1. 12:28 18th Jan 2013

    Notes: 255

    Reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias

    Tags: Republicans

    liberalsarecool:

The NRA has no shame. Targeting the children of the President? Certain Conservatives love this coded language. We, as a country, are moving on without them. #GOPextinction

    liberalsarecool:

    The NRA has no shame. Targeting the children of the President? Certain Conservatives love this coded language. We, as a country, are moving on without them. #GOPextinction

     
  2. 11:10 1st Nov 2012

    Notes: 24

    Reblogged from feminismisprettycool

    Tags: Archerrepublicans

    When Republicans try to pretend they know what happens at Planned Parenthood

     
  3. Mitt Romney officially has no strong feelings about abortion

    recall-all-republicans-2012:

    shortformblog:

    • Romney, 2007: “I’d be delighted to sign” a bill outlawing abortion.
    • Romney, Tuesday “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
    • Romney, yesterday “I’m a pro-life candidate. I’ll be a pro-life president.”

    So, which one is it? You sort of have to, you know, take a position on these things. source

    Not to mention the money that Mitt Romney made from fetus disposal.

     
  4. timekiller-s:

    silas216:

    I was a winger for years, and we can discuss that particular psychosis at a later date, but what I can explain to you right now is that they fucking hate you.

    They just do.

    They hate you because you respect gay people as normal human beings.

    They hate you because you respect African-Americans as normal human beings.

    They hate you because you respect Asians, Latinos, and everyone else who isn’t a straight white male.

    They hate you because you respect a woman’s right to choose.

    They hate you because you respect the right of people to be with who they love.

    They hate you because you respect the right of anyone to adopt a child.

    They hate you because you respect international law.

    They hate you because you believe in economic and tax fairness.

    They hate you because you respect the right of anyone to worship any way they want.

    They hate you because you respect scientists and their collective knowledge.

    They hate you because you respect teachers and the work they do educating Americans.

    They hate you because you respect the human dignity of every American.

    They hate you because you respect the rights of people over corporations.

    They hate you because you respect nature and think we have a duty to take care of the environment.

    They hate you because you respect your right to vote, and they don’t think you deserve it.

    They hate you because you respect the constitution and the rule of law.

    They hate you because you respect laws against torture.

    In short, they hate you. Period.

    They masquerade their bullshit in the words of Jesus and the all-knowing free market, but it is transparent what motivates them. Not love for their fellow man, not love for their fellow citizen, not love for country- what motivates them is hate for the other.

    You.

    They fucking hate you. They want you, and everyone who speaks for you, and every institution that represents your values, whether it be Planned Parenthood or food banks or ACORN- you name it. They want it destroyed.

    I just do not understand why more people do not recognize this. The Republicans have declared total war on America, and people are responding like this is politics as usual. It isn’t. It really isn’t. It’s really all or nothing at this point. We put the birchers/tea party/conservatives back in their place and destroy the current GOP, or we deal with this shit for the next forty-sixty years.

    A reminder, in case you forgot.

    This is a rerun on my blog … it merits reblogging again as we have been reminded of it Monday evening.

     
  5. inothernews:

    Can Shit Romney be more out of touch with the middle class, and Americans in general?

    I don’t fucking think so.

    (via the Boston Herald)

     
  6. truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years
~~~
Fox News is in business because their model of success depends on their viewers not knowing the facts. Host of Fox News, Chris Wallace, made the incorrect assertion during an interview Sunday that President Barack Obama had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for two years.
The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.
This is not the first and will certainly not the last time Fox News has been caught saying completely untrue things on the air. […]

    truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

    FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years

    ~~~

    Fox News is in business because their model of success depends on their viewers not knowing the facts. Host of Fox News, Chris Wallace, made the incorrect assertion during an interview Sunday that President Barack Obama had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for two years.

    The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

    This is not the first and will certainly not the last time Fox News has been caught saying completely untrue things on the air. […]

     
  7. justinspoliticalcorner:

    The Bush administration was told, as early as May 2001, about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda.

    On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

    That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

    The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

    But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

    In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

    Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

    h/t: Kurt Eichenwald at The New York Times

     
  8. inothernews:

I mean pardon my French, but what a fucking jerk.

    inothernews:

    I mean pardon my French, but what a fucking jerk.

     
  9. image: Download

    inothernews:

blackamazon:

blackamazon:

thisistheglamorous:

Dorothy Cooper, age 96 and a retired domestic worker living in Chattanooga, never had any trouble voting even in the Jim Crow era and missed only one election in her entire adult life. But when she went for one of the state’s new free photo IDs last month so she could keep voting, they turned her away. Why? Her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander, is on her birth certificate, and she didn’t have her marriage license.
Due to Tennessee’s new voting law, she has to have a state photo ID to vote and now, even with her current voter registration card, she can’t get one.
Links to the Times Free Press and Nashville Scene articles.

She is older than Voting Rights Act.
Like let’s get this really real yall
Mama has voted without bureaucratic bullshit in JIM DAMN CROW
but the new millenium is trying to keep her out cause her birth certificate  ( which is older than the current incarnations of both parties) has her maiden name
from back when the probably write that shit in fountain pen…
I quit all of you
EVERY SINGLE ONE

doing math : She has been eligible to vote since 1937
……
SHE HAD LESS TROUBLE VOTING AROUND FDR vs. LANDON than OBAMA vs.ROMNEY

God damn it.

    inothernews:

    blackamazon:

    blackamazon:

    thisistheglamorous:

    Dorothy Cooper, age 96 and a retired domestic worker living in Chattanooga, never had any trouble voting even in the Jim Crow era and missed only one election in her entire adult life. But when she went for one of the state’s new free photo IDs last month so she could keep voting, they turned her away. Why? Her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander, is on her birth certificate, and she didn’t have her marriage license.

    Due to Tennessee’s new voting law, she has to have a state photo ID to vote and now, even with her current voter registration card, she can’t get one.

    Links to the Times Free Press and Nashville Scene articles.

    She is older than Voting Rights Act.

    Like let’s get this really real yall

    Mama has voted without bureaucratic bullshit in JIM DAMN CROW

    but the new millenium is trying to keep her out cause her birth certificate  ( which is older than the current incarnations of both parties) has her maiden name

    from back when the probably write that shit in fountain pen…

    I quit all of you

    EVERY SINGLE ONE

    doing math : She has been eligible to vote since 1937

    ……

    SHE HAD LESS TROUBLE VOTING AROUND FDR vs. LANDON than OBAMA vs.ROMNEY

    God damn it.

     
  10. image: Download

    theatlantic:

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan’s Plan

In 2010 — the only year we have seen a full return from him — Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends. 

Read more.[Image: Reuters]

    theatlantic:

    Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan’s Plan

    In 2010 — the only year we have seen a full return from him — Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends. 

    Read more.[Image: Reuters]

     
  11. I’m going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find — that includes Obamacare.
    — 

    Republican presidential candidate MITT ROMNEY, essentially telling 30 million Americans without health insurance that they’re “non-essential.”

    Good job, Mitt.

    (via The Huffington Post)

     
  12. Once upon a time a rich man named Romney ran for president. He could claim, with considerable justice, that his wealth was well-earned, that he had in fact done a lot to create good jobs for American workers. Nonetheless, the public understandably wanted to know both how he had grown so rich and what he had done with his wealth; he obliged by releasing extensive information about his financial history.

    But that was 44 years ago. And the contrast between George Romney and his son Mitt — a contrast both in their business careers and in their willingness to come clean about their financial affairs — dramatically illustrates how America has changed.

    …What did George Romney do for a living? The answer was straightforward: he ran an auto company, American Motors. And he ran it very well indeed: at a time when the Big Three were still fixated on big cars and ignoring the rising tide of imports, Romney shifted to a highly successful focus on compacts that restored the company’s fortunes, not to mention that it saved the jobs of many American workers.

    It also made him personally rich. We know this because during his run for president, he released not one, not two, but 12 years’ worth of tax returns, explaining that any one year might just be a fluke. From those returns we learn that in his best year, 1960, he made more than $660,000 — the equivalent, adjusted for inflation, of around $5 million today.

    Those returns also reveal that he paid a lot of taxes — 36 percent of his income in 1960, 37 percent over the whole period. This was in part because, as one report at the time put it, he “seldom took advantage of loopholes to escape his tax obligations.” But it was also because taxes on the rich were much higher in the ’50s and ’60s than they are now. In fact, once you include the indirect effects of taxes on corporate profits, taxes on the very rich were about twice current levels.

    Now fast-forward to Romney the Younger, who made even more money during his business career at Bain Capital. Unlike his father, however, Mr. Romney didn’t get rich by producing things people wanted to buy; he made his fortune through financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off, and in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy.

    And there’s another contrast: George Romney was open and forthcoming about what he did with his wealth, but Mitt Romney has largely kept his finances secret. He did, grudgingly, release one year’s tax return plus an estimate for the next year, showing that he paid a startlingly low tax rate. But as the Vanity Fair report points out, we’re still very much in the dark about his investments, some of which seem very mysterious.

    Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven?

     
  13. I predict that Mitt Romney will not remark on the president’s announcement regarding immigrants by saying “I heartily commend Mr. Obama for taking a humane, common-sense step toward granting hard-working, law-abiding members of our society a path to full-fledged citizenship.”

     
  14. Mitt Romney visited a cafe in western Iowa last week, and the cafe’s owner was not impressed.

    Dianne Bauer, owner of the Main Street Cafe in Council Bluffs, told a local TV station that Romney’s staff trashed the place, that Romney didn’t greet or thank her, and that when he called her afterward to smooth things over, she felt she was being mocked.

    “He responded ‘well, I’m sorry your table cloths got ripped off, wadded up and thrown in the back room’ and I took it as mocking,” she said. “We’re the ones he’s wanting to get the votes from, you’d think we would have been treated better.”

    She says the whole experience left her wondering.

    “With how he treated me, is that how he’s going to treat others? You know, if he gets in office is he going to be that way to us little people?”

     
  15. This week (Mitt Romney) was attacking Obama about ‘our failing educational system.’ (And) he has a point: I mean, we are graduating millions of people in this country who are so lacking in basic analytical skills, they are considering voting for Mitt Romney.
    — BILL MAHER, Real Time (via inothernews)