, and braggadocio is his calling card.

He's out for blood, he told TMZ. Not only will he break every rule in boxing, he said, he'll "beat the living (expletive)" out of Zimmerman.

first why the mugshot jail picture was that suppose to make DMX look more menacing? i see he's graying and don't know what kind of shape he's in but it smells like both are looking for a payday and an armature tough man contest, as to Zimmerman and charity if he does it's probably fishing for brownie points plus don't see him giving up too much cheddar after all he has a celebrity wannabe lifestyle to support.

Photos: Celebrity mugshotsZimmerman said the celebrity boxing match wven prior to the "incident."

NYC mom sues after cop fractures her 10-year-old son's leg, report says

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/nyc-mom-sues-after-cop-fractures-her-10

A Brooklyn mother is suing after her 10-year-old boy was assaulted by a police officer for filming him with his mother's cell phone, according to areport from the New York Daily News.

Police were at Krystle Silvera's Flatbush residence searching for her ex-boyfriend in connection to violating an order of protection, the report said.

The cops began pounding on the door at 7 a.m. on Jan. 30, according to a lawsuit filed bySilvera. Her son, Courtney, took his mom's cell phone and started filming them after his grandmother opened the door.

"The police had come to our house before (due to the domestic complaint),"Silvera told the Daily News. "He's fascinated by the police — he looks up to them."

The officer began assaulting the child, and left him with a fractured leg, the report said.

have you noticed that crimes by police with violence have escalated, they are as regular as all other violent stories, the most violent irresponsible was that New Mexico gang of police who assault their car and rabidly tried to get their hands on them, she pulled away in fear his own dash cam catches him firing at the car full of kids.

Krystle Silvera, who was upstairs getting her daughter ready for school, came down after hearing the commotion and was pulled outside the apartment by a cop, the report said.

Silvera struggled with the officers as they tried to restrain her. She was charged with assaulting the cops and released two days later on $1,500 bail.

She is seeking unspecified monetary damages, the report said.

retired cops killing kids, Fla guy gets killed waving hello to a cop who said he thought he was being disrespected. can't find that but some of you remember.

New Mexico mom shot at seveal times with car full of kids after assault by crazed police.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nm-police-fire-on-minivan-filled-with-kids-their-mom-how-it-happened/

CBO on Obamacare: People won't be as desperate for work, and nobody's going to lose their job.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/02/cbo_on_obamacare_people_won_t_be_as_desperate_for_work_and_nobody_s_going.html

Imagine Bill Gates decided to do something very eccentric and give $1 million to every man, woman, and child living in Hancock County, Maine. That wouldn’t be a particularly savvy use of his charitable dollars, but he could afford it if he wanted to and still have billions to spare. What would happen next? 

Well, after a bunch of crazy celebrations it stands to reason that quite a lot of people would quit their jobs. After all, while working can be fulfilling, it can also be a chore. 

Nobody with a million bucks in her pocket is going to want to work at the Ellsworth Wendy’s orwake up at 4 a.m. to go lobstering. Over time, obviously, the regional economy would adjust. Some people would move away. Some would shift into other jobs.

 Other folks would move to the newly prosperous Hancock County. But among the 54,000 or so people who live there, employment would take a permanent hit.

Whatever you might say about this, though, you certainly wouldn’t say that Gates had wronged the local people or “killed jobs.”

And yet a Congressional Budget Office report—concluding that the Affordable Care Act would, in a much less spectacular manner, also reduce demand for working by improving people's standard of living—was widely touted in the press as a devastating blow to the Obama administration. Luke Russert called it an “election year killer,” Chuck Todd said the report “reaffirms GOP talking points,” and Ben White called it “devastating.”

very few bother to fact check what they hear in the media they either believe or dismiss, unfortunately on the right wing most believe and run with it spreading misinfo down the line, articles like this are sorely needed to set the record straight not host that allow it to be repeated followed by "thank you for being here" period.

On Twitter, Jackie Calmes of the New York Times acknowledged that even though “much reporting & GOP response to new CBO report on ACA is inaccurate/false,” it still presents a “problem for Dems: if you’re explainin’, you’re losin’.”

Maybe. Or maybe you’re just explaining. Explaining, for example, that while the CBO did estimate that Obamacare implementation will lead to 2 million–2.5 million fewer full-time equivalent jobs than would otherwise exist, those jobs would be lost on the supply-side rather than the demand-side.

To see the difference, go back to Hancock County. In the wake of the Gates giveaway, employment isn’t falling there because nobody wants to buy lobster or lunch or get the plumbing fixed. If anything, the demand for workers will go up since there are more people in town with cash in their pockets to spend. But employment is going to go down because the supply of people interested in jobs—especially lower-paying or less-pleasant jobs—is going to tumble.

republicans ramble about helping you and helping the economy, if more money in your pocket is the fastest way to recover why haven't they signed Pres.'s jobs act, stopped taking away the social nets and food stamps, health care refusal, unemployment extension,

all the above would change the way some view them and boost the economy they won't because they see it as he would get the credit because it's under his watch,

the same as those homemade scandals were suppose to get the opposite effect but still under his watch and his fault by proxy, they are the firewalls in our life not Pres. or his agenda. recognize

The right's grave new threat: Why its political institutions now must fail

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/the_rights_existential_threat_why_its_political_institutions_will_never_succeed/

On Monday, apropos of what I’m not sure, conservative technologist Patrick Ruffinitweeted a thoughtful and detailed critique of existing conservative institutions, arguing that the movement needs newer, better ones if the American right is to be more than a safe haven for refugees from the broader culture.

On Tuesday, nearly every conservative institution of influence — the Republican Party and its enablers and antagonists in the movement — united to perpetuate a major fiction about the Affordable Care Act.

These sound like unrelated issues, but in fact the latter exemplifies why Ruffini’s dream of a mature conservatism with broad public appeal isn’t going to materialize any time soon. The existing conservative movement’s worst practices aren’t a consequence of the ossification of old institutions. 

They flow naturally from the composition of the movement itself. And that movement won’t tolerate the kind of institutional vision Ruffini contemplates.

A conservatism of national consensus would have to depart from the existing movement in many ways, but the most immediate substantive and lexical shift would have to be the abandonment of Obamacare dead enderism. Not that the new conservatism would need to embrace the Affordable Care Act. But it would have to recognize the on-the-ground reality that repeal is an impossible goal with marginal support, and direct its energies toward modifying the law in modest, but conservative-friendly ways.

like i said total system recovery wipe the etch a sketch and the ones who turn the knobs out.  reconstruction was not only for the south with southern doctrine, that is what has them in the jackpot now it's a dying culture those hanging on will go down like Ahab tied to Moby Dick.

 But the existing movement draws its energy from cultural reactionaries who demand fealty to unpopular policies and also happen to be party activists. 

and therein lies their conundrum, they spent decades in the same bag that bag now has a gaping hole in it, do they set about trying to repair the hole, nooooooo they make it wider day by day, hour by hour, they will all eventually fall out and make the splash heard around the world, or in your bathroom after a good meal, i'm leaning toward the latter.

Inside the Shocking 'Kids For Cash' Juvenile Justice Scandal How two corrupt judges received $2.6 million in kickbacks from the private prison facility industry.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/no-one-listened-because-we-were-kids-inside-nations-shocking-kids-cash-juvenile

Today a special on "kids for cash," the shocking story of how thousands of children in Pennsylvania were jailed by two corrupt judges who received $2.6 million in kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities. We hear from two of the youth: Charlie Balasavage was sent to juvenile detention after his parents unknowingly bought him a stolen scooter;

Hillary Transue was detained for creating a MySpace page mocking her assistant high school principal. They were both 14 years old and were sentenced by the same judge, Judge Mark Ciavarella, who is now in jail himself — serving a 28-year sentence. Balasavage and Transue are featured in the new documentary, "Kids for Cash," by filmmaker Robert May, who also joins us.

there is much more abuse of these kids then this article fails to mention.  we ae just creating those the NRA and republicans say are doing all the mass murders,  harden criminals come out where kids went in, trauma suffered by abusive correctional officers, blind eyed wardens, ridiculous sentences for the crimes, all about the Benjamin's, and we know who is pushing private prisons, and if you don't know, republicans, now you know.

Creationist Ken Ham: Climate Change Goes Back to "The Flood of Noah's Day"

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/nye-ken-ham-climate-change

When Bill Nye the Science Guy took the stage Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., his task was to refute the idea that Biblical creationism is a scientifically valid idea—one that should be taught in schools.

But as we've seen again and again, science denial is rarely limited in scope. So perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Nye's opponent, museum head Ken Ham, doesn't just reject evolution; he's also spreading some rather unscientific ideas about global warming. Appearing on CNN after the debate, 

Ham informed viewers that "there's been climate change ever since the flood of Noah's day." Ham added that while the climate had warmed "a bit in the past," it's now "cooling again." (Not true.) You can watch Ham and Nye debate climate science in the clip above.

they can roll out as many people as they have misinformation i still think they are denying it because if not they would have no argument against regulation in fact that would support the need for them.  

they are not 4 letter words they are prevent defense use it or lose it.  i don't want a bunch of guys who are beholding to big business and their shortcuts deciding what can go buck wild and what doesn't, so far the only things they deem what doesn't, health care, food stamps, jobs, taxes and what they do want the lame voucher plan they are trying to pull out and on us. 

This has been something of a theme for Ham, who says in a series of online videos that this supposed "cooling trend" is "no surprise to creation scientists." According to Ham: "Western governments have invested so much in the carbon dioxide theory that they probably won’t change their minds any time soon. But scripture tells us what really happened: We live on a young Earth that has undergone radical climate changes from the global flood."

we create a times more problems for ourselves when we allow someone to give their interpretation of the Bible, especially when it is in favor of polluting the earth and it's inhabitants, think about it they don't know they use evidence that can be interpreted in many ways depending on how much of a zealot you are.  the other has facts also but i think those who don't believe it's possible will look pretty stupid turning purple and dying from nothing. recognize.

For Republicans, Immigration Reform Is Unavoidable

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/republicans-immigration-reform-unavoidable

Should Republicans support immigration reform this year? From a purely political perspective, there are good reasons not to:

• It would anger the conservative base, which is dead set against any kind of comprehensive immigration reform that allows undocumented workers to stay in the country legally (i.e., a "path to citizenship" or a path to legal residence of some kind).
• Even outside the tea party base, most Republicans oppose immigration reform.
• It almost certainly wouldn't help Republicans in this year's midterm elections. It might even hurt them.

this is their manifesto, they don't want potential Progressive voters in the country they have rained so much hate and bigotry on Hispanics forever that it's inconceivable they would get a large enough block of that vote to make a difference.

they know this and IMO that is why they want to cut bait and run centuries of dehumanizing and prejudice can't be fixed with " will look out for you, but we won't change our "PRINCIPLES" formerly know as " VALUES".

What about the other side? In my view, there's really only one good reason for the Republican leadership to forge ahead despite all this:

• In the long term, it would be good for the party. Opposition to immigration reform is a festering sore that prevents the GOP from appealing to the fast-growing Hispanic population, something that they'll have to address eventually.

In the simplest sense, then, this is an issue of timing. At some point, Republicans will have to bite the bullet and do this. They just can't keep losing the Hispanic vote 70-30 and expect to ever win the presidency again. It's a simple question of brute numbers. The question is how long they can hold out.

all about timing, well these are the guys who invented kicking the can down the road that is basically what this article is about.  the damage has been and will contiue to be done until that party does a compltete system recovery wipe that etch a sketch and get new blood who don''t have an agenda that alienates over half of the country.

if these guys are for their party retire let another set come in game over.

AP's Julie Pace Injects False Balance Into Health Care Debate

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/04/aps-julie-pace-injects-false-balance-into-healt/197929

After the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released new estimates of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) impact on labor markets, the Associated Press' Julie Pace claimed there were "two different ways" to characterize the report: the Republican characterization, and the White House's position. 

But there's a major problem with Pace's false balance -- only the White House's position is backed up by the facts.

On February 4, the non-partisan CBO released its Budget and Economic Outlook for the years 2014 to 2024. One section of the report projected that the number of full-time-equivalent workers would decline by about 2 million over the next three years due to the impact of the ACA. 

Conservative media quickly declared that the report showed 2 million jobs would be destroyed.

PACE: Basically what you have is two different ways of characterizing this report. If you talk to Republicans, they say there are going to be nearly 2.5 million jobs that are going to be lost over a decade because of the Affordable Care Act. If you talk to the White House, there are going to be 2.5 million people who are going to have a choice to leave full-time employment.

leaping before looking they do it anytime they perceive any bad press whether it is or not they are on it like a lion on a pork chop.

Pace included the Republican talking point in an apparent attempt to balance the White House's statements, but the idea that "there are going to be nearly 2.5 million jobs that are going to be lost" is simply not true. As the Los Angeles Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik explained (emphasis original):

The CBO projects that the [Affordable Care] act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

The ACA will reduce the total hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% in 2017 to 2024, the CBO forecasts, "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor -- given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." That translates into about 2.5 million full-time equivalents by 2024 -- not the number of workers, because some will reduce their number of hours worked rather than leaving the workforce entirely.

if only their base and fence walkers would see this story somewhere and understand the many times of under information they have been given by the republicans and come to realize what is for their best well being, and it is not the covered uo voucher plan they are trying to shove down our throats as an alternative to ACA

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/01/30/new-republican-plan-for-healthcare-reform-is-hail-mary-tax/

CVS To Stop Selling Tobacco Products

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/cvs-tobacco-products_n_4729217.html

Feb 5 (Reuters) - CVS Caremark Corp said on Wednesday that it would stop selling tobacco products at its 7,600 stores by October, becoming the first U.S. drugstore chain to take cigarettes off the shelf.

Public health experts called the decision by the No. 2 U.S. drugstore chain a precedent-setting step that could pressure other stores to follow suit.

CVS, whose Caremark unit is a major pharmacy benefits manager for corporations and the government Medicare program, believes the decision will strengthen its position as a healthcare provider.

"I think it will put pressure on other retailers who want to be in healthcare," said CVS Caremark Chief Medical Officer Dr. Troyen Brennan.

good move by CVS especially since their name is Customer Value Store kinda hard when you sell things that kill off your customer base. i by the grace of God stopped about 7 years ago overnight without trying and haven't looked back praise the Lord.

i started at 12 stopped at 58 no cancer or lung problems i am truly Blessed, and which those same Blessing for those who need to and want to.

Although some U.S. cities, including Boston and San Francisco, already ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies, advocates hope CVS' voluntary decision will have a ripple effect among other pharmacy chains.

in this business atmosphere those who have not stand to make a killing from those pharmacy customers as well a mom and pop stores guess with out state wide law it's up to the owner,

if most customers smoke don't see a change maybe dedicate a corner or keep them behind the counter. in some area black markets will rise nicotine is an addictive drug and it's dynamic will play out as that.

A New Hampshire bill would allow voters to vote for “none of the above.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/02/03/a_new_hampshire_bill_would_allow_voters_to_vote_for_none_of_the_above.html

The good people of New Hampshire are known to have a bit of an ornery streak when it comes to voting. Part of their ballot-box reputation perhaps stems from the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto, but the state’s first primary status also contributes to its role as the country's political diva. 

So, it makes some sense that the state is weighing a bill that would give New Hampshire voters a chance to express themselves a bit more specifically by placing a “none of the above” option on the state’s ballots.

Having the choice not-to-choose is worth having for the state’s voters even though getting it passed is a long shot, according to the backers of the bill. “Real choice means people have to be able to withhold their consent,” state legislator Charles Weed told the Associated Press. 

But, even some supporters of the idea acknowledge it would be “humiliating for a candidate to be defeated by no one rather than an actual opponent,” the AP reports.

“It’s hard enough to lose to an opponent. It’s doubly hard to lose to nobody,” Rep. Douglas Ley told the AP. “We have tender egos. It’s one of the reasons why I think it’s been opposed, but no one will ever say that.” 

Under the bill, if “none of the above” came out on top of the poor souls who were actually above, a special election would be held.

this IMO is a bone throwing veiled in a plan for somebody to get richer. the money spent to add that than the people showing up would call for longer poll hours or extensions unless they are not republicans in that case they are already checkmated. 

 but what is the difference in coming out and braving the weather just to say the same thing you could from the comfort of your home, as to no vote equals a vote for other side either way there is still no vote.

as to losing to nobody that is the choice you make knowing it could happen and how secure you are with your supporters.

If New Hampshire decides to allow “none of the above” to run, the state would be the second in the country to have the option to vote for nobody. Nevada is currently the only state that gives voters that option. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court, refused an appeal by Republicans in the state trying to remove the “none of the above” option, the AP reports.

of course the republicans did, paranoid insecurity, or no faith in their own platform as being a winner.  lots of Hispanics in Nevada, 

John Elway tells Fox News Host: 'I Don't Believe in Safety Nets' So I Support the GOP

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/john-elway-fox-i-dont-believe-safety-nets-so-i-support-gop

  Denver Broncos executive vice president of football operations John Elway revealed on Sunday that he was a Republican because he doesn't "believe in safety nets" -- even though he admitted they were necessary.

In a interview on Fox News prior to Super Bowl XLVIII, host Chris Wallace pointed out that Elway was a "big Republican" who had contributed "a lot of money" to former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.

"Why do you support the GOP?" Wallace wondered.

"Well, it goes to what my beliefs are," Elway explained. "I believe that we're given the opportunity to succeed or not succeed."

what a confused prick, he doesn't believe in them but he thinks they are necessary????  it's true that given the opportunity thing except most don't get the opportunity by design, look at all the legislation the republican congress has obstructed that are crucial to obtaining that opportunity, the game is, has been and will always be rigged in other peoples favor.  we will have to be the people we are waiting for, can't trust your life to someone who doesn't admit you have the right to have one at least with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"I don't believe in safety nets," he continued. "Obviously, we've got to have some kind of safety nets. But I think my philosophy is when given the opportunity to go take advantage of that, I think that's when you get the best out of people."

The football Hall of Famer noted that he was "middle right" and his business experience taught him that "you got to give a little to get something."

this guy is a ball of confusion he definitely has a pervert way of identifying his right wingness it is not the republican ideal to give anything to anybody but rich so is he saying he gives that a tax break and they kick a little sumptin' sumptin' back? that part he's got right but the rest wonder who turned him out?

don't be surprised if he's running for something maybe with his mindset president 2016 who else to they have, but he blew the vote they can't get anyway with his manifesto.