"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Oblivion]

We've discussed this briefly in the past, but this is in greater detail. I imagine it'll come in handy if you wanna make a tea bagger's head explode:

5 Republican Presidents the Tea Party doesn't realize they're supposed to hate.

[Great Rumbler]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft. The cost of one modern, heavy bomber is this: a modern, brick school in more than 30 cities."

~Barack Obama

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh wait, it was Eisenhower that said that.

[close]

[recursivelyenumerable]

I wonder how people will look back on the Tea Party movement a decade or more from now... assuming the Earth doesn't implode by the end of next year.

 

They'll just look at them as one of those wacky late 00s/early 10s things. There will be lots of Tea Party costumes at themed dance nights.

[ShogunOfFear]

Did Obama get approval from congress to bomb Libya?  I figured he'd know to do that being he taught constitutional law.  So when do the impeachment hearings begin for this warmongering criminal?  Why we still got code pink?   

[Phoenix Dark]

Did Obama get approval from congress to bomb Libya?  I figured he'd know to do that being he taught constitutional law.  So when do the impeachment hearings begin for this warmongering criminal?  Why we still got code pink?   

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26588797&postcount=9319

[ShogunOfFear]

My sentiment has always been the longer he takes and the less he does, the better for the country.  Quite the irony seeing a nobel peace prize winner bombing a country that has done no direct harm to us.   

[BlueTsunami]

a country that has done no direct harm to us.  

[Beardo]

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

[close]

lollolololooolollolol

[Mandark]

Yeesh.  I know you guys don't actually care about Libya except to score points for your team, but you don't have to broadcast it.


edit:  Besides which, lousy metaphor.

A no-fly zone enforced by the threat of airstrikes (in order to shield a rebelling section of a country from the central government) isn't analogous to the Iraq War.  It's the policy we had in place before Bush, which he said would get us all killed if we didn't scrap it in favor of a full scale ground invasion and occupation.

[Beardo]

Yeesh.  I know you guys don't actually care about Libya except to score points for your team, but you don't have to broadcast it.

[Beardo]

Somebody wasn't hoping hard enough for change. 

Which one of you was it?

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

Yeah, this is so like Iraq and 2003, except Obama has said nothing about non-existent WMD's and that we don't need proof to go in there anyways (We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), and also that there actually is a "coalition of the willing" this time about, what with the UK and frigging FRANCE putting in much of the responsibility, and also the international community and people of Libya have been screaming for intervention instead of some country that pretty much wanted to be left alone.

I mean, other then all that its almost exactly the same.

[Dickie Dee]

Beardo getting his face dickslapped once again

[Mandark]

I wonder if it bothers you at all that your country made a pretty huge decision which is going to affect (and maybe end) tons of lives, and the only aspect of it you find interesting is how it can be used as a rhetorical cudgel against people who vote differently.

I'd like to think some part of you, even a tiny little ignored part in the back of your mind, is saying "man, I'm paying attention to this stuff for all the wrong reasons, maybe I should unhitch my ego from my tribal political identity and re-examine some shit".

[Phoenix Dark]

Yesterday: Obama is Carter
Today: Obama is a Bush

I liked Obama more when he was just a Nazi

[ShogunOfFear]

Yeesh.  I know you guys don't actually care about Libya except to score points for your team, but you don't have to broadcast it.

Stop it or you're gonna make me cry.  If this was about caring so much then what about the killings in Bahrain?  Oh wait.   

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

edit:  Besides which, lousy metaphor.

A no-fly zone enforced by the threat of airstrikes (in order to shield a rebelling section of a country from the central government) isn't analogous to the Iraq War.  It's the policy we had in place before Bush, which he said would get us all killed if we didn't scrap it in favor of a full scale ground invasion and occupation.

You're right this isn't the Iraq War.  It's rebels vs a central government AKA civil war which we have no place in or right to decide the outcome.  And who's to say the rebel's government would turn out any better than the one in place?  Haven't we seen enough blowback from the Middle East?  Whatever moral structure you try and build in support of this, the president can't just launch airstrikes on another country at a whim.  It's unconstitutional and besides we don't have the money to be getting involved in other conflicts.

Yesterday: Obama is Carter
Today: Obama is a Bush

I liked Obama more when he was just a Nazi

I liked him better as a community organizer.

[ShogunOfFear]

Michael Moore Rips President Obama Over Libya 

"We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How's that going? #WINNING !"   

Moore also suggested that Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009:

"May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy" 

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/150857-michael-moore-rips-obama-over-libya-

At least one liberal realizes the president is trolling him.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

As much as I like to dog on Obama, I think he's handled the Arab revolutions as best as he can: which is a policy is condemning the actions of the authoritarian governments while stressing a hands off policy.  He is essentially being dragged into Libya, stating that the presence of US forces will be minimal.  The public opinion is such that there is an obligation to do _something_ but is smart enough to know that it will probably get screwed up so the goal is to be as limiting as possible.  He's in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Republicans are taking the schizophrenic position that Obama should stay out of the conflict but can't just sit on his hands while freedom is being squashed but we should give aid but no wait we're against spending money on foreign aid but no matter what Obama is doing the wrong thing so lets the play the contrarian during this whole debacle.

[Mandark]

ShogunofFear:  Missing the point, dude.  I wasn't defending the policy; read the Libya thread.

It's just that you and Beardo immediately want to talk about how gleeful you are at liberals feeling betrayed, and seem to be completely uninterested in the substance of what's going to happen (ie the Libyans who might get killed because of this).

Maybe that's unfair and you really do have some substantive thoughts that aren't focused on your own petty vendettas, but hey, on the net you are what you write and you're choosing "lol Michael Moore" over anything real.

[Phoenix Dark]

This might be the first time I've seen a conservative here even acknowledge a picture of Bush kissing the Saudis. We're making some progress

[TakingBackSunday]

Obama is handling the best he can.  Kuchinich: go back to Ohio and sleep in your wife's tits.

[Oblivion]

Obama is handling the best he can.  Kuchinich: go back to Ohio and sleep in your wife's tits.

Pix?

[Oblivion]

LOL:

http://twitter.com/mattduss/statuses/50663271790952448

[Great Rumbler]

Reinforced what's already been known: Republicans don't have a position other than that anything Obama does is automatically wrong.

[Phoenix Dark]

Obama has been a real buzzkill. I think I'll just write in Anthony Weiner for president.

Weiner is a super duper pro-Israel though

[Brehvolution]

My local repub senator was on the news tonight saying how he is trying to help defund health care reform because it doesn't help contain costs like tort reform would.

I wanted to punch the TV.

[Phoenix Dark]

Heh, it's so funny getting into arguments over that, and the "buying insurance across state linez" stuff with people. Usually they wind up admitting they don't know much about the issue, but are against gubmint health care as a core principle derp derp

[Mandark]

A ton of people seem to have compartmentalized beliefs, so they can maintain political beliefs that might contradict how they go about their everyday lives.

A couple years ago (very nice) woman and I were talking about the job market as things were still bottoming out.  She said I should consider a public sector career because the job security and benefits are really good.  I mentioned I was at my current job in large part because of health coverage and she said "Do you think anyone will want to be a doctor with Obamacare, you know the government taking it all over and stuff?"  I made some benign remark about there being really good doctors in England when I lived there so hopefully it would all work out and quickly changed the subject.

In the context of relatives and friends she knew in real life (I think a sister with a part-time teaching gig) she understood the pros and cons of working a government job, as almost everyone in the DC area does.  In the context of tribal partisan politics, doctors will become paupers once Obama takes everything over.

[Oblivion]

Ah, it's hard to believe it was only a year ago when John Boehner said that we were 24 hours away from Armageddon. Memories.

[BlackMage]

Somebody wasn't hoping hard enough for change. 

Which one of you was it?

It was me. I voted for Obama but secretly hoped for same-same

[Himu]

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/9-bills-creationism-classroom

State governments are grappling with massive budget deficits, overburdened social programs, and mountains of deferred spending. But never mind all that. For some conservative lawmakers, it's the perfect time to legislate the promotion of creationism in the classroom. In the first three months of 2011, nine creationism-related bills have been introduced in seven states—that's more than in any year in recent memory

[Phoenix Dark]

murdered in the digital realm

Two Quick Things

1.) The reason many pundits sit in the back of class yelling “BORING” while making armpit farty sounds when it comes to Bob Herbert is simply because what he writes about does not affect them. Most of the pundit class is privileged, white, insured, employed, and talking about the widespread despair for millions of Americans is akin to talking to Eskimos about what suntan lotion is the best for a trip to the French Riviera. When you read about the issues Herbert discusses and say to your self that this “his motives were obviously honorable, his compassion deep, and his solutions sincere, if invariably trite,” and that he was such a “boring, familiar voice,” you probably aren’t focusing on what he is saying at all and instead are mentally composing your next piece on Trig Palin or beards, or in Joe Klein’s case, how the DFH’s are ruining America.

2.) Geraldine Ferraro will probably get a lot of pundit love over the next few days, and Anne Laurie does mention the few bright spots, but for me, her legacy is another tough on crime pol whose coke-dealing son got off light, a husband who was a crook, an incompetent pol who lost 49 states in 1984, disappeared for a long while and then re-emerged, offering up some of the ugliest and most racist rhetoric in the 2008 campaign. It’s one thing to start off racist and spend your life atoning, as Robert Byrd did, but Ferraro for me will be just another bitter white crank who still thinks it is 1960 and that it is ok to say things like:

    “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

She ended her life moving in the wrong direction, offering up whatever racist and sexist bilge she could find to sink Obama, and she did it for a profit, vomiting up her bile as a paid commenter on Fox. She was Harriet Christian with name recognition and a (D) after her name, stirring up racial resentment in a shrinking white middle class that, amusingly enough, had already resoundingly rejected her several decades ago and never much cared for her outside of a NY borough. Feminism deserved better.

I won’t miss her or her “contributions,” thank you very much. That’s her legacy, it’s not my fault for pointing it out, and I didn’t join Gerry Ferraro’s idea of the Democratic party.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/26/two-quick-things/

[Positive Touch]

good shit right there.  when planned parenthood popped up on my facebook talking about how sad her passing was, all i could think was "seriously?  you're gonna run an obit for this asshole AND not even mention the awful shit she said and defended?"

[Phoenix Dark]

I thought there were certainly some cases of sexism in the media during the 2008 election; in general sexism is more acceptable than racism, and any perceived racial attacks on Obama were called out immediately while Hillary was left to defend herself. Now don't get me wrong: it's hard to feel bad or sorry for Hillary considering how ugly she ran her campaign, but she was wronged at times.

But Ferraro's arguments were never well thought out, and instead were quite bitter and contradictory. Obama's race led to a majority of voters - including me - dismissing his chances from the start. His race later became a stumbling block in rural towns and all of West Virginia, a blue state that went red out of pure racism. His multicultural background helped him appeal to a wide range of voters - from the youth to Hispanics - but overall it wasn't some advantage that secured his success. The novelty of his run gained him media coverage, but so did the novelty of Hillary's. If anyone has a decent gripe about being overlooked or at a disadvantage in 08, it's John Edwards - the boring white guy stuck in the middle with trail blazers.

This is another example of the "black man only got the job because he's black" mentality, which is racist; call it what it is. Obama "got the job" because he ran arguably the best primary campaign in US history, was the right candidate at the right time, and was the most likable candidate. I specifically remember all the concern trolling coming from the Hillary camp suggesting Obama's race could lose a winnable general election, and let's not forget the media's obsession with the Bradley Effect that carried to election day.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I think the overall problem with Ferraro is that people (myself included), assumed that Hillary was just going to coast into being nominated in 2008.  That it was her time and while it was cute Obama and Edwards wanted to try, they were just mere distractions.  It explains why her campaign was run so poorly.  When Obama was doing better than they thought he would, Ferraro lost her shit.

Thinking about her death reminds me of how well Obama ran his 2008 campaign.  It was virtually perfect, making it almost impossible for competitors to make any stinging attacks that lasted.  Everything seemed to have sloughed off him and left behind.

[Phoenix Dark]

Making the communication failure of his presidency all the more baffling.

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-karab-amabo-gop-presidential-candidate/

Segment was funny but the name sounds too furren to be liked by the tea baggers.

[Brehvolution]

Disgusting. THese people are animals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

[Oblivion]

Nice article on Obama and corporate taxes:

Let's see...$3.2 billion is $200 million more than the amount that the Obama Administration wanted to slash from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, because the White House was showing that it was serious about restraining spending in tough times. So the poor go without fuel, and G.E. gets $3.2 billion in handouts, and the budget almost balances out. Fiscal discipline!

In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/03/28/ronald-reagan-cared-more-about-protecting-americans-from-corporate-greed-than-barack-obama-does.aspx

[Great Rumbler]

Nice article on Obama and corporate taxes:

Let's see...$3.2 billion is $200 million more than the amount that the Obama Administration wanted to slash from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, because the White House was showing that it was serious about restraining spending in tough times. So the poor go without fuel, and G.E. gets $3.2 billion in handouts, and the budget almost balances out. Fiscal discipline!

In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/03/28/ronald-reagan-cared-more-about-protecting-americans-from-corporate-greed-than-barack-obama-does.aspx

They made $14.2 billion in profit and then got an extra $3.2 billion back from the government in tax benefits. Meanwhile my parents are bending over backwards to shell out thousands of bucks in taxes, made worse by my dad being self-employed. Yeah, thanks a bunch there, federal government.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/you-ve-come-long-way-baby_555622.html

I'm gonna be sick

[Human Snorenado]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/you-ve-come-long-way-baby_555622.html

I'm gonna be sick

Yeah, a pretty good indicator that you're on the wrong side of an issue is when you look around and see Bill Kristol on the same side of the argument.

[Mandark]

OTOH Juan Cole is strongly supportive while Krauthammer thinks he's screwing the pooch.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich is on both sides.

[Human Snorenado]

Newt can't seem to get out of his own way these days.  IDEAS!

[Phoenix Dark]

Wait, CNN had Donald fucking Trumb on to respond to a foreign policy speech by the president?

I'm not a fan of the mission, but boy oh boy if this is successful and Qaddafi is ousted dead or alive, I can't wait for the spin from the right/presidential candidates. You know you done goofed when you're to the far right of Kristol and this guy

[Mandark]

Trump's running for president, or thinking about running, or (my bet) has decided the publicity from pretending to run would be useful and/or fun.  I heard he's getting in on the birther thing, too.

The obvious play for Republicans is to support the idea of military action, but to spend most of their time talking about some aspect where Obama Got It Wrong.  That's what Krauthammer and David Brooks are doing with the multilateralism angle.  The public's damn apathetic about the whole Libya situation, so it's not like Iraq where Bush was riding a huge wave of public support and Democrats had to worry about getting demagogued.  Obama's not the type to slam the opposition for being traitors, and it wouldn't stick even if he was.


And I know this is piling on a non-officeholder who says wacky things rather than focusing on relevant stuff, but more Newt!

I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.

[Phoenix Dark]

Seems more like Trump has found a new market to capitalize on - the birther/anti-Muslim crowd is pretty profitable. I can't imagine him putting in the work of running for president; although I guess he could just attend all the debates for the publicity and not do much stumping.

The multilateralism angle makes no sense to me. I "get" the gripes over us not attacking earlier, but then again I suppose that argument ties right into the mulilateralism one (we could have acted faster without the international community). But considering Qaddafi's forces are on the ropes and the rebels are advancing, it seems like a moot point to me. Too bad Obama can't just walk up to a podium and say "remember the last time you idiots rushed into a war with no planning or a coalition? How did that work out. fuckouttahere"


Islam isn't a religion remember
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/bryan_fischer_muslims_have_no_first_amendment_righ.php

[Oblivion]

Did you guys see Jon Stewart's interview with Bret Baier? He tried to pull some shit about Fox being unbiased, and for the first time ever (to my knowledge at least), Jon Stewart showed a clip of his hypocrisy while interviewing him!

Was pretty bad ass. The look on Baier''s face after that clip was lol.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Hasn't Trump stated that he was going to run for President before?

Edit: According to Wikipedia, he said he was going to run for President in 2000, 2004, and 2008 and as Governor in 2006.

Not even worth talking about IMO.

[Brehvolution]

Someone in the media thinks so. OldRich people trying to stay relevant.

[Oblivion]

Back in February, Paul Ryan unveiled what was supposed to be the opening bid from the House Republicans: $32 billion in cuts for the rest of 2011. But the Tea Party demanded more and House leadership quickly caved, doubling their proposed cuts to more than $60 billion -- or almost $100 billion less than barack Obama’s 2011 budget request (quick note: different news stories present these numbers differently, as it depends on whether you use Obama’s budget request or 2010’s funding as a baseline. I’m using the difference from 2010 funding, which makes for lower sums). Now Democrats are offering as a compromise measure $30 billion in total cuts, or exactly what Ryan’s original proposal had called for. Pretty neat, huh?

And that’s not the Democrats’ final offer, either. Odds are good that the eventual compromise will see cuts somewhere between the $30 billion Republican leadership called for and the almost $70 billion the conservative wing of the House GOP demanded. “That’s not much of a compromise if we end up with what the House Republican leadership wanted in the first place,” observe Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden. And they’re right. But the irony is that it’s entirely possible the press will report that Democrats “won” the negotiations, as Republican leadership is likely to have to lose a lot of conservative votes in the House to get any compromise, no matter how radical, through the chamber. That will make them look bad, and in the weird logic of Washington, make the Democrats look good. But if you just keep your eye on the policy, Republicans are moving towards a win far beyond anything the House leadership had initially imagined. Getting there required learning they had less control over their conservative wing that they’d hoped, but it also taught them that their inability to control their conservative wing gave them credibility in negotiations with Democrats and can lead to pretty remarkable policy wins, as no one doubts that House Republicans really will shut down the government or allow for a default.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-a-huge-win-for-the-tea-party-a-win-for-republicans-and-a-big-loss-for-democrats/2011/03/10/AFPEm3nB_blog.html

Hey guys, I hear McConnell and Boehner are shaking in their boots thanks to the dems super effective pre-emptive surrender strategy.

[Beardo]

United Steel Workers defends.... Koch Industries???

http://blog.usw.org/2011/03/30/a-well-intentioned-bad-idea/

By Jon Geenen
International Vice President, United Steelworkers

By now anyone who had not yet heard of the Koch brothers has been introduced to them. Every major newspaper and magazine has run an article about the brothers who until recently lived largely under the radar while advancing a political vision via political action committees and think tanks funded by their fortunes.

In the advent of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, journalists and others have made a clear connection between the Koch brothers and their role and influence in the advancement of the agenda of the far political right. Indeed, it is important, in fact essential, that Americans know who is driving the agenda and what the agenda is about, although the Citizens United decision and federal law allow the Koch brothers and other wealthy funders of the far right to donate in secret.

The groups that generally operate in the middle and to the left of the center of the political spectrum who identify themselves as moderate, progressives, trade unionists and other like-minded people are outraged by this dirty little secret. It has led to a progressive uprising in some areas, with protests that are said to eclipse the anti-war protests of the 1960s. These groups have also launched various efforts to pressure the financiers and architects of this agenda into rethinking their positions.
Therein lies at least one problem.

A number of organizations are advocating a boycott of the products that come from companies owned by the Koch family. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it could potentially hurt the wrong people.
The Koch brothers own Georgia Pacific. It is an American consumer goods company that makes everyday products like facial tissue, napkins, paper towels, paper cups and the like. Their plants are great examples of American advanced manufacturing. Incidentally, GP makes most of its products here in America. The company’s workforce is highly unionized. In fact, 80 percent of its mills are under contract with one or more labor union.  It is not inaccurate to say that these are among the best-paid manufacturing jobs in America.

This presents a dilemma and a paradox. While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.

While some companies are running from investment in American jobs, The Koch brothers’ Georgia Pacific just reached agreements with its primary union in the paper industry to invest more than a half a billion dollars in capital to essentially create two state-of-the-art machines that conserve fiber and energy at two separate union mills.
While certainly there are disagreements from time to time on what the right pension program is, or right wage increases and incentives, or the right formula for health care cost sharing, ultimately we end up with negotiated solutions.

So the problem for the advocates of a boycott against Koch is that it can only marginally hurt Koch, and the workers who are the epitome of what advanced manufacturing jobs in the United States ought to look like, would be the first casualties of a boycott. Of course, this will eventually drive a wedge between groups that are otherwise in political alignment.

If consumers pick alternate products (because people will still use toilet paper), in many cases, the substitute will be from a company with a track record that is much less friendly to the values of the workers who would, as a result of the boycott, become the collateral damage. The Koch brothers’ lifestyle will not dramatically change; there are no shareholders that will become concerned; the company is privately owned. The stock won’t plummet either — there is none.

To be sure, I personally have grave concerns about the agenda and influence being wielded by private wealth into our political system. Who doesn’t? I too agree that the Koch brothers are an ideal example of a very broken system.  They undoubtedly know that many see them as pariahs, and undoubtedly they don’t care — no more than I care if someone attaches a label to me for my political views.

So the question is: Can you hurt the Koch brothers through this kind of boycott? Or are you inadvertently becoming the bully that is kicking the Koch dog. There is no doubt that the events in my home state of Wisconsin and elsewhere have become an ignition point for action, and thank God that they have.

Arguably we have been rescued from the social hospice overseeing our demise. It is fair to keep the Koch brothers at the center of the debate. There have been fewer clear examples in our lifetime of the corruption of our system. If “Citizens United” gave corporations First Amendment rights, then too it gives them First Amendment responsibility and accountability. It is fair to find a way to make the Koch brothers responsible for promoting an agenda that ultimately hurts workers, but we should not make union workers collateral damage in this contest with Koch.

My puny liberal mind is sooo confused. I mean, the Ny times tells me to hate the Koch Brothers but they provide some of the better manufacturing jobs in the U.S. What do I doooooooo?!

[Mandark]

Similarly, politicians who made a huge fuss over "Ground Zero Mosque", even though it was being built over 2,000 miles away from them, suddenly are okay with training Saudi air force pilots on US soil, as long as it provides a windfall in government money to their constituency.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/31/come-with-newt-and-callista-gingrich-on-a-journey-through-time-and-space.aspx
 

[Oblivion]

http://plixi.com/p/88360164#

[recursivelyenumerable]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/31/come-with-newt-and-callista-gingrich-on-a-journey-through-time-and-space.aspx
 

Newt's wife kinda freaks me out. She doesn't look 45 - do they make her up to look older so she's not obviously 20 years younger than Newt, or something? Maybe being married to Newt ages you prematurely.

[Positive Touch]

awesome looks like missouri is the ONLY STATE to refuse government assistance for the unemployed, turning down over 100 million because we're goverened by a bunch of small-dicked assholes that deserve to be dismembered by a pack of wild methheads.  hope they can get back to working on that mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients program next.

[Oblivion]

We REALLY need something like receipts on our income tax forms or something:

Poll: Americans Wrongly Estimate $178 Billion In Fed. Budget Goes To Public Broadcasting


In a CNN poll of American adults released Friday, the median guess on what percentage of the federal budget goes to public broadcasting was 5%. With a $3.55 trillion budget last year, that would put funding for the CBP at approximately $178 billion.

In reality though, that's not even close.

The CPB received about $420 million last year from the federal government, making it roughly one one-hundredth of one percent, of the overall budget. That means that the median response was about 424 times higher than the actual amount of federal funding that went to public broadcasting last year.

Further, 20% of respondents thought CPB funding made up over 10% of the entire budget, including 5% who said it made up at least half.

Those findings comes as Congress continues to debate pulling all funding for public broadcasting, including NPR. Fake-pimp and sting video maker James O'Keefe released a video in March that showed an NPR executive bashing Fox News and the Tea Party, a video whose release helped fuel the push to defund NPR.

The survey also underscores how clueless Americans are about where the budget goes in general. For example, Americans on average thought foreign aid took up 10% of the budget; it really makes up about 1%.

The CNN poll was conducted March 11-13 among 1,023 adults nationwide. It has a margin of error of 3.0%.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/poll-americans-wrongly-estimate-178-billion-in-fed-budget-goes-to-public-broadcasting.php

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Reminds me a lot of Drinky Crow's pie chart he made a while back that showed what people thought government spending went to.

[Oblivion]