The neoConfederacy is strong in this one...
a) From WMD; aka WorldNetDaily, WingNutDaily, WingNutDoofus, etc
b) The right wing elements of any nation (or organization) historically celebrate and support bigotry in whatever shape or form assumed. In fact, political conservatism isn't so much a philosophy as it is an emotional reaction to political liberalism (e.g. conservatism will always oppose alternatives to the dominant status quo). In fact, today's conservatives oppose anything that can be remotely tied to liberalism, simply in order to maintain their tribal identity.
c) Thomas Sowell sux, and 'White Girl Bleed a Lot' is the worst kind of white supremacist garbage masquerading as victimization.
d) The knockdown game isn't a trend; statistically, it is less meaningful than evidence supporting the Loch Ness Monster.
e) Ah yes, the bully pulpit. ("You might think the first black president would use his bully pulpit to denounce what’s happening,") What planet were you on when Obama denounced the Trayvon Martin shooting?
Racist violence in America...srsly?? Are you AFRAID of blacks?
Let's not kid ourselves: St Reagan the Great was always a stupid man. But he was first and foremost an actor, playing a part. In his case, Reagan played a cogent, aware human being very well. And why not? All he had to was read from the teleprompter, behavior that is second-nature for an actor.
"In 1994, President Reagan revealed to the nation that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. But earlier, in 1989, doctors operating on Reagan expressed their belief he was suffering from the degenerative disease."
Was Reagan suffering from Alzheimer's the day he beat Carter? Probably, but impossible to determine. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they're senile (see Dumbya). However, considering Reagan's age at the time (69) and that the average onset of Alzheimer's occurs much earlier, it is extremely likely:
"In most people with Alzheimer’s, symptoms first appear after age 60. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia among older people." (DHHS NIH National Institute of Aging) Also: "Although we still don’t know how the Alzheimer’s disease process begins, it seems likely that damage to the brain starts a decade or more before problems become evident."
The biggest problem is that it was negotiated by the Obama Administration. Lest we need reminding, literally anything Obama does will be met with complete opposition by the *ahem* political party on the other side of the aisle (which should increasingly, in the interests of accuracy, be referred to as 'isle').
Diplomacy from Republicans?
About 5 seconds after his inaugural speech, Reagan opened up a yard sale at the Pentagon where the Iranians could get good deals on TOW missiles. A couple of years later, he began arming Saddam Hussein while sending CIA "advisors" into Afghanistan to train the mujahidin to fight the Soviets.
I personally love the fact that Saudi Arabia, Israel and the American right wing nutjobs (Sarah Balin, John Bolton, etc) oppose the Obama Administration's deal with Iran. That's a clue the decision was correct.
Freudian slips have meaning.
Not necessarily; while it is true that occasionally the human brain/mind kicks out something purely unintentional via the mechanism of thought-to-speech, there needs be no implicit meaning. That is to say, not all brain f@rts can be reduced to a glimpse into the speaker's unconscious (unless you're a Freudian).
In any case, it doesn't seem reasonable, given the history, to conclude that algore would label stinkturd a non-liar.
Pilo: "Saying Stinky is not a liar is pretty nuts. However, some posts have been written by ole' agore have been very disjointed, repetitive, and obsessive. Far out of character from previous posts over a long period."
Agreed, I preferred him as 'uuunnnhhhh.' Perhaps he is going thru some kind of midlife crisis. Pilo is the psychologist, so ask him.
60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan and her producer Max McClellan will reportedly be taking a leave of absence from the program, per a memo from CBS News chairman (and 60 Minutes executive producer) Jeff Fager obtained by Huffington Post media reporter Michael Calderone.
Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News and executive producer of '"60 Minutes," informed staff Tuesday that Lara Logan and her producer, Max McClellan, would be taking a leave of absence following an internal report on the newsmagazine's discredited Oct. 27 Benghazi report.
FROM THE MEMO
"--In October of 2012, one month before starting work on the Benghazi story, Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position arguing that the US Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al Qaeda, and urging actions that the US should take in response to the Benghazi attack. From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a conflict in taking a public position on the government's handling of Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story."
Assuming Logan isn't canned, CBS should take her off the Middle East beat: apparently being beaten and sexually assaulted ("She went on to say that they tore off her clothes and, in her words, raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp") by an angry mob of Egyptians tends to color your perspective. Too bad; while hardly the best journalist in CBS' stable, she's always struck me as intelligent, hardworking, and incredibly brave. Plus the TV loves her.
If she winds up getting canned, well...I'm sure Roger Ailes has already sent her a few emails.
GOP Senators love filibustering Obama's nominees, but here's what they said in 2005:
Any president's judicial nominees...deserve a simple up-or-down vote.
-Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
We can't find anywhere in the constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation.
-Sen Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
The constitution requires the sentate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees.
-Sen Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Why not allow the president to do his job of selecting judicial nominees?
-Sen Richard Shelby (R-AL)
I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time.
-Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the constitution.
-Sen Saxy Chambliss (R-GA)
[Filibustering judicial nominees] is unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional.
-Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Filibusters of judicial nominees are uniquely offensive to our nation's constitutional design
-Sen John Cornyn (R-TX)
Staggering hypocrisy aside, it is clear that several members of our nation's top legislative body have never read the US Constitution.
Pope Denounces Trickle-Down Economics 'Which Has Never Been Confirmed By The Facts'
...The pope also denounced "trickle-down" theories of economics promoted by many conservatives and politicians who espouse an unregulated free market.
"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," he said. "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
Quite a change from the wingnut #$%$ Pope.
(In related news, Paul Ryan just announced he's converted to Protestantism.)
He's destroyed healthcare, as we knew it, in this country. (True, and rightly so)
He's ruining education for achievers. (False)
He's redistributing the wealth of those who work hard to the dopers and lay-abouts who have their hands out.(False)
He's run our deficit and trade imbalances to RECORD highs.(False: Obama has -stupidly- decreased the deficit)
He's offended our allies with our eavesdropping and killing folks with drones.(True - Obama is continuing GW Bush policies)
He's running the longest war in our history.(True - see above)
He's appointed some of the least qualified people in our history.(False)
He's being advised by some of the filthiest crooks ever to come down the pike.(False)
He's personally bereft of any moral sense that tracks with what the electorate believes. (True)
I think I am somewhat more fair than you: I voted for Obama (twice) yet I have no problem acknowledging his flaws.
Overall I think history will see Obama as extremely mediocre.
My biggest problems with the man are trifold
1) He #$%$ away his first 2 years in office (with Dem majorities in both chambers of congress) by trying to make deals with Republicans
2) He lies...A LOT
3) He's far too disengaged. Which is to say, he's too presumptuous & technocratic and doesn't care about policy at a sufficiently granular level. I LOL'd when he said he wasn't informed the government healthcare site wasn't working....his signature policy point...and yet he took time from his busy schedule of authorizing drones to bomb children to offer his perspective wrt the Trayvon Martin shooting.
Your response is #$%$. To wit:
"The point about the government unemployment rate is that THEY only make a ratio of employed to those still included in the labor force, but when someone no longer collects unemployment insurance and still does not have a job (even if he wants one and is looking for work), he's dropped from the "in labor force". Your own quote shows that that's the case."
No - that is NOT the case: the 91.5M Americans cited are NOT part the labor force; they aren't included because SEE ORIGINAL DEFINITION.
Read it again. And again, again and again.
(A substratum of the current NILF population describes 6,162,000 members partitioned as "Persons who currently want a job." 6.7%)
"As of November 1 more than 47 million Americans have lost some or all of their food stamp benefits. House Republicans are pushing for further cuts. If the sequester isn’t stopped everything else poor and working-class Americans depend on will be further squeezed."
"The stock market is up even though most Americans are down for two big reasons."
"First, businesses are busily handing their cash back to their shareholders – buying back their stock and thereby boosting share prices – rather than using the cash to expand and hire. It makes no sense to expand and hire when most Americans don’t have the money to buy."
"The second big reason why shares are up while most Americans are down is corporations continue to find new ways to boost profits and share prices by cutting their labor costs – substituting software for people, cutting wages and benefits, and piling more responsibilities on each of the employees that remain."
"Congress, meanwhile, doesn’t know much about the bottom 90 percent. The top 10 percent provide almost all campaign contributions and funding of “independent” ads.
"Moreover, just about all members of Congress are drawn from the same top 10 percent – as are almost all their friends and associates, and even the media who report on them."
Given the above, I am not sure why we disagree...other than your silly partisan/tribal/racist hatred of Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
You should read 'Debt: The Last 5000 Years.' Fun stuff.
[via Wikipedia entry] "In addition to his anthropological narrative, Graeber also provides direct criticism of modern-day capitalism, questioning many conventionally accepted economic notions, especially: the free market, the historical myth of the concept of barter as the origin of trade, and the concept of money as an independent object of worth, rather than a social relation."
True enough, but I don't think this captures the depth or flavor of his narrative, which strikes me as as going far beyond the usual right/left dichotomies. Although he challenges the moral ideology underlying the Western concept of 'private' property, he doesn't exactly cheerlead global socialism. Basically the author argues that debt (in any iteration) forms the basis of most human societal relations...and he does it with without being cynical.
Difficult to summarize, so read the book. If you don't understand the Fed's current monetary macro-math illusions, you're in good company.
From the BLS page for CPS (Current Population Surveys) FAQ
6) Who is not in the labor force?
Persons not in the labor force are those who are not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.
Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. (Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces.) The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.
The US NILF population has nothing to do with the realities of the job market (employed/unemployed). Zero,zilch and nada. Those who use that number to make a political argument are basically ignoring both retired veterans, disabled veterans, and those currently serving in the US armed forces.
Never, ever rely on a rightwing liar (I am thinking of andimsupposedtobecrazy, but of course there are many others) for accurate data or the translation of data.
You tried this awhile ago and I called out you on your fake numbers. Apparently you either didn't understand or else you are more interested in spreading lies, so let's go over it again.
NOT IN LABOR FORCE: Not looking for work during the past 30 days or a homemaker, student, disabled, retired, or an inmate of an institution.
I predicted (weeks ago) that you would revert to your Limbaugh faux libertarian anti-Obama know-nothing mode of rightwing non-thought.