Must Reads

Richard A. Oppel, Jr: Perry’s Latest Attacks Distort Obama’s Words and Past

Paul Krugman: We Are the 99.9%

Extreme Liberal: Political Mythbusters: There Never Was A White House Deal To Kill The Public Option, Stop Lying!

Karoli: How Bullshit Magically Turns Into Fact

Milt Shook: Cutting the Crap: Michael Moore on DHS Conspiracy

Robert Scheer: Thanks for What?

David Frum: When Did The GOP Lose Touch With Reality?

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 26, 2011

On Thanksgiving, Grateful for the Men and Women Who Defend Our Country



This address was released on Thursday for Thanksgiving. But it wasn't good enough for the RWNJs... because President Obama didn't mention god in his address. ...Seriously. Even though millions of Americans are evil, heathen atheists, they don't count and how dare the Kenyan-born illegitimate president refuse, REFUSE, I TELLS YA! to acknowledge the almighty in his Thanksgiving address.

But as is the case with these non-stories, it's much ado about nothing.

Obama mentioned God once in a closing "God bless you," to Americans watching the Internet address. However, the President explicitly thanked God earlier in the week in his written Thanksgiving proclamation, which called the holiday "one of our nation's oldest and most cherished traditions," and an occasion that "brings us closer to our loved ones and invites us to reflect on the blessings that enrich our lives."

"As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives. Let us pause to recount the simple gifts that sustain us, and resolve to pay them forward in the year to come," Obama wrote.

Attention nutballs: You really have to take a step back and reflect on how foolish you make yourselves look. And I'm also awaiting criticism of your stellar GOP candidates, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who also made Thanksgiving statements without mentioning god.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Enjoy a blast from the recent past.

Mac n' Cheese: It's A Black Thing, You Wouldn't Understand

Pat Robertson. Oy...



And who is this dumb bitch saying, "Yeah! It's a black thing!" Jesus Christ!

Quote of the Day

"[The Supercommittee] was never gonna succeed in doing anything for one simple reason and one simple reason alone: Republicans just don't give a fuck. If you believe, as Republicans do, that it's better to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and education and the environment and food safety than to raise taxes a little on the rich, then you don't give a fuck. If you believe that a compromise that gives you nearly every cut you want but still raises taxes just a smidgen is a capitulation to liberal/socialist/satanic goals, then you not only don't give a fuck, you are a sociopath."

~The Rude Pundit

They Really Do Try, Don't They?

I never cease to be amazed at the unadulterated spin from conservative pundits and columnists who look for any opportunity to blame President Obama for pretty much anything. It's almost as if they think they're speaking to or writing for a Fox News audience with no worry about being called to account for the obvious disingenuousness they spew. Markets down? Obama's fault. Greece in financial disarray? ...Damn that Obama. Scrapping the balloons at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade this year due to high winds? ...OBAMAAAAAA!

The latest example of this comes from Washington Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson. Mr. Gerson has absolutely no problem blaming the failed Supercommittee debacle on the President. Titled "Obama Let the Supercommittee Fail," Gerson blames indifference on the part of the President for a group of twelve grown adults (yes, I'll include the Republicans on the committee as "grown-up") not coming to an agreement with a looming $1.2 trillion in cuts across the board. But amazingly, Gerson believes, or would have his readers believe, that the "supercommittee failed primarily because President Obama gave a shrug."

So what if Republicans wouldn't budge on actual revenue increases in a balanced combination with spending cuts? So what if their ultimate $300 billion tax increase offer was connected to a basic repeal of the Affordable Care Act which took over a year to pass and a privatization of Medicare? The real problem was that "these were the ingredients for a deal. But only a president can mix them and apply the heat." Yep, Obama is the cook that stirs the pot and self-motivation for 12 of an elite 100 members of our political system is of no consequence. ...Damn Obama!

The disconnect is the fact that Gerson knows that Republicans would have never agreed to anything, as witnessed by the moving of the goalposts farther and farther to the right. Ezra Klein analyzes:

If by "at fault" we mean "unwilling to compromise," we can do better than listen to the self-serving remarks of the players. We can look hard at the movement in the actual plans...

The final Boehner [/Obama] plan envisioned tax reform that would generate $800 billion in new revenues and bring the top rate down to 35 percent. In the supercommittee, the highest Republicans ever got on taxes was the Toomey plan's $300 billion, with envisioned a top rate of 28 percent. So on taxes, it's fairly clear: The supercommittee Republicans were far to the right of Boehner.

On the Democratic side, Obama eventually insisted on somewhere near $1.2 trillion in tax reform or, if the revenues were to move lower, on much less in entitlement cuts. In the supercommittee, the Democrats offered a plan with less than a trillion dollars in tax reform -- and more entitlement reforms than Obama was willing to agree to.

Boehner had about $150 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts in his opening bid in the negotiations with the president, and he went down from there. In the supercommittee, Baucus offered $200 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts...

These steps toward compromise by the Democrats, who swallowed hard in a serious effort to get something done, were far more than anything Republicans offered. Does it surprise anyone that Republicans would take a step further to the right in an effort to sink any deal and let the usual Republican "Obama can't get anything done" talking points continue? This has been their strategy from the start. And Gerson knows this. But why point the blame at a deadlocked "supercommittee" when you can just blame the President?

I won't bore you with anymore detail in Gerson's column (you can read it for yourself to get the full frontal asshattery) except for one line. Gerson asserts that the President "is simply in over his head." This was the same accusation hurled at President Obama on the supposed failed stimulus to stop our economy from hurdling over a cliff. Sorry for the bad timing, Mike, but maybe you should read the latest CBO report:

The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office...

...The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

Yep, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted by this "in over his head" President is still stimulating the economy a year after its "end." We now know the recession we found ourselves in was much deeper and dire than anyone had estimated and had the stimulus been even larger, we might be in even better shape today. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good villain story, right Mr. Gerson?

Behold the Republican Party

The party of Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, even the party of Ronald Reagan just doesn't exist anymore. When anyone argues an old Republican talking point, remind them that that party no longer exists. Ronald Reagan would not even be considered for the 2012 nomination in the new, current batshit GOP. The inmates now run the asylum.

When the merry-go-round of who leads in the polls every six weeks has completely done a 360° turn and landed on Newt Gingrich once again, bypassing the only real shot the GOP has in making the 2012 election a competitive race in Mitt Romney, perennially polling second, you know they have a problem.

How else would you describe it when a candidate says something that's actually logical but the analysis afterwards says that it'll sink him in the polls? Here's what Newt said on his immigration stance at last night's 437th GOP debate that is going to ruin him:

"I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them," he said.

After the debate, Gingrich defended his position, telling CNN, "I can't imagine any serious person who will walk down the street, see someone they know for 20 years and say, 'You're leaving your family, you're leaving your church, you're leaving the community... and we are kicking you out forcibly.'"

Apparently, that sentiment is just too sane for today's Republican Party. He was immediately attacked by Mitt "What's My Stance Today?" Romney's campaign. Yet, when questioned if Romney is in favor of deportation of 11 million or so undocumented immigrants, Romney's advisor would not answer the question directly.

Romney has done the same thing in regards to his stance on a payroll tax cut, something you'd think the entire cadre of GOP candidates would agree to except for that nagging little fact that they'd then be in agreement with evil socialist, Marxist, Communist, Kenyan-born President Obama. They twist themselves in knots trying not to get caught on video agreeing with the President even on things with which they fundamentally agree.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Newt in any way; he's just as fucked up as the rest of these nitwits. I'm just pointing out the fact that when any of them have a moderate stance on any issue, when it's not the furthest far right stance, they are exposed to criticism and they lose the nutjob vote. The same thing happened with Rick Perry when he was asked about his bill making in-state tuition available to undocumented students in Texas.

"If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no reason than they've been brought there, by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," he said. "I still support it greatly."

For this statement, he was jeered.

If this presidential race is even close with this collection of loons, American society is a lot worse off than I thought.

Occupy Something

POSTED BY JHW22

A friend just posted a photo of troops in Afghanistan with a sign telling OWS protestors to quit bitchin'. I decided not to post that picture because I respect that the men chose to serve but disagree with them on their perspective and I don't want to add any animosity toward them personally when I rant. I don't want these particular men to be the ones I am speaking to because who I am really speaking to are all of the people who don't get some things about the OWS movement OR who are choosing to pretend it's something it isn't.

First of all, don't forget that some in the OWS movement are vets who came home to no jobs.

Also, I know a lot of people who go to the OWS protests on their days off or after work. I also know of some people who telecommute from the protests. So the idea that every supporter of OWS is jobless isn't completely accurate.

And finally, seems odd that Republicans have been "bitchin'" about the unemployment rate, so why is it when unemployed people take a stand on the lack of jobs because of failed economic policies, there's a flip on who should be bitchin' and who should shut up?

I have to admit that I am not a full supporter of OWS, nor am I against it. There are things I agree with and things I don't. As with any movement of frustrated people, some are saying things I applaud and some are saying things that piss me off. I can't get on board to the point of going down to one or following any of them on Twitter. But I do feel it's necessary to call bullshit on false memes about them. Really, the OWS people are taking a different approach to expressing the same frustrations many in the Tea Party expressed.

We're all pissed about a lot of the same things. The difference is the Tea Party half-assed their anger (being mad at the wrong things in most cases) and they half-assed their protests. Sure they made a big mess of the health care reform debates. But where were they during the last six months? Nowhere. They dropped the "mad at too much of anything that bugs us" ball and the OWS protestors picked it up and have run with it. They are mad a lot of the same things and people, but generally more for the right reasons and with far less undermining influences trying to take over.

So I find it amusing when the Republicans bitch and moan about the unemployment rate and want to say Obama and Geithner and Bernanke and Pelosi and anyone else they don't like is to blame for there being "no jobs" and then they turn around and tell protestors, protestors with more dedication than the Tea Party protestors, to get a job. Remember, Republicans, you keep telling us there are no jobs. You keep telling us Obama killed jobs, that he hasn't created any jobs. Yet, you want these OWS people to go get one?

Please.

Gentlemen, Your Fans AREN'T Gentlemen

POSTED BY JHW22

I *was* a NASCAR fan until today. I was never the typical fan: I am a liberal, atheist, anti-hunter but I actually enjoyed the sport. But after today, I am done with it. Mrs. Obama was at the final NASCAR Sprint Cup race of the season to support the troops and their families yet she was BOOED even though NASCAR fans pride themselves on being supportive of the troops. The dumb ass fans should have put their hate aside and taken just one moment to agree with the First Lady on something. But they couldn't. Their drunken ignorance was an insult to her efforts to help military veterans and spouses find jobs, homes, health care, etc. They didn't even take a MOMENT to consider that MAYBE she is doing something they would agree with.

And yet I am called partisan by conservatives even though I NEVER booed Laura Bush. And SHE killed someone.

But let me say this, ANYONE on the left who thinks her being there was a mistake is FUCKING STUPID! She did exactly the right thing: she walked into a lion's den to stand with and for our military. She knew it was a place she'd be unwelcome and yet she went. Good for Mrs. Obama, Mrs. Biden and their staffs for putting their values ahead of their egos and fear.

And fuck every fan who booed this wonderful woman standing for real values when they burp and fart their lame, hollow support of American military families.

This Would Be Funny If It Weren't So Sad